concordia journal | spring 2010

COncordiaournal volume 36 | number 2J Spring 2010

Toward a Theology of the Scriptures:Looking Back to Look Forward

Inspiration and Inerrancy—Some Preliminary Thoughts

Seven Theses on Reformation Hermeneutics

The New Testament Canon in the Lutheran Dogmaticians

Spring 2010C

oncordia Journal volum

e 36 |

number 2

COncordiaournalJ

(ISSN 0145-7233)

All correspondence should be sent to:Rev. Travis Scholl

CONCORDIA JOURNAL801 Seminary Place

St. Louis, Missouri [email protected]

Issued by the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, the Concordia Journal is the successor of Lehre und Wehre (1855-1929), begun by C. F. W. Walther, a founder of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Lehre und Wehre was absorbed by the Concordia Theological Monthly (1930-1972) which was also pub-lished by the faculty of Concordia Seminary as the official theological periodical of the Synod.

The Concordia Journal is abstracted in Internationale Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaft unde Grenzgebiete, New Testament Abstracts.Old Testament Abstracts, and Religious and Theological Abstracts. It is indexed in Repertoire Bibliographique des Institutions Chretiennes and Religion Index One: Periodicals. Article and issue photocopies in 16mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm, and 105mm microfiche are available from University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346.

Books submitted for review should be sent to the editor. Manuscripts submitted for publication should conform to a Chicago Manual of Style.

The Concordia Journal (ISSN 0145-7233) is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall). The annual subscription rate is $15 U.S.A., $20 for Canada and $25 for foreign countries, by Concordia Seminary, 801 Seminary Place, St. Louis, MO 63105-3199. Periodicals postage paid at St. Louis, MO and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Concordia Journal, Concordia Seminary, 801 Seminary Place, St. Louis, MO 63105-3199.

© Copyright by Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri 2010

www.csl.edu

publisher Dale A. Meyer President

Executive EDITOR William W. Schumacher Dean of Theological Research and Publication

EDITOR Travis J. Scholl Managing Editor of Theological Publications

EDITORial assistant Melanie Appelbaum

assistants Carol Geisler Joel Haak James Prothro

David AdamsCharles ArandAndrew BarteltDavid BergerJoel BiermannGerhard BodeKent BurresonWilliam Carr, Jr.Anthony CookTimothy DostThomas EggerJeffrey Gibbs

Bruce HartungErik HerrmannJeffrey KlohaR. Reed Lessing David LewisRichard MarrsDavid MaxwellDale MeyerGlenn NielsenJoel OkamotoJeffrey OschwaldDavid Peter

Paul RaabeVictor RajPaul RobinsonRobert RosinTimothy SaleskaLeopoldo Sánchez M.David SchmittBruce SchuchardWilliam SchumacherWilliam UtechJames VoelzRobert Weise

Faculty

Spring 2010

COncordiaournalJ

CONTENTS

volume 36 | number 2

EDITORIALs

87 Editor’sNote

89 WhyGotoChurch? DaleA.Meyer

97 PhilipMelanchthon’sPoemtoMartinLuther ErikH.HerrmannandJamesB.Prothro

102 TowardaTheologyoftheScriptures: LookingBacktoLookForward JoelP.Okamoto

ARTICLES

107 InspirationandInerrancy— SomePreliminaryThoughts HermannSasse

120 SevenThesesonReformationHermeneuticsMartinH.Franzmann

133 TheNewTestamentCanonintheLutheran Dogmaticians J.A.O.Preus,II

157 GRAMMARIAN’SCORNER GreekParticiples,PartIX

161 HOMILETICALHELPS LSBSeriesC—FirstLesson 193 BOOKREVIEWS

editoRIALS

COncordiaournalJ

87

Editor’sNote

Concordia Journal/Spring 2010

TheMedartisdead.Incaseyou’rewondering,IgaveupburgersandfriesforLent.Andthe

Medart(“MEE-dart”)wasthesignatureburgerofJohn’sTownHall,alocals’hauntafewblocksfromConcordiaSeminaryintheDorchesterApartmentsonSkinkerAvenue.TheweekafterEasterIwalkedtoJohn’sTownHallwithcolleagueChrisBorntobreakmyLentenfastonlytofindtheplaceemptiedout.Vamoose.Turnsout,the“John”inJohn’sTownHalldied.Somethingnewwillbetherebyfall.

Andincaseyou’rewondering,IwillmissJohn’sTownHallbecauseChrisandIandProfessorTonyCookwouldregularlywalktheretotalktheologyoveraMedartandabeer.Lookingback,isn’tthathowitalwaysis?Particularkindsoftheologyhappeninparticularkindsofplaces.Jerusalem.Antioch.Rome.Canterbury.Wittenberg.Geneva.ShouldyoueverfindyourselfinNewHaven,Connecticut,gotoArchieMoore’satthecornerofWillowandAnderson.Findatableinthebackcornerandorderaburger.YouarenowsittingwherelegendhasittheNiebuhrbrothersusedtoholdforthonChristandcultureandthenatureanddestinyofman.

Itisvirtuallyimpossibletodivorcetheologyfromtheplaceswhereithap-pens,fromwherewegatheraroundtowatchithappen.Oursenseofplaceinforms(andforms)oursenseofthedivine.

Weoftencallthatplace,literallyandfiguratively,asanctuary.Whichiswhythesamegoesforthechurch,andallthoseplacesaroundtheglobewherethechurchpracticestheology,whichisn’tonlyatseminaries.Mostoften,thoseplacesarecalledcongregations.AndthisissueofConcordia Journalwillarguethesamegoesforthescriptures.Oratleastthewaythechurchtheologizesaboutthescriptures.

Thequestionsaroundwhichthechurchtheologizesaboutthescripturesareperennial.ButinlightofrecenteventsparticularlywithinAmericanLutheranism,thesequestionshavebecomeincreasinglyurgent.Andso,wehavechosentoreprintfour“classic”articlesonthebroadtopicofthescripturesandthechurch,threeinthesepagesandoneonthenewConcordiaTheology.org.Therangeofthetheologiansisbroad:Sasse,Franzmann,J.Preus,Piepkorn.Thequestionstheyraisearerelevantandincisive.Theiranswersaren’teasy.

Andtheirconversationdoesn’tendhere.JoelOkamoto’seditorialservesastheintroductiontothetopicasawhole,aswellaswhywechosethesefourarticlesto“lookbacktolookforward.”ThisissueofConcordia Journal servesamorefunda-mentalpurposeofintroducingthetopicforConcordiaSeminary’s2010TheologicalSymposium,“ScriptureandtheChurch:FormativeorFormality?”(September21–22),whichistheliteralplacewherethetheologizingwillcontinue.Yourplaceatthetableismostwelcome.John’sTownHallmaybegone,butKaldi’sisstillhere.

Jimmy’sandSasha’stoo.Andifyoudidn’twalkovertoKate’sPizzeriathelasttimeyouwereoncampus,nowyouhaveareason.

Ofcourse,alsointhisissue,PresidentDaleMeyerraisestheinitialquestionof“WhyGotoChurch?”inthefirstplace.Perhapstheanswertothatpostmodernquestionisevenmoreurgentthantheprevious.AndwecontinueourcelebrationoftheMelanchthonanniversarywithanoriginaland,asfaraswecantell,previ-ouslyunpublishedpoembyPhilipp.IshouldalsomentionaspecialbookreviewbyTremperLongmanofAndrewSteinmann’sProverbsConcordiaCommentary.

Finally,awordaboutthenewConcordiaTheology.org.Ifyouhaven’tbeentherealready,ithasbeencompletedredesigned,andifImaysayso,ithasnowbecomewhatitalwayswantedtobe:aplacewheretheologyhappens,inrealtime,withinacommunityofcivil,respectful,constructivedialogue.Thenewsiteincludes,amongotherthings,anenergizedfacultyblogcommentingonvirtuallyeverythingunderthesun(the“Quad”),apagethat“aggregates”postsfromotherSeminary-relatedblogs(the“Commons”),anda“Library”ofresourcesinclud-ingmultimedia,articles,podcasts,bookreviews,homileticalhelps,andthelike.ConcordiaTheology.orgisalsonowonFacebook(ConcordiaTheology)andTwitter(CSLTheology).Joinusthere—agreatplacetotalktheology.Butyou’reonyourownfortheburgerandbeer.

Ofcourse,noneofthiswouldmeananythingbutforonefact.TheMedartisdead.ButChristisrisen,indeed!Alleluia!

TravisJ.SchollManagingEditorofTheologicalPublications

Breaking news … As we are going to press comes the news that the short film “Ragman” won for Best Faith-Based Film at the Cape Fear Film Festival in North Carolina. The film shares a special relationship to Concordia Seminary and congratulations especially go to director Dale Ward, Concordia Seminary’s senior media producer.

88

89Concordia Journal/Spring 2010

WhyGotoChurch?

OneSundaylastFebruaryDianeandIgotintoashortbutstimulatingcon-versationaswedrovehomefromchurch.Ourpastorhadannouncedacommu-nity-wideevangelismeffortandinvitedmemberstogodoor-to-doorandpassoutinvitationstocometochurch.Dianeasked,“Whywouldsomeonesitinchurchforanhourwhenthat’snothowweliveanymore?Shortburstsofinformation;that’showwelive.”ThensheheldupherBlackberryandsaid,“Peopletodaythinktheyhaveeverythingtheyneedrighthere.”Shewentontogiveexamples.Todayyoudon’tneedanewspaper,old-stylebooks,land-lines,orTV.Justabouteverythingyouneedcanbeheldinthepalmofyourhand.Actuallygotochurch?ManyofuswereraisedinanerawhengoingtochurchwasacceptedinAmericansociety,evenencouragedbySundaybluelaws.Insomeways,church-goingislikethehardcopyofthenewspaper.WhenIaskedherifweshouldgettheNew York TimesontheKindle,shesaid,“No,Ilikethefeelofholdingthepaper.”Goingtochurchfeelsrighttomanyofusbutitdoesn’tmakesensetomoreandmoreAmericans.

ThatSundayconversationcameasIwaswrappingupacoursecalled“PreachinginthePostmodernWorld.”“Postmodern”isafavoritetagforthepro-foundchangeswe’reexperiencinginourcultureandchurch.Unlikethedayswhenwewereraised,manyAmericanstodayarebiblicallyilliterateandcantakeorleavegoingtochurchonSunday.Infact,theyfeelfreetotakeorleavethewholeinstitu-tionalchurchand,incaseyouhaven’tnoticed,moreandmoreareleaving.Ispost-modernAmericasecular?No,we’reveryspiritualbutmostofusaredoingitonourown.Sowhywouldanyonetakeupthatoldhabitofgoingtochurch?Keepingthequestionalive,Igotoneanswermorethananyother.“Wegotochurchforflesh-and-bloodcontactwithotherChristians.”That’sagoodreason,insomewayspostmodern,butthedevilisinthedetails.Myrespondentsspoke as insiders,aspeopleconvincedthatchurchattendanceisanimportanthabitfortheirlives.Whataboutthepersonwhohasn’tlockedinonthehabit,haslittleornoexperiencewithgoingtochurchorwhoseexperiencehasbeennegative?WhataboutthepersonwhothinksyoucangetalmosteverythingyouneedfromtheinternetorWal-Mart,includingspirituality?ImmersedinanAmericanculturethatnolongerfavorschurch-going,whywouldyouacceptaninvitationtochurch?

Theanswerdependsinnosmallpartonunderstandingtoday’sculturalcon-text…andtomorrow’saswell.Postmodernismisn’tgoingaway.Thetermiselastic,noteasilydefined,butthethemesofpostmodernismstandinclearcontradictiontotheguidingthemesof“modernism,”themilieuinwhichmanyofuswereraised.Inmodernismwecouldsay,“CometochurchandlearnaboutGod.”Inpostmodern-ismtheresponsecomesback,“Thanks,butthere’splentyofspiritualinformationontheinternetandTV.”“But,”youcontinuewiththemodernmindset,“howdoyouknowyoucantrustthat?”Thepostmodernreply,“Youhaveyourviews;I

90

havemine.Who’stosayyou’rerightandI’mwrong?”Modernismbelievedthatinsomeplaceyoucouldfindabsolutetruth.

Inthe18thcenturythinkersbecameoptimisticthatbyusingtheuni-versalvaluesofscience,reasonandlogic,theycouldgetridofallthemythsandholyideasthatkepthumanityfromprogressing.Theyfeltthiswouldeventuallyfreehumanityfrommisery,religion,superstition,allirrationalbehavior,andunfoundedbelief.Humanitywouldthusprogresstoastateoffreedom,happinessandprogress.1

Whileourspiritualancestorstookexceptiontothatexaltedviewofreason(andeventsofthetwentiethcenturyconfirmedtheircriticism),theycounteredtheclaimsofphilosophyandsciencebydoingaverymodernistthing,sayingthatwehadtheabsolutetruth,thankstoGodfavoringuswithhisrevelation.Thatmod-ernistapproachgreatlyinfluencedhowmanygenerationspresentedthefaith.Forexample,prospectswereinvitedtojoinTheLutheranChurch–MissouriSynodiftheyagreedwithourdoctrine.Again:ourpreachinghastendedtobethepre-sentationofpropositionaltruthsandseminarianswerewarnedtobesparingwithillustrations,iftousethematall.Noneofthisistoclaimthatourdoctrineandrea-soningwaswrong.Unlikemuchphilosophyandscience,weusedreasontoservetherevealedtruth,theministerialuseofreasonasopposedtotheirmagisterialuse.Thepointhereissimplythatmodernism’sunderlyingassumptionofknowledgethatisobjective,absoluteanddemonstrablesetthestageforhowwepresentedthefaith.Whensomeoneacceptedtheinvitationtocometochurch,wewerepreachingandteachinganabsolutetruth—God’s—thatfitwellwiththevisitor’smodernistassumptionthatsomeplace,somewhere,maybeinthischurch,absolutetruthcanbefound.

TodayyouandIremainconvincedoftheabsolutetruthofGod’sWordbutmanypeoplewemeettodayarewaryoftruthclaims.Twoworldwars,atombombsandthethreatofnuclearannihilation,theHolocaustandothergenocides,theTitanic,Hindenburg,Challenger,productrecalls…Thetwentiethcenturydethronedreason.“Wherewepreviouslyhadacenter—whetherinChristianreligionorintheidealsofscienceandprogress—suddenlywehadnothing.”2AmockversionoftheLord’sPrayerbyErnestHemingwayshowsthat“pessimism,irrationality,anddisil-lusionmentwiththeideaofabsoluteknowledge”ledpeopletodoubtthechurch’sclaimsaswell.“Ournada(Spanishfornothing)whoartinnada,nadabethyname.Thykingdomnada.Thywillbenadainnadaasitisinnada.Giveusthisnadaourdailynadaandnadausournadaaswenadaournadasandnadausnotintonadabutdeliverusfromnada.”3GotochurchtolearnGod’struth?“Whatistruth?”(Jn18:38)

So,bye-byeinstitutionalchurch!WhatinGod’snamecanwedo?Ourbesthistoricvigorhascomefromcenteringourpersonal,congregationalandsynodicalexistenceonstudyofGod’sWordandtheobedienceoffaith.“Thywordistruth”

Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 91

(Jn17:17).Nowcomespostmodernism,withits“disillusionmentwiththeideaofabsoluteknowledge,”decapitatingtheintellectualsideofspirituallifeacrossthereligiouslandscape.Oursynodicalfuture?Probablynottoopromisingifwecomeacrosstospiritualshoppersascerebralandcocksureaboutit.Teachingtheclassonpostmodernismchallengedmanyofmyownassumptionsaboutfaithandministry.Interestingthing,though,wheneverI,a60-something,lamentedthisnewcontext,the20-somethingstudentsinmyclasspushedbackandpointedtothegreatpossi-bilitiesthatpostmodernismpresents.Theyarepositiveabouttheirfutureministriesandwelltheyshouldbe.

Godgivesuswhatweneed.“YoudonotlackanyspiritualgiftasyoueagerlywaitforourLordJesusChristtoberevealed”(1Cor1:7).Godcontinuestograceourchurchesandseminarieswitharichandinvitingtheologycenteredontheonedoctrine,theGoodNewsofJesusChrist.Likeadiamond,thisoneevangelicaldoctrinehasmanyfacets,inourjargon,articlesoftheonedoctrineoftheGospel.Everyerainvitesustofindtherightfacet,themostapplicablearticlethatcanbeappliedinitscontextualsetting.Wedidthatinmodernismandourdoctrinalresourceremainsrichandreadyforthisnewcontext.LetmepointtojustthreefacetsthroughwhichwecaninvitepostmodernstopeerintoGospeltruth.

Considerhowweusethelaw.Backwhensocietywasbiblicallyliterateandweallagreedthereisabsolutetruth,visitorstoourchurchescouldunderstandwhatwemeantwhenwesaidwearelostandcondemnedcreatures.Nowadayspeopleoutsidethechurcharen’tintothatkindoftalkandwonderhowwereachsuchadefinitiveconclusion.Sincepostmodernismhasdismissedabsolutetruth,today’slingua francaisemotions,“fragmenteddesires,superficiality,andidentityassomethingyoushopfor.”4Insteadoflamentingthatthey’renotwherewewantthem,readyforpropositionaltheology,wecanmeetthemwherethey’reat,livingemotionallybasedlives.Thetemplatelookslikethis.EveryonewewanttocometochurchisbornwiththelawofGodinourhearts.That’salsotrueforyouandme.Mostpeopledon’trecognizethelawassuchbecauseitstestimonyhasbeenmuffledandmutedbysin(Rom2:14;compare10:14).Inadditiontotheinnatelaw,everypostmodernisalsobornwithoriginalsin.Thesetwo,innatelawandoriginalsin,arealwaysactivewithinus.Theinnatelawstirsupsin(Rom7:7–9)andthatstirringshowsitselfinemotions.Anger,guilt,feelingtrapped,despairareallsymptomsofthelawworkinginourhearts(SeeRom4:15;7:10;Gal3:22;Jer23:29andothers).Emotional IntelligencebyDanielGolemanisoneofmanybooksdescribingemotions.Whilemanyfamousevangelicalchurchesinadequatelyaddress“feltneeds”bysimplygivingusxnumberofprescriptionstofixthefeeling,theLutheranunderstandingofthelawmeetsthepersonwhereheorsheis,interpretsmanyemotionsassymptomsofthebasicwrongofsin(thoughsomeemotionsreflecttheworkingoftheGospel,likejoyandhope)andpatientlyleadsthepersontothetruthofoursinfulness.Theapplicationofthelawisdifferentinpostmoderntimesthaninmodern,butthegoalisthesame.

92

TheLawwarnsnotonlyaboutouractions,butitspeaksaboutourverynatureitselfandthecorruptionofallourpowers….TheLaw,indeed,setsbeforeuslifeandblessing,butbecausenooneobservesandfulfillstheLaw,weneithercannoroughttoseeklifeinit.ThereforetheLawisproperlytheministrationofdeath,theknowl-edgeofsin,workingwrath….ThetrueuseoftheLaw,namelythatit“imprisonsallundersin,thatthepromiseofgracemightbegiven,”Galatians3:22.5

Ashifthastakenplace.Theessaybeganbytalkingaboutanevangelismefforttoindividualsoutsidethechurch,anoutreachpredicateduponmodernistassumptions.Theessayhasnowdriftedintothecorporatelifeofthechurch,towhatwepreachandteachinthecongregation.If,then,ourpreachingandteachingstartsapplyingpertinentarticlesofthedoctrinetopostmodernrealities,aren’twestilltalkingtothe“choir”?Absolutely.Thereforethequestionremains,howcanthisgobeyondtheSundaysanctuarytomakeaninvitationtochurchworthcon-sidering?Isuggestthatourlaypeoples’livesarethebestbridgefromthechurchtoAmerica’sunchurched,individualizedspirituality.Laypeoplecantellthestoryandtheirstorieswithacredibilitypastorsandpamphletsdon’thave.

PersonalstoriesofGod’sactionsinlifeworkbecauseGod’sWordiseffica-cious(Is55:10–11;Heb4:12–13;Jn6:63).OursecondfacettoopentheGospeltopostmodernsistheWordinstory.“Postmodernsocietyisasocietyinwhichnoonenarrative—bigorlittle—dominates.Inpostmodernsocietiesmanymicronar-rativesarejammedtogether.Andthiscarnivalofnarrativesreplacesthemonolithicpresenceofonemetanarrative.”6Thatis,neitherscienceorphilosophyorthechurchownstheonebigstorythatcommandsthedevotionofthegeneralculture.Todayit’sa“carnivalofnarratives”andthechurchisonestandamidstalltherides,gamesandsideshows.Somearehucksters;othersnot.Weseeourselvesasgenu-inebutthepostmodernisn’tgoingtotakeourwordforit,especiallyapreacher’s.Thatsaid,itdoesn’tmeanpostmodernswon’tlistentoourstory.Theywill.Infact,becauselifeisnolongerassumedtobefundamentallyrational,storieshavegreatappealtopostmoderns.

Wemustbecareful…nottocontinuetopropagatethat(Christian)wit-nessinmodernistways:byattemptingourownrationalistdemonstra-tionsofthetruthofChristianfaithandthenimposingsuchonaplu-ralistculture(whatisoftendescribedasaConstantinianagenda).Whatweneedtodoisget“everyone’spresuppositionsonthetableandthennarratethestoryofChristianfaith,allowingotherstoseethewayinwhichitmakessenseofourexperienceandworld.”7

TheirstoriesareaboutGod’sincarnationalpresenceintheirlives.“TellthemaboutJesus”probablycausesmoreguiltthanwitness.It’slessdauntingtotalkspontane-


ouslyabouttheblessingsoffaithandchurchandGodintheirpersonallives.Bydoingso,laypeoplemakeacredibleconnectionbetweentheunchurchedandthecongregation.

Itisinconceivablethatthethingsthatareofutmostimportancetoeachindividualshouldnotbespokenbyonetoanother.8

Alwaysbereadytogiveananswerwhensomeoneasksyouaboutyourhope.Giveakindandrespectfulanswerandkeepyourconscienceclear(1Pt3:15).

Butwaitaminute!OurintellectualtrainingthroughtheMissouriSynodeducationalsystemmakesuswaryof“story-telling.”AcriticismIoftenhearfromlaypeopleandretiredpastorsisthattheyheartoomanystoriesinsermonsbutnotenoughBibleteaching.Iamdefinitelynotadvocatingstoriesforthesakeofsto-ries.Instead,weshouldtelltheChristianstoryandourpersonalChristianstoriesinordertowitnesstoourfaithamidsttoday’spluralityofstories.

Tobea‘storyteller’isnolongeraeuphemismforsomeonewithaloosegripontruth.Thestorytellerisbecomingagainthepersonofwisdomwhoknowsthe‘goodtellingstories’thatmakeandmaintaincommunityandmeaning.9

“Hetaughtthemmanythingsbyparables.”(Mk4:2)

“Wecannotkeepquietaboutwhatwehaveseenandheard.”(Acts4:20)

Story-tellingbeginstobuildapersonalbridgebetweenthechurchandtheskepticalpostmodern.Asthepersonalrelationshipbuildsandperhapsleadstoaninvitationtocometochurch,wepraythattheendresultwillbefaith.Postmodernismisarealblessingtounderstandingthetruenatureoffaith,bringingthenatureoffaithintosharperfocusthanmodernismeverdid.Modernismtempt-edustobelievewehadpossessionofanabsolutetruth.Wedidn’tandwedon’t.WhatwehaveistheSpiritwroughtconvictionofthetruththatiscenteredintherevelationofGod’sSon.“Faithisbeingsureofwhatwehopeforandcertainofwhatwedonotsee”(Heb11:1).“Welivebyfaith,notbysight”(2Cor5:7).JamesK.A.Smithposesthechallengeandthewayforwardinpostmodernity.

Shouldwebetryingtoestablishacommonmyth(“myth”meaninganystory,trueorfiction)foranentirenation—aConstantinianstrategy—orshouldthechurchsimplybeawitnessamidthispluralityofcom-petingmyths?”Bycallingintoquestiontheideaofanautonomous,objective,neutralrationality,Ihavearguedthatpostmodernityrepre-sentstheretrievalofafundamentallyAugustinianepistemologythatisattentivetothestructuralnecessityoffaithprecedingreason,believing

93

94

inordertounderstand—trustinginordertounderstand—trustinginordertointerpret.10

Wheneverithappens,howeverithappensthatapostmodernwillaccepttheinvitationtovisitchurch,thereshouldbeevidenceofagenuine,caringcommunityofpeoplewhofollowJesus.Thethirdmajorfacetofourrichandreadytheologi-calheritage,afterlawandtheefficacyoftheWord,isthenatureofthechurch.Thechurch’sunderstandingofitselfshouldbeasauniquecommunity,thebodyofChrist,thatisunderthestoryofthesufferingservant.Counter-culturalinmodernAmerica,thatcansuitpostmodernAmericanicely!

DrawingfromKajaSilverman’s1983work,The Subject of Semiotics,GlennWardsaystheAmericanunderstandingoftheindividualhaditsoriginsintheRenaissance.

StartingwiththeEnlightenment,identityenteredintocrisisforthefirsttime.Whereinpre-moderncommunitiesyouknewexactlywhatyourplacewasintheclan,modernsocietiesbegantoofferawiderrangeofsocialroles.Therearethereforeexpandedpossibilitiesforwhatyoucanbe.Itbecomespossibletostartchoosingyouridentity,ratherthansimplybeingbornintoit.Youstarttoworryaboutwhoyoureallyareandwhatyoushouldbedoingwithyourlife.Thereisstillassumedtobeareal,innateselfunderneaththepublicrolesyouplace,butthestruggleisinfindingitandbeingtruetoit.

Postmoderntheoristshavebinnedanynotionoftheselfassubstantial,essentialortimeless.Inplaceoftheearnestmodernistsearchforthedeep,authenticself,wehavearecognition,andsometimesacelebra-tion,ofdisintegration,fragmenteddesires,superficiality,andidentityassomethingyoushopfor.Theselfis…withoutsubstance,butfashionstatements,shoppingandlifestylechoiceshavepushedauthenticityoutoftheequation.11

Thislongevolutionofunderstandingtheindividualhashadamajorimpactuponthechurch.JamesSmith:

WithinthematrixofamodernChristianity,thebase‘ingredient’istheindividual;thechurch,then,issimplyacollectionofindividu-als.ConceivingofChristianfaithasaprivateaffairbetweentheindividualandGod—amatterofmyaskingJesusto‘comeintomyheart’—modernevangelicalismfindsithardtoarticulatejusthoworwhythechurchhasanyroletoplayotherthanprovidingaplacetofellowshipwithotherindividualswhohaveaprivaterelationshipwithGod.ModernChristianitytendstothinkofthechurcheitheras


aplacewhereindividualscometofindanswerstotheirquestionsorasonemorestopwhereindividualscantrytosatisfytheirconsumer-istdesires.Assuch,Christianitybecomesintellectualizedratherthanincarnate,commodifiedratherthanthesiteofgenuinecommunity.12

Thatthechurchismorethanavoluntaryassociationoflikemindedindi-vidualsiswelcometousLutheranswhounderstandthemeansofgraceasGod’sincarnationalpresenceinthebodyofhisSon.“Youdidnotchooseme.Ichoseyou”(Jn15:16).Ourlifewiththecongregationisqualitativelydifferentfromeveryotherearthlyassociation.BystressingthecorporatenatureofthechurchasbodyofChrist,we’reteachingandpreachingsomethingcounter-culturaltomodernismbutattractivetopostmodernAmerica.SocialcommentatorRobertBellahwrote,

Wefindourselvesnotindependentlyofotherpeopleandinstitutionsbutthroughthem.Wenevergettothebottomofourselvesonourown.Wediscoverwhowearefacetofaceandsidebysidewithothersinwork,love,andlearning.Allofouractivitygoesoninrelationships,groups,associations,andcommunitiesorderedbyinstitutionalstruc-turesandinterpretedbyculturalpatternsofmeaning….Wearepartsofalargewholethatwecanneitherforgetnorimagineinourownimagewithoutpayingahighprice.13

ForusthebodyofChristmeanswe’reincorporatedinthesufferingServant.“Cometochurchandlearnaboutthewayofsalvation.”Thepostmodernanswers,“Butwhathaveyoudoneforthehomelesslately?”Doesourlifetogethershowthatweareunderthestoryofhimwhosays,“WhoevercomestomeIwillneverdriveaway”(Jn6:37).Considersomecriticalquotationsaboutthechurch.

Victoria:“Everyoneinmychurchgavemeadviceabouthowtoraisemyson,butalotofthetimetheyseemedtoberemindingmethatIhavenohusband—andbesides,mostofthemwerenotfollowingtheirownadvice.Itmadeithardtocarewhattheysaid.Theywerenotpracticingwhattheypreached.”14

LeroyBarber:“InmycurrentAtlantaneighborhoodthereisone(church)oneveryblock.Thenyouconsiderthatontheverysamestreetcornerreignsdrugactivityandprostitution.Itisnotoutoftheordinarytowatchdrugdealsonthechurchsteps.Theinstitutionhasmadeitsownquietandunspokendealwiththevendorswhomaketheirlivingthere.Peoplewhomostneedthechurcharesittingoutside,waitingtofeelworthyenoughtocome.Fortheyoungwhogrewuponthestreets,it’sanage-oldstory:thedrugkingpinknowstheirname,andthepastordoesnot.Theteachersatschooldon’tthinktheycan

96

learn,buttheyconquerthe‘streetclasses’justfine.Thestreetculturealwayspursuesandwelcomesthem,butthedoorsofthechurchareopenonlyonSunday.Thechurchwantsthemneatandclean,butthestreetstakethemastheyare.”15

PostmodernismnotonlystymiesourpatwaysofinvitingpeopletochurchbutalsochallengesthevoluntaryunderstandingofChrist-followingthatinfluencedusinthecontextofmodernism.“Nothingismorecounterculturalthanacommu-nityservingtheSufferingServantinaworlddevotedtoconsumptionandviolence.Butthechurchwillhavethiscountercultural,propheticwitnessonlywhenitjet-tisonsitsownmodernity;inthatrespectpostmodernismcanbeanothercatalystforthechurchtobethechurch.”16

“Whygotochurch?”InJesus’sparable(story!)thegoodSamaritanappliedthehealingbalmtothewoundwherehefoundthewoundtobe.ThewoundsareindifferentplacesindifferentagesbutfrommodernismtopostmodernismthewoundsarestillthewoundsofsinandseparationfromGod.Ifwestopandbenddown,notpassingbyontheotherside,ifwelistenandobserve,searchourScripturesandprayfordiscernment,wecanfindthewoundsinpostmodernswhowanttobeboundupbycaringSamaritansandacaringGod.Idopraygoodresultstoourcongregation’sevangelismeffortandtoeveryeffortthroughoutthechurch.Andthoseeffortswillyieldresults.Afterall,Godis“abletodoimmeasurablymorethanallweaskorimagine,accordingtohispowerthatisatworkwithinus”(Eph3:20).Justdon’ttellmewhatafriendIhaveinJesusuntilIseewhatafriendIhaveinyou.

DaleA.MeyerPresident

Endnotes 1JimPowell,Postmodernism for Beginners(Danbury:ForBeginners/RandomHouse,2007),9. 2Ibid.,11. 3Ibid.,12. 4GlennWard,Teach Yourself Postmodernism(NewYork:McGraw-Hill,2003),119–120. 5MartinChemnitz,Loci Theologici II(St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1989),336. 6Powell,32. 7JamesK.A.Smith,Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism(GrandRapids:Baker,2006),73–74. 8DietrichBonhoeffer,Life Together (SanFrancisco:Harper,1954),105. 9RickDurst,Making Disciples of Oral Learners(LusanneOccasionalPaperNo.54,2004),58. 10Smith,70,72. 11Ward,119–120. 12Smith,29. 13RobertBellahinStanleyGrenzandJohnFranke,Beyond Foundationalism(Louisville:

WestminsterJohnKnox,2001),203. 14DavidKinnamanandGabeLyons,UnChristian(GrandRapids:Baker,2007),41. 15Ibid.,63-64. 16Smith,30.


PhilipMelanchthon’sPoemtoMartinLuther

WhenMartinLutherfirstburstontotheworldstage,hismosteagerfollow-ersweretobefoundamongthosecirclesoflearnedmen,thehumanists.TheseGermanintellectualswerealreadycallingforareformofChristianitythroughthecultivationofpietas et bonae litterae—pietyandfineliterature.Bygoing—ad fontes—“backtothesources”ofclassicalandChristianantiquity,theyhopedforarenewalofthechurch’sfaithandpiety.1Luther’sownreformeffortsattheUniversityofWittenberg,whichsoughttorestorethestudyofthescripturesandtheearlychurchfathersoveragainstthetiredmethodsofthescholastics,seemedtoechothespiri-tualandeducationalgoalsoftheGermanhumanists,andhewasquicklyadoptedasoneoftheirown—indeedasthenewstandardbeareroftheirmovement.AndthoughLuther’sreformsstemmedfromratherdifferentconcerns,thehuman-istsembracedhimas“ourMartin”andpraisedhimforhiserudition.2AsBerndMoellersopointedlyputit:“Nohumanism,noReformation.”3

In1518Luther’sfamewasspreadingrapidly.TheNinety-five Theses Against Indulgenceswastheinitialthrustoutofobscurity,butLuthercontinuedtowriteandpublish,tothegreatdelightofthelearned.4Especiallyfromthespringthroughthesummerof1518,Luther’spenwasbusywithbothLatinpolemicaltractsandGermandevotionalwritings.Bothwouldspeaktothecommonconcernsofthehumanists.YetperhapsthegreatestadmirationwasreservedfortheprogressmadeatWittenberg.5Between1516to1518,Luther’seffortstochangethewaytheologywastaughtimpactedtheshapeofthecurriculumintheuniversity,providinggreaterspaceforthestudyofthe“sources”ofChristiantheology;namelytheBibleandtheFathers.6TodothisproperlymeantthatoneshouldbeabletoreadandstudytheScripturesintheoriginallanguagesofGreekandHebrew.Intheautumnof1518,WittenbergcreatedthefirstchairofGreekandtofillittheElectorcalledoneofhumanism’sbrightestyoungstars:PhilipMelanchthon.

MelanchthonarrivedinWittenbergonAugust25,1518.HowmuchMelanchthonhadreadofLutherbeforehisarrivalisnotclear,butlikemanyofthehumanistsatthistime,hewouldhavefoundLuther’sworkasaninspirationforhisown.Hisinauguralspeech,givenonlyafewdaysafterhisarrivalinAugust,wasfilledwiththeexcitementandoptimismofsomeonewhohasfoundhisideologi-calhome.Inafewweeks,MelanchthonmadehisadmirationofLutherpublicbywritingadedicatorypoem—inGreek,fittingly.7InOctober,hepublishedthetextalongwithhisopeningaddress.Thepoem,reproducedbelowinanewtranslationbyJamesProthro,isnotonlyafineexampleofthehighesteeminwhichLutherwasheldamongthehumanistsatthistime,butitalsogivesusaglimpseintothebeginningsofanassociationoftwocolleaguesandfriendsthatwouldforeverchangethereligiouslandscapeofEurope.

ErikH.Herrmann

98

A Greek Poem to LutherAdvenerabilemPatremMartinumLuther,verepiumtheologum,Philipp[us]

Mel[anchthon].

+W nazarai/e VIsrah/loj za,qee(o`siw,terV w= eivrhnopoiw/n quma,twn(evklekte. avfqo,rou avlhqei,aj la,tri(w= yuce,wn kosmh/tor a;crantV euvsebw/n(a;ner po,qwn( sofi,aj qeo,pneustV a;ggeledi,khj tV avmh,toroj lo,gou te evnqe,ouzwa,rkeo,j te mu,sta o;lbie pnoh/j(o`Jth/j evu?cri,stou eu;odma ba,lsamaevkklhsi,aj deu,wn ca,ritoj khru,gmatikai. tou/ new. tou/ paneleh,monoj qeou/pisto,j te a;grupno,j te poimh.n to.n lu,konto.n a;rabV avpwqw/n to.n sofista.n bailia,re;kplhxon( w= corhgV avlhqei,aj pote,ta.j bekkeselh,nouj tw/n ge logoma,cwn fre,najth/| qaumatourgw/| Mwse,wj r`a,bdw| bo,lei(blepedai,monaj ma,gouj( ta. glwttalgh,mataavrkeuqi,noij a;nqraxi tou/ lo,gV e;kflege(ma,ceu avnarvr`o,pwj te kavlh,ktwj e[poutw/| purfo,rw| VIhsou/ u`peraspi,zeotou/ euvloghme,noio tw/n pistw/n la,couj.

A note on translation:Thispoemiswritteniniambictrimeter,andisstiltedinitsstyle.Inthenotesbelow,wewillpayattentiontosometranslationalissuesaswellasillustratethevastwellfromwhichMelanchthondrawshisvocabularytofithismeter.Inthepoem,Melanchthon’sownpersonalityasayoung,optimistichopefulforreligiousandcurricularreform,hisveryearlyappreciationforLuther’sendeavors,aswellashisownskillandappreciationfortheGreeklanguagearestriking.HedrawswordsandphrasesfromtheSeptuagint,theNewTestament,aswellasfromHomer,Aristophanes,andthepatristiccorpus.TheentirepoemisindirectpraiseofLuther,withtenvocativephrasesidentifyingthemanandhisendeavors,aswellassiximperativeswhichaskhimtocontinueinhisbattleagainstthescholastictheologyoftheday.


A Greek Poem to Luther(Wittenberg,Septemberof1518)8

PhilippMelanchthon,tothevenerableFatherMartinLuther,trulypioustheologian.

Ohsacredpriest9ofIsrael!Youwhoareholierthanpeace-offerings,Chosenservantofimperishabletruth,Ohimmaculatecommander10ofpioussouls,11

Ohmanofdevotion,12ohGod-breathed13angelofwisdom,OfeternaljusticeandofthedivineWord;Blessedinitiate14ofthatlife-givingspirit,Youwhospreadthesweetbalsamicfragrance15ofthetrue16ChristianChurchandthetempleoftheall-mercifulGodBythepreachingofgrace;YoufaithfulandsleeplessshepherdwhoThrustoutthethievishwolf17—driveoutthesophistBelial!18

Ohpatronoftruth,finally19dispelwiththewonder-workingStaffofMosestheidiotic20mindsofthosewhodobattleinlong-windedDisputations21—thoseghostlyconjurers!Setfiretotheirunendingbanter22

Withtheburningjunipercoals23oftheWord!Fight24theuphillbattle,andfollowceaselesslytheburningStandardofJesus!Protectwithyourshield25theblessedlotofthefaithful!

JamesB.Prothro

James B. Prothro is currently a second-year seminarian pursuing a Master of Divinity degree at Concordia Seminary as well as a Master of Arts degree in Classics at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.

Endnotes1Seeespecially,LewisW.Spitz,The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge:

HarvardUniversityPress,1963).2SeeLeifGrane,Martinus Noster: Luther in the German Reform Movement,1518–1521(Mainz:

PhilippvonZabern,1994).3BerndMoeller,“TheGermanHumanistsandtheBeginningsoftheReformation,”inImperial

Cities and the Reformation,eds.andtrans.H.C.ErikMidelfortandMarkU.Edwards,Jr.(Durham,NC:LabyrinthPress,1982),36.

4SeeBerndMoeller,“DasBerühmtwerdenLuthers,”inDie dänische Reformation vor ihrem inter-nationalen Hintergrund,ed.LeifGraneandKaiHørby,(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1990),187–210.

5SeeMariaGrossmann,Humanism in Wittenberg(Nieukoop:D.DeGraaf,1975);Jens-MartinKruse,Universitätstheologie und Kirchenreform: Die Anfänge der Reformation in Wittenberg 1516–1522,(Mainz:PhilippvonZabern,2002).

100

6SeeLuther’slettertohisformerteacher,JodocusTrutfeter,WABr1,170,33-6,no.74:“…itisimpossibletoreformthechurch,unlesscanonlaw,thedecretals,scholastictheology,philosophy,andlogicastheyarenowregardedareeradicatedandotherstudiesareinstituted.”

7MelanchthonreferstothispublicdeclarationinalettertoChristophScheurl,datedSeptember24,1518,CRI,48:“…etilludipsumegopluribusdeclararem,nitestemhabereshonora-tumOptimumacdoctissimumetomnioveraeChristianaequepietatiskorufaionMartinum.”

8TextbasedonMelanchthons Werke,Bd.VII,ed.HansVolz(Gütersloh:GütersloherVerlagshausGerdMohn,1971),46–48,Nr.8.

9Theadjectivenazarai/ojfunctionsonlyasagentilicadjectiveintheNT.IntheLXXandlaterpatristicliterature,itisusedoftheNazirite(i.e.theconsecratedonewhotooktheNaziritevow,cf.Nu6:1–21).ThederivativenounsfromtheHeb.rootrznare1)“consecratedman”(ryzin",cf.Nu6:1,etal.);or2)“sprig,shoot”(rz,nEcf.Is11:1).Ofthesetwo,theformerisusedprimarilyinthepatristicliterature.Tothepoint,EusebiusCaesariensisdefinestheword:“Nazirite,thatisholyanduntouchedandseparatedfrom[other]men”(Demonstratio Evangelica;PG22.549A).While“sprig”fits,Melanchthon’srepetitivepanegyricstyleshouldinclineustowardreadingtheadjectiveas“consecrat-ed/ordained,”i.e.amonk or priest.Combinedwiththemoreclassicalza,qeoj,wetranslate“Ohsacredpriest.”

10kosmh,twrisapoeticformforkosmhth,j,usedtwiceinthefirstbookofHomer’sIliadtomean“marshallerofhosts,”i.e.ageneral(Il.I.16,375).Thiswordopenstheholy-warimagewhichMelanchthonemploysthroughoutthepoem.HeseesLutherasbothpriestandgeneral,commandingandprotectingpiousconsciencesagainstscholasticism.

11MelanchthonusesanIonicformtofithismeter.Forthevarietyofhisforms,cf.n.17below.

12Lit:“amanoflongings.”Whiletheclassicaluseofthiswordismoreakinto“desires,”thepatristicuseofthewordiscommonlyusedinthecontextofpersonalpietyanddevotion,i.e.alonging for God and his ways,fromwhichMelancthondrawsthisusage.HansVolz(Ibid.,46)suggeststhatitbereadlikeDan9:23(withevpiqumiw/n),i.e.“amanwhoiswell-liked,”butthisdoesnotseemasfitting.

13Cf.2Tm2:16.14Thisvocativeofmu,sthj,awordlistedonlyinLampe’sPatristic Greek Lexicon,means“initi-

ate;onewhoisprivyto[asecret];disciple.”TheChurchFatherswouldappeartohaveemployeditasamorphologicallymasculinecounterparttomu,stij,whichoccursinWisdom8:4.Again,Melanchthonshowsgreatfamiliaritywiththepatristicsourcesaswellastheclassicalandbiblicalcorpora.

15Cf.2Cor2:14–17.16TheGreekmaybeMelanchthon’sowncoinage.17Lit:“theArabwolf.”Volzsuggeststhatthisbereadas“räuberisch”(Ibid.,47).18Cf.2Cor6:15.VolznotesthattheorthographicchangecomesfromErasmus(Ibid.).

“Sophist”beginsMelanchthon’sinvectiveagainstthescholastictheologians.19Cf.LSJs.v.po,te3.1b.However,coupledwithgevandanimperative,onecouldalmost

translatethisas“please”(thoughtheforceofge,isbestimitatedwithvocalinflection).20Lit:“moon-calf.”ThisusageistakenfromAristophanes’Clouds,398,whereSocratesberates

Strepsiadesandcallshimanidiot,essentially.Stillattackingthescholastics,Melanchthonalludestoacomedywhichlampoonssophistrythroughout.

21Cf.1Tm6:4;2Tm2:14.MelanchthonidentifiesthescholasticsasthefalseteacherswhoarenotapprovedbyGodagainstwhomPaulwarnedTimothy.

22Aderivativefromglwssalge,w,“totalktillthepointofpain.”AnotherderivativeappearsinthetragiccorpusinEuripides’Medea,525,whereJasonisbeingendlessly“talkedat”byMedea.Melanchthoncontinuestopullwordsfromclassicalliteraturetorailagainstthescholastictheologians.

23ThisalludestoPsalm120:4,inwhichtheLorddeliversthePsalmistfroma“deceitfultongue”with“sharparrows”and“glowingcoalsofthebroomtree”(ESV).MelanchthonidentifiestheChurchasplaguedbythe“deceitfultongues”ofthesophisticscholastictheologians,nowbeing


deliveredbyLutherwhodispelsthemwiththeWordofGod.Onatranslationalnote,Melanchthon’sGreekdoesnotfollowtheLXX,whichreadsa;nqraxin toi/j evrhmikoi/j(LXXPs.119:4),“withdesertcoals.”Whathehasdone,instead,istranslatedintoGreektheLatinPsalmsofJerome’s“HebrewPsalter.”ThiswouldhavebeenreadilyavailabletoMelanchthoninFaberStapulensis’Quinquplex Psalterium(1509).ThatLatintextreadscarbonibus iuniperorum,whichrendersthetranslationavrkeuqi,oij a;nqraxi.

24TheimperativalformisIonicratherthanAttic,here,asisthegenitiveeuvloghme,noiointhefinalline.

25Thereferencetoshield,here,likelyrecallstheaudiencetoEph6:16andtobothLuther’sandMelanchthon’semphasisonfaithagainsttheiropponents.

102

TowardaTheologyoftheScripturesLookingBacktoLookForward

QuestionsanddisagreementsaboutthescriptureshaveaffectedtheLutheranchurchfromthebeginning.TheReformationmadesola scripturaanenduringslo-gan,andthesloganreflectsonesideofanongoingdivisionoverauthorityinthechurch.TheEnlightenmentwentfurther,puttingquestionmarksovertheauthorityofthechurch’sscriptures,doctrine,andhierarchy.Thesedevelopmentsprovokedanotherdivisionamongthosewhocallthemselves“Christians.”Inthetwentiethcentury,questionsabouttheNewTestamentcanonanditsformationarose.Theyanticipatedthequestionsabouttheoriginsofthechurchandtheconceptofbeing“Christian”associatedtodaywith“gnosticgospels”andThe DaVinci Code.

TheseshowushowmuchtheissuesoftheBible’sauthority,interpretation,andcanonicitymaymattertothechurch’sidentityandreflection.Sincethesev-enteenthcentury,Lutheransfrequentlyhavemadetheinspirationofthescripturescentraltotheirresponsetothesequestions.Inspirationcharacterizedthecanonicalbooks,gavethemauthority,andassuredtheinerrancyofthescripturesandthere-foretheirtrustworthiness.Ofcourse,appealstoinspirationoftendidnotsettledisagreements,butthisapproachhasenduredamongmany,includingthoseinTheLutheranChurch–MissouriSynod.

Inthe1960sand1970s,theMissouriSynodlearnedpainfullyhowcloselyidentityandtheologicalreflectionaretiedtoissuesconcerningthescriptures.Understandably,thestrugglesofthatperiodmadeithardforawhiletodealthor-oughlywithsuchissues.Butifthescripturesreallymatter,thenwewillnothelpourselvesbyignoringfundamentalquestionsaboutthem.Wemayhelpourselves,however,byrememberingandthinkingabouthowtheyhadoncebeenunderstoodandaddressed.ThearticlesreprintedinthisissueofConcordia Journal andonlineatConcordiaTheology.orgremindusofsomeofthesequestionsandhowLutheransoftherecentpastdealtwiththem.

Onesetofthesequestionsconcernsthenatureandimplicationsofinspi-ration.HermannSasseaskedabouttheminhis1960article“InspirationandInerrancy—SomePreliminaryThoughts.”Ashewouldelsewhere,Sassecriticizedpsychologicalconceptionsofinspiration.Atbesttheseaccountscanonlydealwiththeeffectsofinspiration,notwithinspirationitself.Moretroubling,however,isthattheyoftendivorceinspirationfromthepersonandworkoftheHolySpirit.Thisdivisionputsatrisknotonlythedoctrineofthescripturesbutalsothedoc-trinedrawnfromthescriptures.Ontheotherhand,arguesSasse,ifwetrulyappreci-atethescripturesasinspiredbytheSpiritofGod,whotestifiestoChrist,thenwewillalsoappreciatethemmorefullyastestifyingtoChristandbefreedfrommany


problemsthathavebotheredandevenembarrassedmodernChristiansaboutscrip-turalinterpretation.

Anothersetofimportantquestionsconcernsinterpretationandtheology.ThetitleofMartinFranzmann’s1969article,“SevenThesesonReformationHermeneutics,”hintsthathewasworkingagainstthedominanttrendofmodernbiblicalexegesis.Thistrendviewedtheoryasthebasisofpracticeandregardedbiblicalhermeneutics(i.e.,atheoryofbiblicalinterpretation)asaparticularinstanceofamoregeneralhermeneuticalaccount.Asaresult,biblicalinterpretationoftenbecameconcernedmorewithgeneralconceptssuchas“meaning”and“under-standing”andlesswithspecificallytheologicalaimssuchas“faith”and“obedi-ence.”ThistrendalsocontributedtowhatHansFreicalled“theeclipseofbiblicalnarrative,”inwhichthebasic“narrative”characterofthescriptureswasignoredinfavorofhistoricalormoralconcerns.Franzmann,bycontrast,arguedfora“Reformationhermeneutics”thatwasboththoroughlytheologicalandgroundedinthebiblicalnarrative.Thishermeneuticsmadeproperinterpretationofthescrip-turesdependonadefinitetheologicalmotif:“justificationbygracethroughfaith.”Franzmanndidnotusetheformula“justificationbygracethroughfaith”asadoc-trinalproposition.Heuseditasshorthandforwhathecalled“theradicalGospel.”HesummarizedthisGospelas:“God,towhommancanfindnoway,hasinChristcreativelyopenedupthewaywhichmanmayandmustgo.”Butthisisasummaryofastory—thestoryofGodandcreation.Histhesesstillstandasconcretesugges-tionsforhowLutheranstodaymightaccountforbiblicalinterpretationinwaysthatarethoroughlytheological,thoroughlybiblical,andthoroughlyconfessional.

StillanotherimportantsetofquestionsconcernstheNewTestamentcanon.Howdidthecanonemerge?Whatcriteriaforcanonicityarevalid?Howdoestheformationofthecanonnotimplythatthechurchhasauthorityoverit?J.A.O.Preus’s1961article,“TheNewTestamentCanonintheLutheranDogmaticians,”remindsusthatLutheranshavefacedsuchquestionssincethesixteenthcentury.Hissurvey,whichrangedfromLutherandtheearlyReformationthroughtheperiodofLutheranorthodoxy,showedhowandwhyviewsamongLutheransaboutcanonicityandtheiruseoftheNewTestamentcanondeveloped.Thissurveyaloneishelpfulenough,buthedidmoreforusbyreflectingonhowtheattitudeandapproachesofLuther,Chemnitz,andthedogmaticiansmayhelpuswithtoday’squestionsandconcernsaboutthecanon.

Yetanothersetofimportantquestionsconcernstheuseofthescripturesintheology.Itiseasytosay,“TheBibleteaches…”or“TheBibleproves…”Butitisnotalwayseasytoexplainhowitteachesthisorprovesthat.Thisisthecase,asArthurCarlPiepkornobserved,eveninthecaseoftheLutheranConfessions.His1972article,“DotheLutheranSymbolicalBooksSpeakWheretheSacredScripturesAreSilent?”(whichappearsatConcordiaTheology.org),asksabouthowthesymbolsinterpretandusethescriptures.HenotedwaysinwhichtheConfessions

104

mayappeartolackthesupportofthescripturestheyrelyon,suchastheuseofnon-biblicalcategories(e.g.,“substance”)anddebatablecitations(e.g.,useofMark16:16intheCatechisms).TheseconfessionalquestionswillcontinueaslongasquestionsaboutthebiblicalbasisforLutherandoctrineremain,but,morethanthis,thesekindsoftheologicalissueswillcontinueaslongweusethescriptures.

ThesequestionsarenottheonlypressingonesconcerningtheScripturestoday,noraretheresponsesgivenherealwayssatisfying.Buttheydohelpustoorientourselvesandgiveusmuchtoreflectuponandtodiscuss.

ProvidingtimeandopportunityforthiskindofreflectionanddiscussionisthepurposeofConcordiaSeminary’s2010TheologicalSymposium.Entitled“ScriptureintheChurch:FormativeorFormality?”itwillfocusespeciallyonissuesofinterpretationandusesofthescripturesintheology.Itcannotpossibleansweralloftheimportantquestions,orevenaddressthem,butthesymposiumwilltakeupimportantquestionsaboutthescripturesandseektoanswerthemfaithfullyandhelpfully.Ihopethatyouwillconsiderjoiningusfortheconversation.

JoelP.Okamoto

ARTICLEs

COncordiaournalJ


InspirationandInerrancy—SomePreliminaryThoughts

HermannSasse

Hermann Sasse (1895–1976) taught at the University of Erlangen and at the seminary of what eventually became the Lutheran Church of Australia (the latter from 1949 until 1976). Special thanks to the editors of Reformed Theological Review (Australia) for permission to reprint this article from Reformed Theological Review, vol. 19, no. 2 (1960), pp. 33–48.

I.Futurechurchhistorianswillshowhowthethreegreatmovementsthathave

shapedtheinnerlifeofChristendominthetwentiethcenturyareinterrelated:theEcumenical,theLiturgicalandwhathasbeencalledtheBibleMovement.WhatweobservetodayisthefactthattheecumenicalaswellastheliturgicalendeavorsofouragehaveledtoanewsearchforthenatureandauthorityofHolyScriptureastheWordofGod.ToaskfortherealityoftheChurchmeanstoaskfortheobjec-tiverealityoftheWordofGodbywhichitlives.ThusallChristendomseemstobereturningtothegreatissuesofthefirstdecadeofthiscenturywhenRome’sfightagainsttheModernistMovementreacheditsclimaxin1907,andwhenin1909withtheappearanceof“TheFundamentals”inAmericathegreatcontroversybetween“Fundamentalism”and“Modernism”beganinWesternProtestantism.WhatwouldthemodernistswhomPiusXexcommunicatedhavetosayaboutthesweepingrevolutioninwhichRomesincePiusXIIisacceptingalmosttheentireresultsofthehistoricalinvestigationoftheBible?1AndwhatwouldtheProtestantmodern-istsofthesameperiodwhointerpretedtheBibleasacollectionofhistoricaldocu-mentsofthegreatestofallreligionsthinkoftheirsuccessorswhohavebeguntorealizethatthehistoricalapproachtotheBibleisneithersufficientnortheonlyone?ThetheologyofKarlBarthinEurope,“Neo-orthodoxy”inAmericaandthenew“BiblicalTheology”inEnglandareremarkableattemptstorediscoverthedivinesideoftheBiblewhichremainsinaccessibletoanymerelyhistoricalresearch.ThusallchurchesofChristendomareconfrontedwiththesamegreatproblems.Ifwementionsomeofthemhereouraimisnottopresentasolution,buttoclarifyquestionswhichcanfindanansweronlythroughthethoroughandpatientworkofdecadesandintheco-operationofhistorians,exegetesanddogmaticiansofthevariouschurches.

108

II.The Bible is the written Word of God.For1700yearsthishasbeentheconvic-

tionofallChristians.Itisstilltodaythedogma,thepublicdoctrine,ofallCatholicchurchesandofthoseProtestantchurcheswhichstilltodayclaimallegiancetotheiroldconfessions.WhateverdifficultiesthisdogmamaypresenttomenofourtimeaslongasweclaimhistoriccontinuitywiththeChurchofallages,ourtaskcannotbetoabolishthisdogmawhichisbasedonthedoctrineofJesusandtheapostles.Wehaverathertointerpretitinthelightof—notmoderntheoriesandhypothesesbut—factsestablishedbyscientificandhistoricalresearch.ItwouldbedestroyedbyanytheorymeanttolimitthestatementthattheBibleistheWordofGod.ItisnotenoughtosaythattheBiblecontainsthisWordandthatsomepartsoftheScripturesaregivenbyinspirationandothers,perhapsaverylittleportion,not.ThishasbeensuggestednotonlybyProtestanttheologiansbutitiseven,inprinciple,thesolutionsuggestedbysuchagreatCatholicthinkerasJohnHenryNewmaninoneofhislastpublications,anarticleonInspirationin“TheNineteenthCentury,”1883.Deeplyconcernedwiththesituationofmodernmanbetweentheclaimsofscienceandthoseofthechurch,andinviewofthefactthatthedecreesoftheTridentineandtheVaticancouncils“laydownsoemphaticallytheinspirationofScriptureinrespectto‘faithandmorals,’”but“donotsayaworddirectlyastoitsinspirationinmattersoffact,”theCardinalassumedthatthereareinHolyScripture“obiterdicta,”certainincidentalstatements,e.g.,ingeographicalorhistoricalmatterswhichdonot“beardirectlyupontherevealedtruth”anddonotcome“undertheguaranteeofinspiration.”ThiswouldcontradictthedogmathattheBibleassuch,andnotonlypartsofit,isthewordofGod.Norisitpos-sibletomaketheBibleonlyindirectlythewordofGod.ThathappensifonesaystheBiblecanbecometousthewordofGod.CertainlytheScripturesmustbecometousthewordofGod.i.e.,weoughttoacceptit,bythegraceofGod,ashiswordwhichhespeakstous.ButitremainsGod’sWordevenifwedonotacceptit.ThescripturewhichtheeunuchofEthiopiareadwastheobjectivewordofGodevenbeforebythegraceofGodhewasledtoitunderstanding.AndevenifhehadnotfoundthehelpofPhilip,hewouldhavebroughtthewordofGodinwritingtohishomeland.AnotherattempttounderstandScriptureistoregarditasthe“record”ofGod’srevelationinthehistoryofsalvation.Noonedeniesthatitissucharecord,andamostfaithfulatthat.Butitisimpossibletoseparatetherecordfromwhatisrecorded.JustasthewordofGodpreachedtodayasthefaithfulexpositionoftheScriptureiswordofGod(“Verbum Dei praedicatum est verbum Dei,”asLutherputsit),sothewordofGodthatcametoJeremiahremainsthewordofGodwhenitiswritteninabook(Jer36:1:ff.,28ff.).“ForthewordofGodislivingandpow-erful”(Heb4:12cpJer1:9f.,17:7,23:29):thisappliestothewordofGodinitsvar-iousforms.IfwecallscripturethewordofGod,wedonotdenythattherearealsootherformsoftheword.TheBibleitselftellsusthatbeforetherewasahumanear


tohearorahumaneyetoreadtherewasthe“wordofGod”(Rv19:13),thelogosthroughwhomallthingsaremade(Jn1:3cp.1Cor8:6),whowasfrometernitywithGodandwasGodandwasmadefleshinJesus.Asthiseternalwordislivingandpowerful,sotheoralwordoftheprophetsandapostles,thewrittenwordofscriptureandthefaithfulpreachingofthiswordofscripturethroughtheChurcharesomethinglivingandpowerful.TheysharethelifeandpowerofhimwhoistheWord.HolyScriptureisneveradeadletter.

III.Howcanabookoraseriesofbooks,writtenbymen,bewordofGod?

ThefirsttheologianswhowereconfrontedwiththisquestionwerethescribesofthesynagoguewhocollectedandinterpretedtheOldTestament.IthasoftenbeenoverlookedthattheyinansweringthisquestiondistinguishedbetweentheTorahontheonehandandtheprophetsandthescripturesontheother.WhilethelatterwereregardedasgivenbytheinspirationoftheHolySpirit,thedivinecharacteroftheTorahastheprimaryandprincipalwordofGodwasexplainedinadifferentway.TheTorahhadbeencreatedbyGodthousandsofyearsbeforethecreationoftheworld.2ItexistedunlikeotherPre-existingcreatures(e.g.,paradise,hell)notonlyinthemindofGod,butinreality,arealbookinheavenwrittenwithblackfireonwhitefire.ThecontentofthisbookwasbroughtdowntoearthandgiventoIsrael.GodHimselfhasproclaimedtheTenCommandmentstothepeople.Withhisownfingerhehaswrittenthemonthetables.TherestoftheTorahhehasgiventoMosesdirectly,withoutthemediationoftheSpirit.EitherhehastaughtMosesthewordsofthePentateuchasateacherteacheshisdisciple.Orhehasdictatedit,orwrittenit,too,forMosesonthetwotables.Angelsaresometimesmentionedinthisconnectionbytherabbis,butnotinthesenseofmediatorsasinActs7:53,Gal3:19,Heb2:2,andsometimesinapocryphalbooks.TherabbishaveneverforgottenthattherewasnotaprophetlikeMoseswhomJahvehknewfacetoface(Dt34:10).ItwastheHellenisticsynagoguewhichunderstoodMosesasaprophetwhospokebyinspirationoftheSpirit.IfRabbinictheologythusdistin-guishesbetweentheTorahandtherestoftheOldTestament,thisdoesnotmeanthattheeight“prophets”(Joshua,Judges,Samuel,Kings,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Ezekiel,theTwelve—withoutthelaterdistinctionbetween“prior”and“later”prophets)andthe“scriptures”arenotGod’sword.InthemGodspeaksthroughthemedia-tionoftheHolySpirit.Theterm“spokenfromthemouthofGod”isappliednotonlytothewordsoftheTorah(e.g.,SifreDt1:6),butalsototheprophets(Is61:6Pesiq126aBillerbeckop.cit.439–44.Comp.alsoMt4:4andDt18:18).

ThedistinctionbetweentwowaysthatabookcanbethewordofGodbelongstoRabbinicandnottoChristiantheology.ItisanattempttoexplainthedivinecharacteroftheTorahbyapplyingtoitanOrientalideaofaheavenlybookwhichwecantraceinseveralreligionsuptotheIslamicdoctrineoftheKoran.

110

TheideaisnotBiblical.Itis,however,relatedtotheBiblicaldoctrineofthepre-existentword.InEcclesiasticus24:31theTorahismoreorlessidentifiedwiththeChokmah,thepreexistentwisdomofGod.SincethehypostatizedWisdom(Prv8comp.Ecclus24)wasunderstoodbytheChurchasidenticalwiththelogosonaccountoftheobviousparallelbetweenProverbs8:22ff.andJohn1:Iff.,wemayfindbehindthestrangeJewishspeculationonthepre–existentTorahananticipa-tionoftheNewTestamentdoctrineofthepre-existent,eternalword.

IV.ForJesus,theapostlesandthePrimitiveChurch,thedifferentiationbetween

theTorahandtherestoftheOldTestamenthadlostitsmeaning.Allholyscrip-turesofthecanon,Law,prophetsandscriptures(Lk24:44),constitutenow“theScripture”(hegraphe).Thoughthesingularcanmeananindividualpassageorasinglebook,“scripture”and“scriptures”canbeusedinterchangeablyfortheentireBibleoftheOldTestament(comp.Mt22:29withJn5:39,10:35).Whateverdif-ferencesconcerningtheunderstandingoftheScripturemayexistbetweenJesusandthescribes,betweentheapostlesandtheirJewishadversaries,betweenChurchandsynagogue,oneithersidethescriptureisacceptedastheWordofGod.Thereisastrangeagreementastotheinspirationofthescriptures.ThewaythatJesusquotesPsalm110aswordswhichDavidspoke“intheSpirit”(Mt22:43),orthatPeter(Acts1:16)quotesa“scripture…whichtheHolySpiritspokebeforehandbythemouthofDavid”correspondsexactlytothewaythattherabbisquotetheOldTestament.ThetwopassagesoftheNewTestamentwhichteachexpresslyinspira-tion,2Timothy3:16and2Peter1:21,couldhavebeenwritteninthesynagogue.Herethequestionarises:Whatisinspiration?WhatdoestheChurchmeanwhenitteaches,The Bible is the word of God because it has been written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Inordertofindananswerwemustfirstask:Whatisthisinspirationnot?Wemustbeawareofthefactthatwordslike“inspire,”“inspiration”areusedinmodernEnglishinaverygeneralandindefinitesense.ButevenwhenusedinaspecificandpregnantsensetheydonotdojusticetothefactswhichtheBibleandtheChurchhaveinmindwhentheyspeakofthe“theopneustos”scripture.InspirationinthissenseistheworkoftheHolySpiritandconsequentlysomethingwhichdefiesanypsychologicalunderstanding.Psychologyknowssuchphenomenaasthe“inspiration”whichapoetoranartistexperienceswhensuddenlyinsights,words,artisticvisionsaregiventohim.Nietzsche’sdescriptionofthe“inspiration”inwhichhisZarathustrawasgiventohimisperhapsthemostilluminatingtesti-monyofsuchexperience.Noonewouldbetemptedtoregardthis“revelation,”asNietzsche,comparinghisexperiencewiththoseofformerages,callsit,aswroughtbytheSpiritofGod.Thesameistrueofthe“inspiration”claimedbyprophets,sibylsandreligiouswritersinmanyreligionsoftheancientworld.Theprophets


whomJeremiahandEzekielcalledfalseprophetsclaimedtobetrueprophets,tohavebeencalledbyGodandtobeentrustedwithhisword.Psychologycannotdis-coverthedifferencebetweentrueandfalseprophecy,betweenthatwhichistrulywordofGodandthatwhichisnot,betweentruepropheticexperiencesandwhatJeremiahcalleddreams,Therefore,itcannotknowwhatinspirationinthesenseoftheBibleis,letaloneexplainit.

Thepsychologicalmisunderstandingoftheinspirationisveryold.ItbeginsintheHellenisticsynagogue.ToPhilonMosesisaprophet,filledwiththeSpiritofGod,fullofwisdomandvirtue.OnemustreadPhilon’sLife of MosesinordertounderstandthegreatnessoftheOldTestamentasabookofrealhistory.PhilonreadshisownidealsintothestoriesofthePentateuch.Itwasthe“blamelessdeed”ofavirtuousphilosopherwhenMoseskilledtheEgyptian(De Vita MosisI,44).ThisgreatmanbecomeswhattheGreekcallsa“theios aner”whenheisinecstasyandthedivineSpiritspeaksthroughhim,thelastoftheseecstasiestakingplaceimmediatelybeforehisdeathwhenheprophesieshisowndeathandburial(II,291).Inanothercontext3wehaveshownhowthispsychologicalmisunderstand-ingoftheBiblicalinspirationbyHellenisticJudaismhasdeeplyinfluencedtheearlychurchandhowevenstillAugustinetriestoapplythisideaofpropheticinspira-tionandofadivinebookproducedbysuchinspirationtotheBible.Itisoneofthegreattragediesofthehistoryofthechurchthattheearlyfathers,andevenstillAugustine,insteadoftakingthedoctrinedeSacraScripturafromtheScripturesthemselvesapproachedtheproblemwithapreconceivedideaofadivinebookwhichmustbearallthemarksofabookclaimingdivineorigin,amostperfectbookwithoutwhatourhumanmindwouldcall“error,”withoutcontradictions,abookwhosedivineorigincanandmustberecognizedbyanyunprejudicedreader.ForeverybodycanseetheperfectionoftheBible,e.g.,ifheobserveshowallpropheciesoftheOldTestamenthavebeenfulfilledintheNew.“HowisnothetoberegardedasGodwhoseprophetshavenotonlygiventhecongruousansweronsubjectsregardingwhichtheywereconsultedatthespecialtime,butwhoalso,inthecaseofsubjectsrespectingwhichtheywerenotconsulted,andwhichrelatedtotheuniversalraceofmanandallnations,haveannouncedpropheticallysolongtimebeforetheeventthoseverythingsofwhichwenowread,andwhichindeedwenowbehold?”(De consensu evang.I,19quotedfromNiceneandPostniceneFathersVI,p.88).ThisviewofpropheticinspirationwhichputstheBiblicalprophetsintoonecategorywiththepaganprophetsandsibylsisuntenable.TheinspirationofIsaiahissomethingquitedifferentfromtheinspirationoftheSibylofCumaewhomAugustineregardedasatrueprophetess.Ifthisisso,thenthepsychological,explanationofinspirationwhichAugustinegivesandwhichhehaslefttofuturecenturiesuptoourtimemustbeabandoned.Allthesevenerablepic-turesinwhichtherelationshipthatexistsbetweenthedivineandthehumanauthorisdescribedandwhichgobacktoAugustineandGregorytheGreat—headand

112

hands,authorandsecretaries,theamanuensesevenaspens(calami),theprocessofinspirationas“suggerere”or“dictare”etc.—mustbeseenaswhattheyare:attemptstounderstandpsychologicallywhatnopsychologyevercangrasp.

ForifinspirationisaworkoftheHolySpirit,itislikeallworksoftheSpirit,beyondthesphereofwhatourreasoncanunderstand.Arealconversioncanbeaccompaniedbydeepemotions.Theseemotionsmaybestudiedbyapsychologist,butnottheconversionitself.Thesameemotionsmaybepresentinanimaginaryconversion.TheworkoftheHolySpiritinhumansoulsmaybeaccompaniedwithsuchphenomenaaswefindtheminthePrimitiveChurch,prophecy,glossolaly,miraculoushealingandthelike.Butthesamephenomenamayaccompanyexperi-enceswhicharedefinitelynotcausedbytheHolySpirit.Whowillexplainhowfaith,hopeandcharityarecreatedinahumansoul?WhowillexplaintheeffectsoftheWordofGod,ofthesacramentsofChristinthedepthofoursouls?Itisverydangerous,tosaytheleast,tospeakofthe“experienceoftheHolySpirit,”oroftheguidanceoftheSpirit,aswesoeasilydo.HowoftenhasthespiritwhowasexperiencedorwhoseguidancewasacknowledgednottheHolySpirit,butanotherspirit?Ifweconfess,“IbelieveintheHolySpirit,”weadmitthattheHolySpiritisanarticleoffaith,andnotanobjectofobservation.

V.IfweapplythistruthtotheproblemoftheInspirationofHolyScripture

asoneofthegreatworksoftheHolySpirit,wemaydefineinspirationasthatactionofGodtheHolySpiritbywhichhecauseschosenmentowritehiswordintheformofhumanwritings.Itwouldnotbesufficienttodefinethisactionasassistance,asitsometimeshasbeendone.ManybookshavebeenwrittenwiththeassistanceoftheHolySpirit.WewouldclaimthatforAugustine’s“Confessiones”andotherworksofgreatChristianwriters,orforthegreatcreedsofthechurchorformanyconfessionsoffaith,suchbooksanddocuments,however,remainhumanwritings.TheRomanChurchwhichregardsthefinaldefinitionsofdoctrinebythepopeasinfallibleexpositionofthedoctrineentrustedtotheChurchwouldnever-thelessnotascribe“inspiration”towhomsheregardsasvicarofChristandtohisdecisions.TheVaticanCouncilspeaksof“divineassistance.”Inspirationisascribedtothescripturesonly,thoughtheworkoftheHolySpiritintheinterpretationofthe“tradition”maypracticallycomeveryclosetohisworkintheinspirationofScripture.ThedivineinspirationoftheScripturesmustbedistinguishedfromthewaythatineachcasethewilloftheHolySpiritwascarriedout.Insomecaseswehearthatthewriterreceivedthedirectcommand:Write!(e.g.,Ex17:14;Jer30:2,36:2;RvI:11),Theremayhavebeencasesofrealdictation,comparabletothephenomenonof“automaticwriting”whichhasbeendescribedbypsychologistsofreligion.JustasBiblicalprophecyisnotboundtoanydefinitepsychologicalexperi-ences(visions,auditions,etc.),sothereisnodefiniteformofinspiration.Leviticus


hasbeenwrittenandcomposedinquiteadifferentwayfromthewayinwhichtheMisererecameintoexistence.John17hasnotbeenwritteninthesameframeofmindastheepistleofJames.Avarietyofwaysofinspirationmustbeassumedinviewofthevarietyofwritings,stylesandliterarygenresfoundintheBible.Andyettheinspirationitselfwasinallcasesthesame.GodtheHolySpiritcausedhiswordtobewritteninformofhumanwritings.Ina“varietyofoperations”theHolySpiritcreatedtheBibleinwhichthesongofLamechandtheLord’sPrayer,SongofSongsandtheepistletotheRomans,theGospelofSt.JohnandthestoryoftheconquestofCanaanbelongtogetherandnothingissuperfluous,noteventhecloakthatPaulleftwithCarpusatTroas.TheBibleisoneinvirtueoftheinspiration.WithoutthebeliefthatGodtheHolySpirithascreateditwecouldregarditonlyasacollectionofwritingsofgreaterorlesserreligiousorhistoricalvalueproducedandgatheredinthevicissitudesofhistory.ForeventheviewthattheunityoftheBiblerestsuponthedecisionofthechurchthatdefinedthecanonisuntenable.AccordingtothebeliefoftheChurchofallages,eventheRomanChurch,thechurchhasnotproduced,butreceivedthescriptures.Shehascanonizedthebooks,andonlysuchbooks,whichshefirmlybelievedtohavebeenwrittenbytheinspira-tionoftheHolySpirit.

VI.IfHolyScripturecanbeunderstoodproperlyonlyastheworkoftheHoly

Spirit,thenthe doctrine of Inspiration is an essential part of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.ThisisborneoutbytheNiceneCreedwherebothareconnectedinthewords,“IbelieveintheHolySpirit…whospokethroughtheprophets.”Whatthismeansisshownbythe“accordingtothescriptures”oftheprecedingsentence.Thisagainmustbereadinthelightof1Corinthians15:3f.4Ifourobservationiscorrect,howcouldanyoneexpectfromthesynagoguearealunderstandingoftheinspirationoftheScriptures?HowcouldanyoneunderstandtheHolySpiritbeforeChrist’spromiseoftheParacletewasfulfilledatPentecost?Ifwe,moreover,rememberthatonlyafter300years,atthesynodsofAlexandria362andConstantinople381,thedivinityoftheHolySpiritwasrecognized,wecanhardlyblamethefathersofthefirstcenturiesthattheywerenotabletoovercometheviewofthepneumaasadivinepowerordivineinfluenceenablingandcausingmentospeakdivinewordsandtowritedivinescriptures.ThefullmeaningofthefactthatthenameParakletosisgivenintheNewTestamenttoChristaswellastothePneumaHagion,andthatinJohn15:26and16:7ff.theSpiritisreferredtoasapersonwasrealizedonlybytheFathersoftheFourthcentury.Veryrarely,however,theymentiontheScripturesamongtheworkoftheHolySpirit.5Wemustnotforgetthatthedoc-trineoftheHolySpirithasneverbeenfinishedintheAncientChurch.OtherwisethegreatdissensusbetweenEastandWestabouttheFilioquecouldnothavehap-pened.Itissignificantthatthehistoryoftheliturgyalsoshowsastrangeneglectof

114

theHolySpirit.“WhowiththeFatherandSontogetherisworshippedandglori-fied,”saystheNiceneCreed,confirmingtherulethateverydogmaappearsfirstintheliturgy.TheHolyGhostisindeedmentionedintheconclusionoftheprayersofthechurch.ButthelogicalconclusionfromtheTrinitariandogmathatprayerscanalsobedirectedtotheThirdPersonoftheTrinityhasneverbeendrawnintheliturgy.TheorationsaredirectedtotheFatherandtheSon,evenatPentecostandintheRomanMassoftheHolyGhost.ThisshowstheantiquityoftheChristianliturgywhichstilltodaycelebratesPentecostasafeastofChristasinthefirstcenturies.TheliturgyknowsonlytheinvocationoftheHolySpiritinthe“Veni sancte Spiritus…” outofwhichthemedievalhymnsandthoseoftheReformationchurcheswhicharedirectedtotheHolySpirithavegrown.IfwemuststatethatthedoctrineoftheHolySpiritisunfinishedinthechurch,canwethenbesurprisedthatthesameistrueoftheinspirationofScripture?AllchurchesofChristendomfeeltodaythisgreatgapintheirdoctrines.

VII.IfHolyScriptureistheworkofGod,theHolySpirit,itsmaintaskisthat

ascribedtotheParacletebyChrist:“hewillteachyouallthingsandwillbringtoyourremembranceallthatIhavesaidtoyou”(Jn14:26);“hewillbearwitnesstome”(15:26);“hewillguideyouintoalltruth…hewillglorifyme,forhewilltakewhatismineanddeclareittoyou”(16:13f.).ChrististherealcontentofHolyScripture.ThiswasnotonlyLuther’sunderstandingoftheBible.ItappearsalreadyintheMiddleAges,e.g.,withWicliff.Scripture,hepointsout,canbeunderstoodonlybyhimwhobelieves“thatChrististrueGodandtruemanbecauseheisthemessiahpromisedtothefathers.”Scripturemustbeunderstoodfromthosepartswhichclearlytestifytothistruth.Then“theentireScriptureandeachpartofit“teach”thatChrist,Godandman,istheredeemerofallmankind,theauthorofthewholesalvationandhewhogivesthelastreward.”6

TheJewscouldnot,andthesynagoguetodaycannot,understandtheOldTestament,becausetheyhaverejectedJesusastheMessiah.NoonecanunderstandthescripturesoftheOldTestament,unlessheknowsChristandunderstandswhatitmeansthat“Tohimalltheprophetsbearwitnessthateveryonewhobelievesinhimreceivesforgivenessofsinsthroughhisname”(Acts10:43).AsinthegreatvisionofRevelation5“theLambthatwasslain”aloneis“worthytotakethebookandtoopenthesealsthereof”(5:9),namelytheheavenlybookinwhichtheeventsofthefuturearewritten,sotheOldTestamentisabooksealedwithsevensealsuntiltherisenLordopensittomen,untiltherisenLord“openstheirunderstand-ingthattheymightunderstandtheScriptures”byshowingthemhow“allthingsmustbefulfilledwhichwerewritteninthelawofMoses,andintheprophets,andinthescripturesconcerningme”(Lk24:44f.).Asastainedwindowismeaninglessuntilitisseenagainstthelight,sotheOldTestamentbecomescleartohimonlywhoseesthelightofChristshiningthroughit.


ThisconnectionbetweentheinspirationbytheHolySpiritandChristasthecontentoftheScripturescorrespondstotheNewTestamentdoctrineoftheHolySpirit.ApartfromthepassagesontheParaclete(Jn14–16),Paul’sutteranceshavetobetakeninaccount.ItistheHolySpiritwhoenablesustoconfessJesusastheLord(1Cor12:3,comp.Mt10:19f.),asalsotheHolySpiritenablesustocallGodourFather(Rom8:15,seethewordsinthe“Veni Creator Spiritus”whichexpressthistruth:“Per te sciamus da Patrem, noscamus atque Filium”).ChristandtheHolySpiritbelongforPaulsocloselytogetherthatin2Corinthians3:17healmostseemstoidentifythem:“TheLordistheSpirit.”Thisis,however,astheimmediatelyfol-lowingwords“TheSpiritoftheLord”show,norealidentification,butrathertheexpressionofaninseparableconnectionasthelaterChurchhasitexpressedinthe“Filioque.”Itcouldbeformulated:“WhereChristis,thereistheHolySpirit.WheretheHolySpiritis,thereisChrist.”AsintheGospelJesusandtheHolySpiritbelongtogethersincetheIncarnation,sointheentireBibleChristandtheHolySpiritbelongtogetherfromthefirstchapterofGenesiswherewereadthattheSpiritofGodmoveduponthefaceofthewaterswhenGodcreatedallthingsthroughHiseternalWord(Gn1readinthelightofJn1:lff.,1Cor8:6,Heb1:2),tothelastchapterofRevelationwheretheSpiritandtheChurchsay:“Come,LordJesus”(22:17:20).ThisunderstandingofHolyScripturedoesnotmeanthatwecanfindinanypassageachristologicalmeaning,orthatweevenshouldlookforit.OnlythosepassagesoftheOldTestamentwhichareclearlyinterpretedinthiswayintheNewTestamentcanberegardedascleartestimoniestoChrist.ButtheyaresufficienttoconvinceusthatChrististhecontentproperoftheentireBibleeventherewherewecannotperceivehimwiththelimitationsofourhumanmind.

VIII.ThisunderstandingoftheinspiredBibleasthescripturesinwhichGod,the

HolySpirit,testifiestoGod,theSon,freesusfrommanyafalseunderstandingofinspiration.MenofthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturywhothoughtofbooksandtheirauthorsintermsofHumanismwereembarrassedbywhatseemstobetheverybadGreekofsomeoftheNewTestamentwritings.Aperfectbookmustbewritteninaperfect,flawlesslanguage.TheapologistsofalltimessinceOrigen’s“Against Celsus”havehadtodefendtheBibleagainstthosewhofoundinitmoraldeficiencies,inaccuracies,contradictionsanderrors.Thechurchfathersaswellasthemedievalandmoderntheologianswereconfrontedwiththefactthatthestoryofcreationcannotbeunderstoodintermsofnaturalscience.Theconvictionisgrowingthatthetimehascomewhenthechurchhastogiveupdefinitelythewell-meantattemptstoreconcilethefirstchapteroftheBiblewith“modern”science.Sincetheologymovesveryslowly,“modern”scienceprovesineachcasetobethescienceofyesterday.Thechurchhasdefendedthegeocentricviewoftheworldwhenitlongsincehasbecomeobsolete.Ithasacceptedtheheliocentricviewwhenthecentrehadalreadymovedtothecentreofourgalaxyandfromtheretoother

116

galaxies.HowdetrimentaltotheChristianfaiththishasbeenisnowgeneral1yrec-ognized.Therapiddevelopmentofmodernphysicshasledtoseriouswarningsonthepartof,Romantheologiansaswel1assuchanoutstandingleaderofconserva-tiveReformedtheologyasProfessorBerkouweragainsttherepetitionofthegreatmistakesmadeinthecaseofGalileoandonotheroccasions.Itmaybeaheroicactoffaithtoacceptthestoryofcreationasasubstituteforascientificviewoftheoriginoftheuniverse,buttodemandthatfromaChristianmeanstoexcom-municateallscientistswhoinfirmbeliefintheirGodandSaviourdotheworkoftheircallingwhichisbasedonthedominionoveralltheearthgiventomanbyhiscreator.HowmanysoulshavebeenlostthroughthefailureoftheChurchtodojusticetothefactsestablishedbysolidresearch,byexperimentandobservation?Wehaveshownonanotheroccasionwhatwecouldlearninthisrespectfromthefathersofthechurch.7ThisdoesnotimplyanydenialofadogmaoftheChurch.Neitherthecreationoftheworld“outofnothing”isabandoned,northespecialcreationofmanandthefallofthefirstmanasanhistoricevent.WhatmustbeadmittedbythechurchisthattheBibleinspeakingofsuchthingsusesalanguagedifferentfromours.Itspeakstomenofveryancienttimesinawaywhichwasevenbythechurchfathersfelttobeveryoldandsimple.HowcouldmenofsuchtimeshaveunderstoodastoryofcreationtoldintheterminologyofAristotleorAugustine,letaloneoftwentiethcenturysciencewhichprobablywillbeobsoleteinanothercentury?ThisiswhatChrysostomhascalledthe“synkatabasis”(“condescen-sio” )ofGod.“BeholdthecondescensionoftheDivineScripture,seewhatwordsitusesonaccountofourweakness,”hesayscommentingonGenesis2:21(MigneSG53,col.121,comp.col.34f.,135;vol.59,col.97f.).InasimilarwayJeromeandotherfathershavesolvedtheproblem.Ifwesaythat,wedonotthinkthatthewayofthinkingandspeakinginthoseveryearlytimeswasinferiortoours.Itwasdif-ferent,butwewouldbynomeansdaretosaythatourscientificviewoftheworldgivesusadeeperinsightintothenatureoftheworld.Theywereveryfarfromourrationalthinking.Theysawrealitieswhichwenolongersee,justasprimitivepeopletodaystillobservethingswhichwenolongerperceive.Whattheysaidaboutsuchrealitiesmustnotberegardedasmyths,thoughitsometimesmayremindusofthelanguageofmythology,thereasonbeingthatpaganmythologyisadeterioratedandpaganisedechoofsuchwisdom.

Inadditiontothe“lawofcondescension”intheBiblewemusttakeinaccountwhatwecouldcallthe“lawofparallels”inHolyScripture.AswefindintheHebrewlanguagetheparallelismus membroruminpoeticandprophetictexts,sowefindthestrangefactthatalmosteveryimportanteventistoldseveraltimesandalwayswithvariations.Therearetwostoriesofcreation.Therearealltheotherpar-allelsinthePentateuch,duetothedifferentsources.WehavetwogreathistoriesofIsrael,onewrittenfromtheprophetic,theotherfromthepriestlypointofview.IntheNewTestamentevenfourlinesrunparallelintheGospels.Whatdoesitmean


thatwehaveparablesandothersayingsofJesusintheGospels,eventheLord’sPrayerandtheeucharisticwordsinvariousforms.TwobaptismalformulasalsoappearintheNewTestament.Thismusthaveameaning.HoweasywouldithavebeenforthechurchtoagreeononeGospelortocreateanofficialharmonyoftheGospels?Whyhaveallattemptsatsuchaharmonyfailed?TheChurchofSyriawhichusedtheDiatessaronbecamehereticalanditsreturntoorthodoxycoin-cidedwiththereturntothefourGospels.TheGospelHarmoniescreatedinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,orthosetobefoundinsomeCatholicBibles,haveprovedtobefailures.ThepictureofJesuswhichtheygiveisalwaysunrealis-ticandlifeless,sowhen,e.g.,atwofoldcleansingofthetempleisassumedorevenseveralhealingsofthesameperson.Noonehasbeenabletoharmonizetheappar-ent“contradiction,”regardingthechronologyofthePassionandoftheeventsofEaster.Butaretheserealcontradictions?Ifwecomparepaintingsofthecrucifixionbyfourgreatpainters,whowouldfind“contradictions”and“errors”inthem?HavenotGrunewaldandDurerseenmorethanaphotographcouldshow?Thestrangeideaofthesacredhistorywhichunderliestheapologeticattemptstohar-monizealldifferencesgoesbacktoanagewhichnolongerwasabletounderstandthebiblicalideaofhistory.NeithertheJewishrabbisnorthefathersofthechurchnortheirpaganadversarieslikeCelsusandPorphyriushavebeenabletothinkintermsofhistory.ThisistoalargedegreeduetothefactthatGreekphilosophyhadnounderstandingofhistory.Whatwehavetolearnagainistomeasurebiblicalhis-torybyitsownstandards.Insteadofaskingwhetheracertainnarrativecorrespondstoourstandards,weshouldask:Whydidthebiblicalwritertelleventsandrecordwordsjustthewayhedidit?Luke,e.g.,wasacriticalhistorianwhoevaluatedhissources(1:1ff.).Whyhashegiven,orinserted,inActs3,reportsontheconversionofPaulwhicharenotinfullagreement?Hemusthavebeenawareofthis.Insteadoffindingfaultwithhismethodandaccusinghimoferrorsweshouldratherask:Whatwashisintentionwhenhewrotethesepassages?Whydidhenotregardasintolerablecontradictionswhatlatercenturieshavecalledthat?ThegreatconcernofthechurchinfactualhistoricaltruthisdeeplyrootedintheBible.Howcarefullyaretheeventsinthehistoryofsalvationdated(e.g.,Is6:1,Am1:1,Lk3:1,1Cor15:lff.)lestanyonemightdenythefacts.Thewords“underPontiusPilate”belongtotheNiceneCreedjustas“accordingtotheScriptures.”What,then,isfactualhis-toricaltruthfortheholywriters?ThisisoneofthegreatproblemswhichBiblicaltheologyhastoinvestigateandtoanswer.Itcannotbeansweredbythestatementthat“truth”intheBiblehasadeeperandmorecomprehensivemeaningthan“veri-tas”withAquinas(Summath.Iqu.16“DeVeritate”).However,biblicaltruthcan-notbewithoutwhatweunderstandbypropositionaltruth,becauseotherwisetherevelationoftheBiblewouldbecomemyth.AllcreedsofthechurchfromthefirstcreedalstatementsoftheNewTestamentpresentfacts(see1Cor15:1ff.).Withoutthisfactual,dogmaticcharacterChristianitywouldbecomeamysteryreligion.How

118

andwhytheholywriterstransmittousonetruthinseveralparallelrecordsandwhatthevarietymeans,thisisoneoftheforemostproblemsofbiblicalhermeneu-tics.Itisamostcomprehensivequestion,forthefactalsothattheNewTestamentknowsandusestwo“OldTestaments,”theHebrewandtheGreek,comesunderthe“lawofparallels.”

IX.Whatevertheanswertothesequestionsmaybe,onethingChristiantheology

canneveradmit,namely,thepresenceof“errors”inthesenseoffalsestatementsinHolyScripture.Theholywritersmayhaveused,astheyactuallyhave,sources,traditions,methodsofapre-scientifichistoriography,literaryformsoftheancientOrientwhichwedonolongerpossess.Theirlanguagemaybefigurative,theirnar-rativessometimesborderingonlegendal1dpoetryorevenusingsuchformsofexpression.YetallthishasbeenwrittenbytheinspirationoftheHolySpirit.InawaythatisandalwayswillremaininscrutabletohumanreasonthesetrulyhumanwritingsareGod’sWord.TheinspirationofHolyScripturehasoftenbeenunder-stoodasananalogontotheincarnation.ItseemsthatthisviewisbecomingmoreandmorethecommonpossessionofChristendom,especiallysinceithasbeenintroducedintoRomanCatholictheologyandapprovedbytheencyclicalof1943.TothedilemmaformulatedbyPaulClaudel,“eithertheBibleisahumanwork…orelseScriptureisadivinework,”Steinmann(op.cit.p.14)hasrightlyreplied:“Onemightaswellsay:EitherJesusChristismanorheisGod.”Wecannotgointothistheologicalproblemhere.ThetimemaycomewhenthechristologicaldecisionofChalcedonwillbecomethepatternofasolutionofthedoctrineofHolyScriptureanditsinspiration.BetweentheMonophysitismoffundamentalistswhofailedtounderstandthehumannatureoftheBibleandtheNestorianismofmodernProtestantandAnglicantheologywhichseesthetwonatures,butfailstofindtheunityofscriptureasabookatthesametimefullyhumanandfullydivine,wehavetogothenarrowpathbetweenthesetwoerrors,Butwemustneverfor-getthattheChalcedonensehasbeenauthoritativelyexplainedinthedoctrineofthe“enhypostasia.”Thehumannaturehasits“hypostasis”inthedivine.SoHolyScriptureisfirstofallandessentiallyGod’sWord.ThehumanwordintheBiblehasnoindependentmeaning.WhatwouldthebooksofSamuelandeventheepistletotheRomansmeanoutsidetheBible?Godhasgivenusthesewritingsashisword.WhatisHolyScripturewithoutitscontent,Christ?“Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius invenies?”asLutherwroteagainstErasmus“TakeChristoutoftheScriptures,whatremains?”AswehumblybowbeforethemysteryoftheincarnationoftheEternalWordsoweacceptingreathumilitythemysteryofHolyScriptureasthewrittenwordofGodinwhichtheFatherthroughtheHolyGhosttestifiestoChrist:“ThisismybelovedSoninwhomIamwellpleased;hearyehim.”


Endnotes1Thegreatnessofthisrevolutionmaybeseenfromsomevolumesoftheseries“Faith

andFactBooks.CatholicFaithintheScientificAge”(translatedfromFrench,London,BurnsandOates):“BiblicalCriticism”byJeanSteinmann.‘’TheReligionofIsrael”byAlbertGelin,‘’TheOriginofMan”byNicolasCorte(pseudonym).1959.ThenewapproachtotheBiblewasmadepossiblethroughtheencyclicals“DivinoafflanteSpiritu”(1943)and‘’HumaniGeneris”(1950).

2ForthereferencesseeStrack-Billerbeck,Vol.IV.p.435ff.3“SacraScriptura.ObservationsonAugustine’sdoctrineofInspiration”inthisReview,Vol.

XIV,No.3,Oct.,1955,pp.65–80.4ThisbasiccreedoftheChurchwouldbeunderstoodbetterifitsBiblicalPaulinebackground

weretakenmoreinaccount.Ithasgrownoutofthebinitarianformulaof1Cor8:6,thePauline,ChristianversionofthebasicconfessionoftheO.T.,the“Schema”ofDt6:4.Stillthecreedof325isbinitarianliketheGreatGloriaoftheWesternliturgy.Paulineisthe“oneGod…andoneLordJesusChristthroughwhomallthingsare,”asalsothe“onebaptism”(Eph4:5)andtheconnectionoftheSpiritwiththeLord(2Cor3:17).

5GregoryofNyssaandDidymosseemtobetheonlytheologianswhodothat,buttheydonotelaborateonthisthought.

6“Conclusioautemfinalistotiusscripturaeetcuiuslibetpartissuaeest,quodChristus,deusethomo,esthumanigeneris…redemptor.totiussalutisautoretultimuspraemiator,”DeVeritateSacraeScripturaeIIIcap.31(ed.Buddensiegvol.III,p.242,18ff.).

7“Hexaemeron:TheologyandSciencewiththeChurchFathers,”thisReviewVol.XVII,No.3,October,1958.

120

SevenThesesonReformationHermeneutics

MartinH.Franzmann

Martin H. Franzmann (1907–1976) taught exegetical theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, from 1946 to 1969, then precepted at Westfield House, University of Cambridge, England. This article is reprinted from Concordia Theological Monthly, vol. 40, no. 4 (1969), pp. 235–246.

THESIS IQui non intelligit res non potest ex verbis sensum elicere(Luther).1Interpretationisa“circular”process(fromverbatorestoverba),andinthisprocesstheresisofcrucialimportance,sincethequestionaddressedtothetexthelpsdeterminetheanswertobegottenfromthetext.

Luther’sdictumonresandverbaisacrispsummaryofawidelyrecognizedhermeneuticalprinciple:Unlessyouknowwhatamanistalkingabout,youwillnotmakesenseofhiswords.Amancominglateintoaconversationwillask,“Whatareyoupeopletalkingabout?”eventhoughheknowsthemeaning(orameaningatleast)ofeverysinglewordhehears;notknowingtheresunderdiscussion,heisatalossconcerningtheverba.Thelawyer,theprinter,andthetheologianallusetheword“justify”;butunlessoneknowsinadvancealittlesomethingaboutthelawyer’sprofession,theprinter’scraft,orthetheologian’sfield,onewillbeatalossconcerningtheintendedsenseof“justify”inthelawyer’s,printer’s,ortheologian’sspeech.

Whatholdsofconversationandthespokenword,holdswithespecialforceoftheprintedword,oftexts,wherethegive-and-takeofconversationisimpossibleandtheeloquentcontextofknown,physicallypresentperson,ofinflection,andofgestureisabsent.Tointerpretadequatelyanyportionofatext,amanmustthere-forehaveformedsomeconceptionofthetextasawhole:thisconceptionofthewholeguideshimintheinterpretationoftheindividualwordsandunitsandisinturnsubjecttocorrection,enrichment,anddeepeningbyhisstudyoftheindividualunits.Theprocessbywhichagenuineunderstandingofatextisgainedis,there-fore,“circular”;fromverbatorestoverba,incontinualandlivelyinteraction.2Inthecaseofancienttexts,chronologicallyandculturallyremotefromtheinterpreter’sownworldandwritteninanancientandalientongue,theneedofsuchaninterpre-tiveresisgreateranditsvalueproportionatelyhigher.

InthecaseofBiblicalinterpretation,thesituationismorecomplicatedstill.Wehavetodowiththeinterpretationofacollectionof66ancientwritings,span-


ningadozencenturies,composedinthreelanguages,andexhibitingarichvarietyinbothformandsubstance.Andthiscollectiondemandstobeheardandunder-stoodasaunity.Thisdemandisraisednotonlybythechurch,whichassertsthatunityinitsliturgy,proclamation,anddogma.Itisraisedalsobythehistoryofthetexts,theformationofthecanonwhichismysteriouslyandpersistentlyandactivelythere,howevermuchhistoricalrationalizationmayseektostripthemysteryandthepowerfromit.Moreimportanteventhanthesetwofactorsisthefactthatthisdemandisraisedwithinthecollectionitself,implicitlywithintheOldTestamentandveryexplicitlyintheNewTestament,whoseuseoftheOldTestament(quota-tion,allusion,reminiscence,terminologicalindebtedness)forcestheinterpretertoconsidertheNewTestamentutteranceswithinalargercontextandinthelightofonedominantdivinepurpose.AndtheNewTestamentlikewiseinsiststhattheOldTestamentmustbereadandunderstoodinthelightoftheNewTestamentifitistobeprofitablyunderstoodatall.Theinterpreterisliterallydrivenintotheher-meneuticalcircularprocess,compelledtosearchfortheresthatholdsallthepartstogetherandpermitseachparttobeheardandappropriatedinitsintendedsenseaspartofthewhole.

Theremust,then,beanunderstoodresifthereistobeagenuinely“under-standingencounterwiththetext,”asFrörhasputit.3AndamerelyformalreswillnotservetodisclosethatunitywhichtheChurch’suseofthetexts,thehistoryofthetexts,andtheassertionofthetextsthemselvesclaimforthecollection.Afor-maldesignationlike“ReligiousDocumentsoftheAncientNearEast”isuseless;andworsethanuseless,sinceitsblandandreserved“objectivity”tendstoshuntasidethequestionthatmustbeaskedofthesedocuments.Evenmorespecificallyreligiousandcommittedstatementsoftheres,suchas“WordofGod”or“RecordofRevelation”(indispensableastheyareintheirplace)willnotofthemselvesopenthedooroftheBible,sincetheydonotsayenough.ThefactthatGodtalksanddisclosesisimportantenough,butitdoesnotraiseanddoesnothelpanswerthegreatquestion:“Howdoeshetalktomeandwhatdoeshedisclosetome?”

ThemenoftheLutheranReformation,onwhosehermeneuticalandexegeti-calproductionweliveandthrivetothisday,madegreatformalhermeneutical-exegeticaldecisionsandassertions(Sola Scriptura, sensus literalis, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres,etc.),buttheywerenotthefirsttomakethemandwerenotaloneinmak-ingthem;thegreatgiftthatwasgiventhem,thewisdomfromonhighthatwasvouchsafedthem,wastheabilitytomakeahermeneuticalbreakthroughwhichisintrinsicallyboundupwiththetheologicalbreakthrough,toseetheresoftheBiblewithcharismaticclarityandtoseeitinitsrelationtotheBiblicalverba.4Thishelpsaccountforthefactthatthereisnoexplicit,distinctarticleOn ScriptureintheLutheranConfessions,atleastbeforetheFormulaofConcord.Whatthereformers

122

hadtosayonScripturecouldbestbesaidobliquely,inthewayinwhichtheyactu-allydealtwithScriptureingivencasesintheir“Christocentrichandling”oftexts,their“totalsoteriologicalattitude,”asWernerElerthasputit.5

THESIS II TheresoftheLutheranConfessionsisjustificationbygracethroughfaith.(ApologyIV,2-4,German)

ThesignificanceofthestatementmadeintheGermanversionofApologyIV,2–4,mustthereforebeassessedinthecontextoftheLutheranConfessions’actual“handling”ofScripture.InthatcontextitappearsasacrystallizationofReformationres-verbahermeneutics:

ThisdisputehastodowiththehighestandchiefarticleofallChristiandoctrine[Justification],sothatmuchindeeddependsonthisarticle,whichalsoservespreeminentlytogiveaclear,correctunderstandingofthewholeSacredScriptureandalonepointsthewaytotheunutter-abletreasureandthetrueknowledgeofChrist,andalsoaloneopensthedoortothewholeBible,withoutwhicharticlenopoorconsciencecanhaveaconstant,certainconsolationorknowtherichesofthegraceofChrist.

Thetheologicalhealthandwholenessofthishermeneuticsisapparentinthewayinwhichthispassageuniteshermeneutical-exegeticalconcernswiththewholesoteriological,Christological,andpastoral(“poorconscience”)concernoftheChurch.6

THESIS III “Justificationbygracethroughfaith”isConfessionalshorthandfor“radicalgospel”7:God, to whom man can find no way, has in Christ creatively opened up the way which man may and must go.

Thisthesishardlyneedstobedocumentedatlength.HerbertBoumanhasinarecentarticlepointedupindetail“thealmostbewilderingvariety”ofsynonymsfor“justification”whichtheLutheranConfessionsemploytodeclarethegospel.8AndsurelyitisnotwithoutsignificancethatLuther’sexplanationoftheSecondArticleoftheCreed,forallitssuccinctrichness,containsnoforensicimagerywhat-soever:thisistheLutherwhocouldcallthefourthevangelist(whosegospeldoesnotcontainanyofthetechnicaltermsofjustificationandspeaksof“righteous-ness”inatheologicallypregnantsensejustonce)a“masterinjustification.”

ToavoidanynarrowingdowntostrictlyforensicimageryandtoforestallthechargeofLutheran-biasselectivity,itmaybewelltostatetheradicalgospeloftheConfessionsinthebroadestpossibleway:God, to whom man can find no way, has in Christ (the hidden center of the Old Testament and the manifested center of the New) creatively


opened up the way which man may and must go.9AndwemayclaimConfessionalwarrantforevensobroadaformulation:“AsPaulsays(Rom5:2),‘ThroughChristwehaveobtainedaccesstoGodbyfaith.’Westressthisstatementbecauseitissoclear.Itsummarizesourcaseverywell.(Totius enim causae nostrae statum clarissime ostendit.)”10

THESIS IV Thisgospelisradicalinthreerespects:(1)InitsrecognitionofthecondemninglawandwrathofGodandtheguiltandlostnessofman;(2)initsrecognitionofthesoleworkingofGodinman’ssal-vation;(3)initsrecognitionofthetransformationofman’sexistenceproducedbythesavingactofGod.

OneneedreadnofartherthantheSecondArticleoftheAugsburgConfessiontorealizehowseriouslytheConfessionstakethefirstelementinthisformulationoftheradicalgospel:ManasheisinAdamissine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum,andcum concupiscentia—thisisthegateoftriplebrassthatbarshiswaytoGod:hedoesnotfear,hecannottrusttheGodwhomadehim,andsomustneedsplayGodhimselfandgetwhathewantswhenhewantsit,withoutGod,againstGod.Heisthe“lostandcondemnedcreature.”Thenecessarycorrelativetothisele-mentoftheproclamationisfaithasunconditionalsurrendertoGod,thefaithofAbrahamasPaulpicturesitinRomans4:19,thefaithofthepublicaninthepar-able,thefaithofPeterwhenhesaid,“Departfromme,OLord.”

AllthreeoftheReformationsolasunderscore,eachinitsway,thesecondelementinthisformulationoftheradicalgospel:thepossibilityandthefactofthegospel,theeffectualcommunicationofthegospel,thesalutaryreceptionofthegospel—theseareallpossibilitieswhichbeginwhereallhumanpossibilitiesend,possibilitiesoftheCreatorGod,“whogiveslifetothedeadandcallsintoexistencethethingsthatdonotexist”(Rom4:17).Thenecessarycorrelativetothisisfaithas“theworshipwhichreceivesGod’sofferedblessing.”(Ap.IV,49)

WemustseriouslyaskourselveswhetherweLutheranshavealwaysheardandobeyedthevoiceofourConfessionsasweoughtintheirproclamationofthethirdelementoftheradicalgospel.Ifwehavenot,thefaultisourown.ThevoiceoftheConfessionsisloudandclear.EdmundSchlink’ssummaryisalsoloudandclear:

Justification,renewal,andgoodworksare[intheConfessions]bracket-edinthesamewayasfaith,renewal,andgoodworks.Ifitistruethatthebelievingsinnerreceivesforgivenessandthatfaithdoesnotsin,then,similarly,justificationiseffectednotonlywithoutworksbygracealone,butitisalsotaughtthatjustificationcannotbewithoutrenewalandgoodworks…

124

Butifjustificationisnotwithoutrenewal,itisalsonotwithoutthegoodworksofnewobedience.Inever-newformulations,justificationandnewobediencearejoinedtogether.

Justificationcannotbeseparatedfromnewobedience,ifwereallytakethestatementregardingjustifyingfaithseriously:“WhenthroughfaiththeHolySpiritisgiven,theheartismovedtodogoodworks”(A.C.XX,29).Thejustifyingwordofforgivenessandthenewobediencearejoinedtogetherespeciallyintherelationofcauseandeffect:‘…lovecertainlyfollowsfaith,becausethosewhobelievereceivetheHolySpirit;thereforetheybegintobecomefriendlytothelawandtoobeyit’(Ap.XII,82).This‘follows’whichconnectsjustificationandnewobedienceisnotmerelyapossible,butanecessaryresult.Faith,for-giveness,thereceptionoftheSpiritare“certainly”followedbylove,bypleasureinthelaw,andbythenewobedience.“Certain,”“necessary,”“should,”“must,”(certe, necesse est, debet, oportet)aretheconceptswhichmakethisconnectioninseparable.11

Thenecessarycorrelativetothisisfaithaslivelyresponse,faithas“aliving,busy,active,mightything”asitappearsinLuther’sclassic(andhighly“Jacobean”)defi-nitionofitinhisPrefacetotheEpistletotheRomans,quotedintheFormulaofConcord(SDIV,10–12).

THESIS V Thevalidityofthisconfessionalresasaheuristic-hermeneuticalprin-ciplecanbedocumentedfromScriptureitself:itisthecantus firmustowhichalltheprodigalvarietyoftheScripturalvoicesstandincontra-puntalrelationship.

This“radicalgospel”is,ofcourse,amonumentalsimplificationofthevariedandcomplexwitnessoftheScriptures.ThemenoftheReformationwerecon-vincedthatitisjustthat,asimplificationofthemessageoftheScriptures,atrueandvalidconcentrationoftheiressentialmessage.Ifitisthat,theverystatementofitisagreatactofinterpretation,sinceallinterpretationissimplification,asJowetthassaid.Ifitisnotthat,butanabridgementoradistortionorevenmerelyanover-simplification(withsomethingessentialleftout),thenthehermeneuticsoftheLutheranConfessionsissectarianhermeneutics—or,sinceLutheranismhasalwaysrejectedtheideaofbeingasectamongsects,thereisnosuchthingasaLutheranhermeneutics.

Thereisonlyonewayofdecidingbetweenthesealternatives:onlyingoingthewaywhichtheReformerswent,fromthewholeoftheScripturestotheradical-gospelsummaryandthenbackagaintothewhole,canwedeterminewhether“radicalgospel”issomethingimposedontheScripturesfromwithoutorwhether


themenoftheReformationwerereallylettingScriptureinterpretScripturewhentheyemployedthisprinciple.Thefollowingnot-too-systematicsamplingisintendedmerelytoindicatehowsuchanexplorationoftheScriptures,withtheaidoftheReformationcompass,mightproceed.12

Tobeginatthebeginningofthecanon:Inthefirst11chaptersofGenesisthereisaterrifyingrecordofhowthesinfulwillofmanrepeatedlyblocksman’swaytoGod:thesicut-DeuswillofAdam;thebrutallyindividualisticwillofCain(“AmImybrother’skeeper?”);theheroicwillofLamech,whowilltakevengeanceoutofthehandofGodAlmightyandexecuteitforhimselfmorerigorouslythanhe;thewillofthegenerationofNoah,menwitheveryimaginationofthethoughtsoftheirheartsonlyevilcontinually—“byrights”thehistoryofmanshouldhaveendedwithGenesis3;“byrights”thereisnoroomintherecordfortheCovenantoftheBowwhichcreatesaclimateofcompassionateforbearanceinwhichthehis-toryofmanmaycontinueafterthejudgmentoftheFlood.Andtheunanimousname-seeking,tower-buildinghybrisofmankindofGenesis11—“byrights”thehistoryofmankindendshere.Genesis12istheabsolutemiracleofthegraceofGodcreatingawaywherethereisnowaythatmancanfind—orevenwillstofind.Theeraofthetriplecurse(thecurseupontheground,onCain,onCanaan)opensup,illogically,intotheeraofblessing:“Iwillblessyou,andmakeyournamegreat,sothatyouwillbeablessing.Iwillblessthosewhoblessyou…andinyouallthefamiliesoftheearthwillbeblessed ”(Gen12:2–3).

ThehistorythatrunsfromDeuteronomythrough2Kingsisasomberone;itisahistoryinwhichtheGodofrelentlessjudgmentuponthesinsofhispeopleleadsthehistoryofhispeopletosoradicalanupshot(thefallofIsrael,thefallofJudah,theendofJerusalem,theendofthetemple,Judah’skinglivingonthetoler-anceofthekingof

Babylon)thatonescholarseesinitmerelythemessageof“definitiveandconclusive”judgment.13ThesumofIsrael’shistoryapparentlyequalszero.Andyetacloser,moreattentivelookdisclosesthatthemessageofthishistoryisgospelafterall;thisGodofjudgmentis—mirabile dictu—aGodtowhomhisrebelandapostatepeoplemaycallandmustcall;thereisstillpossible,asinthedaysoftheJudges,acrytoGodas“areachingforthevigilantcompassionoftheLordwhohaspityforthepeopleofhischoice.”14

Repentance(theworkoftheLordhimself,whowill“circumcisethehearts”ofhischildren,Deuteronomy30:6)canstillopenupanewepochinahistorythatis,byrights,finished.

InHoseawecanbeholdthewholemiracleoftheradicalgospelwithinthescopeoftwoverses:

AndtheLordsaid,“Callhisname,‘Notmypeople,’foryouarenotmypeopleandIamnotyourGod.”Yetthenumberofthepeopleof

126

Israelshallbelikethesandofthesea,whichcanbeneithermeasurednornumbered;andintheplacewhereitwassaidtothem,“Youarenotmypeople,”itshallbesaidtothem,“sonsofthelivingGod”(Hos1:9–10).

“Inasituationwhichnolongeroffersanypresuppositionsforthecontinuationofsalvation-history[theseverses]setapeople,brokenheartedandhopeless,beforethefutureofthepeopleofGodaspromisedtoAbraham.”15

ThevoicethatisheardinthestoryofthefoundlinggirlinEzekiel16isnotanisolatedoneintheOldTestament;butitisaparticularlypoignantone.ThebeginningsofJerusalemarepicturedintheimageofthefoundlinggirlchild,leftlyinginaditchandwelteringinherblood;nooneregardedherortookpityonherexcepttheLord,whosaid:“Live,andgrowuplikeaplantinthefield”(16:6–7).Eichrodtpermitshimselfaseriousplayonwords,afterthemanneroftheprophets,incommentingonthispassage:“ThecityofGod,andwithitthepeopleofGod,owesitsbareexistencetoanactofgrace,onethathasnobasisinanyexcellenceoractivityoftherecipientofthatgrace.”16ThelittlegirlgrowsupandbecomesthebrideoftheLORD:“Iplightedmytrothtoyouandenteredintoacovenantwithyou,saystheLordGOD,andyoubecamemine”(16:8).Thebrideturnsharlot:“Youtrustedinyourbeautyandplayedtheharlot…andlavishedyourharlotriesonanypasser-by”(16:15).Theharlotisjudged:“Iwilldealwithyouasyouhavedone,whohavedespisedtheoathinbreakingthecovenant”(16:59);andbyrightsthestoryendsthere.Butthestorydoesnotendthere,andtheterriblestoryisgos-pelafterall.Thebride-turned-harlotmayforget,buttheLORDdoesnotforget:“YetIwillremembermycovenantwithyouinthedaysofyouryouth,andIwillestablishwithyouaneverlastingcovenant….Iwillestablishmycovenantwithyou,andyoushallknowthatIamtheLORD,thatyoumayrememberandbecon-founded,andneveropenyourmouthagainbecauseofyourshame,when I forgive you all thatyouhavedone”(16:60,62–63).

HabakkukisconfrontedwithahistorywhichthreatenstheveryexistenceofthepeopleofGod,ahistorywhosefearfullyjudgmentalworkingsconfronttheprophetwithanagonizingenigma.Inafeverofanxietyhemountshistowerand“looksforth”forananswerfromhisGod.Andlo!thisGodofinescapablejudg-mentisstilltheGodinwhomfaithcanholdfirm,inspiteofallenigmas(2:4),theGodwhosepastactionforhispeopleisthesurestpledgeforthefuture:

ThouwentestforthforthesalvationofThypeople,forthesalvationofThyanointed(3:13).

ThefirstfruitsoftheredemptiveactionofthisGodisseeninthefaithoftheprophethimself,whoseesallthepalpableblessingsandsustainingcomfortsofGod’sreignsweptaway—theproduceoffigtree,vine,andolive,thegiftsoffield,fold,andstall,allgone—andcansing:


YetIwillrejoiceintheLORD,IwilljoyintheGodofmysalvation.GOD,theLord,ismystrength;Hemakesmyfeetlikehinds’feet,Hemakesmetreaduponmyhighplaces(3:18–19).

NosamplingoftheOldTestament,evenasketchyonesuchastheabovehasbeen,mayinfairnessignorethequestionposedbytheWisdomliterature.IsthereapositiveandorganictiebetweenthisportionoftheOldTestamentproc-lamationandtheradicalgospel?IstheLutheranresbroadenoughtocoverthis“pedestrian,”“prudential,”“derivative”segment,orfringe,oftheOldTestamentmessage?Wedowelltorecallthat,accordingtothewitnessofProverbs,“thewisemanisaslittlewiseinandofhimselfastherighteousmanisrighteousinandofhimself.”17Wisdomis“atreeoflife,”plantedbynohumanhand(Prv3:18).IthasitsbeginningandbasisinthefearoftheLord(Prv1:7;9:10),inthatunconditionalsurrendertoGodsogrippinglydocumentedinthehistoryofAbraham,whenhestoodreadytosacrificethesononwhomthepromisehung(Gn22).Wisdomexpressesitself,therefore,intrustintheLord(Prv3:5;14:26–27;16:3;18:10);andthewisemenofIsraeldonotevadethecorollarythattheymustconsequentlydis-trustthemselves(Prv3:5b).OneofthewisemenwhosevoiceisheardinProverbs,Agur,beginshisdiscoursewiththestartlingstatement:“SurelyIamtoostupidtobeaman”(Prv30:2).Andthis“vitalartofthemasteryoflife”iscapableof“liq-uidatingitself”whenitcomestotheboundaryofGod’swhollyincalculablegover-nanceofhistory:

Nowisdom,nounderstanding,nocounselCanavailagainsttheLORDThehorseismadereadyforthedayofbattle,butthevictorybelongstotheLORD(Prv21:30).

Andyet,thisknowledgethatwisdomislimitedbythesovereignswayofGoddoesnotissueinamelancholyresignationorinatragicsenseofthefutilityofexistence;rather,manisto“hearthewordsofthewise”andapplyhismindtoknowledge,inorderthathis“trustmaybeintheLORD”(Prv22:17,19).18

InthepluralmelodyoftheOldTestament,wisdomstandsinacontrapuntalrelationshiptothecantus firmusoftheradicalgospel.

IntheNewTestamentthemenoftheReformationheardtheradicalgospelmostclearlyinPaul;itisnoaccidentthatthefirstpassagecitedintheAugsburgConfession(ortheSmalcaldArticles)isapassagefromPaul.Buttheywerenotproclaimingapeculiarly“Pauline”gospel;theyclaimedthewholeNewTestament,alloftheScriptures,aswitnessestothisgospel,asisclearbothfromtheiractualcitationsandfromtheirdebonairandsweepingassertionsthattheyhaveallScripturesontheirsideandreallyhavenoneedtociteparticularpassages.

128

Andtheyhavegoodcausefortheirhighconfidence;fromJohntheBaptisttoJohntheProphetofPatmostheradicalgospelistheonepersistentandunifyingthemeoftheNewTestament.WhentheBaptistproclaimsaradical,exception-less,andimminentwrathofGodonmanasman,awrathfromwhichnosonsofAbraham,nopriestlyaristocracy,andnometiculouspietistsareexempted,andthenpointstothewaywhichGodhasopenedupbyabaptismofrepentanceandforrepentance,fortheremissionofsins,whenhepointstotheMightierOnewhoburnschaff,tobesure,butalsogatherswinnowedgrainintoGod’sbarnsandbap-tizesmenwiththecreativeSpirit—thatisradicalgospel;hisdemandthatmenbearfruitthatbefitsrepentanceisnomerestrenuousmoralismbutaproclamationofanewpossibilitycreatedbytheredemptivewillandworkofGod.

WhentheFourthGospelproclaimsthatGodlovedtheworld,lovedmankindinanorganizedsolidarityofoppositiontohimself,mankindunderthedomina-tionoftheliarandkiller(thecompleteantithesisto“graceandtruth”),theprinceofthisworld;whenGodisproclaimedastheGodwhosentthelightoftheworldtoshineonmenwholivedindarknessandlovedthatdarkness,andsoopensupafutureinwhichmenmaybecomesonsoflightandmaywalkintheLight—thatisradicalgospel.

WhenthewitnessesinActsproclaim,toallsortsandconditionsofmen,inJewryandtotheendsoftheearth,thatone“nameunderheavengivenamongmenbywhichwemustbesaved,”whentheLord’smessengersturnmen“fromdarknesstolightandfromthepowerofSatantoGod,thattheymayreceiveforgivenessofsins”—thatisradicalgospel.

WhenJamesexposesmanasproducingfromhisnativeconcupiscencethatwhichleadsthroughsintodeath(withtheinevitabilityofconception,gestation,andbirth)—andthenconfrontsmanwiththegoodgiverGodwhobringsforth,ofhisownwill,anewmantobethebeginningandpledgeofarenewedcreation;whenJamesconfrontsmanwiththeGodwhochoosesthebeggarandmakeshimrichandanheirofhiskingdom;whenheconfrontsman,doomedbyhisowndemonicwisdom,withawisdomfromonhighthathasonitthemarksoftheChristandproducesaharvestofrighteousness—thatisradicalgospel.

WhentheProphetonPatmosweepsbecausenooneisfoundinalltheuni-versetoanswerthestrongangel’schallenge,“Whoisworthytoopenthescrollandbreakitsseals?”;whenheseeshimself,mankind,andalltheworldwithoutafutureandwithouthope,doomedinthepresenceoftheircreatorandjudge;whenitisgivenhimtobeholdtheLionofJudahandtheRootofDavid,who“hascon-quered,sothathecanopenthescrollanditssevenseals,”andtohearthejubilantacclaimofallthecompanyofheavenandofeverycreatureinheaven,earth,andsea—thentheradicalgospelisbeingproclaimed.

Exegesishaslongoccupieditselfwithpointingupthe“varietiesofNewTestamentreligion”and,ratherpedantically,positinginconcinnitiesandcontradic-


tionswithintheNewTestament.Thereversalofthatprocessislongoverdue;andtheLutheranConfessionscanhelpusfindandreallyhearthecantus firmusinitswondrousandchallengingpluralmelody.

THESIS VI ThevalidityofthisConfessionalresbecomesmanifestwhenitiscontrastedwithotherres(notinthemselveswrongbutinsufficientlycontouredandcoloured).

Otherreshavebeenproposedandpraisedas“openingthedoortotheentireBible”andasthekeytoitsinterpretation.ThesovereigntyofGodisonesuch.Thisisavalidbiblicalemphasis;theGodproclaimedintheBibleissovereignbothinjudgmentandgrace—mancannotevadehisjudgment,andmandarenottriflewithhisgrace.AnditisaLutheranaccent;Lutherlikedthephrase,“Thehighmaj-estyofGodhasspokenit.”TheFirstArticleoftheAugsburgConfessionspeaksofGod’s immensa potestas.Andthe

Confessions’teachingonoriginalsin,forexample,isamarvelousprostrationbeforethesovereignjudicatureofGod.ButtosaythatGodissomethingdoesnotsettheinterpreterfreeforthewholemessageoftheBible,fortheBiblesaysmore;itsaysthatheisacting.The“is”statementinvitessystematicrationalization;ifthisishowheis,howmightheact?Theradical-gospelstatementbegins—andends—withthehardnonmalleablefactofhowhehasactedandisacting.Onecannotgoonfromheretoagemina praedestinatio,andonecanbowbeforemysteries.

Anotherpopularres,“theGodwhoacts,”hastheadvantageofremovingtheGodofAbraham,Isaac,andJacobfromthecategoryoftheGodofthephi-losophers,andembodiesagenuinelyBiblicalemphasis.Butinsaying,“Heisuptosomething,”itdoesnotyetexpressthecolorandcontouroftheGodoftheBible,concerningwhomtheLutheranrestellsmeexplicitly,andtruly:“Heisseekingyou.”

“Self-disclosureofGod,”muchusedindiscussionsofrevelation,hastheadvantageofstressingthepersonalcharacterofGod’sdealingswithman;buttheconcretenatureofthosedealingsremainsunexpressed.Onemightquestionalsothevalidityoftheideaof“self-disclosure”asadesignationfortherevelationwhichactuallytakesplaceintheBible;thatrevelation,asGloegehaspointedout,islessmystically-immediateandmore“refracted”thantheterm“self”wouldleadonetoexpect.19TheLutheranreswillnotpermittheinterpretertolosehimselfinacon-templationofGod’s“self”;itdriveshiminexorablytotheBiblicaldataconcerningtheGodwhohasspoken,acted,andbecomeincarnate,theGodwhoshalljudgemankindandtransfigurehisfallenworld.

Whatof“verballyinspired,infallibleWord”?ThisisbiblicalandLutheranandnottobesurrendered.Butitdoesnotsayenough:itdoesnotinitselfsaytheessentialthing.Itsays:“TheWordofGodisanarrowwithaperfecttipandashaft

130

withoutflaw,check,orblemish,featheredandbalancedasnootherarrowis;thereisnoarrowlikeitunderthesun.”TheLutheranressays:“Thisperfectarrowisaimedatyou;itwillkillyou,inorderthatyoumaylive.”TheLutheranreswillnotpermitthechurchtobecomeaSocietyforthePreservationofthePerfectArrow.

TheLutheranressubsumesallthatisgoodandtrueintheotherresthathavebeenproposed;anditputstheminarightrelationtothecentralres—andsoputsthemtoworkad maiorem Dei gloriam.

THESIS VII Thisresdoesjusticetoboththetheologicalandthecraftsmanlyaspectsofinterpretation.ItleavestheinterpreteropentoboththeoverwhelmingdivinumandthetoughhumanumofScripture.Theconnectionbetweentheresandtheverbaisanorganicconnection.

ThewayofGodattestedbyScripture,asinterpretedinthelightoftheConfessionalres,issui generis.ItstandsinsharpcontrasttoallhumanlydevisedwaysofbringingmanbacktohisGod.

Thesanctificationofconductbythestrengtheningofthewill;thesanctificationoftheemotionsbyastrenuoustrainingofthesoul;thesanctificationofthoughtbyadeepeningoftheunderstanding:moral-ism,mysticism,speculation,thesearethethreeladdersonwhichmencontinuallyseektoclimbuptoGod,withapersistentpurposethatitseemsnothingcancheck;astormingofHeaventhatisjustaspatheticinitsunceasingeffortsasinitsfinalfutility.20

ThereforetheScriptureis sui generis;anditsuniquenessasradicalgospelbecomesmoreandmoreapparentasitisseeninitsculturalandhistoricalsetting,withallthe“parallels”thatthissettingpresents.SinceitisuniquelytheproductofGod’sHolySpiritatworkinhistory,manneedstheSpiritinordertointerpretit—andtheSpiritis“available”foritsinterpretation,atworkinit,sothatScriptureinter-pretsitself.UndertheafflatusoftheSpirittheinterpreterseesevermoreclearly,witheyesoftheheartenlightened,thatthesewritingsareindeedthe“fountainsofIsrael,”fromwhichGod’speoplemaydrinkandlive,thatthepropheticandapos-tolicwritingsaretobe“receivedandembraced,”thattheinterpreterisinnoposi-tiontojudgethembutisjudgedbythem,aseveryteacherandallteachingmustbe:“Scripturalegiturcumcredendinecessitate:aliorumscriptalegunturcumiudicandilibertate.”21(Selnecker)

ThisConfessionalresleavestheinterpreteropentotheoverwhelmingdivi-numofScripture;ifhereadsScriptureasquintessentiallyradicalgospel,hemovesinthepresenceofGodalways.Butthisdoesnot,oratleastneednot,leadtoadouble-trackexegesis,onetheologicalandanotherhistorico-grammatical.Justwhen


theinterpreterisopentotheradicalgospel,heisopentothetoughhumanumofScripture;forthewayofGodtowhichtheScriptureasradicalgospelwitnessesisthewayoftheservant,historical,verbal,incarnational.TheLordGodmovesinhistory,ontheground,amidthecollisionsofnations.HedealswithPharaohandTiglath-PilezerandPontiusPilateandDomitian.AndtheLordGoddoesnothingwithoutrevealinghissecrettohisservantstheprophets;heannounces,interprets,andrecallshismightyactswithpenetratingloquacity.Hisultimate,eschatologicalWordistheWordmadeflesh,awholeyeatothecreatedworldanditshistory.Ifwetaketheradicalgospelseriously,wemusttakelanguageandhistoryseriously.

“Radicalgospel”isnoholyshortcutinexegesis.Itwillnotautomaticallyanswerallthehistoricalquestionsposedbythetexts.Norwillitsettlehoti’sbusi-ness.Butitdoesprovidethehighestincentivefordoingthehistoricalworkfaith-fully(andreverently!)andfordoingthegrammaticalworkmeticulously(“meticu-lously”hastherootmetus,fear,init,beitnoted).TheverynatureoftheradicalgospelimpelstheinterpretertoworkwithallresourcesthatGodhasputathisdisposal.Whenheparsesoutthesewords,heknows:Tua res agitur.

Theradical-gospelorientationgivestheinterpreterlighttoworkby;hecanseeboththepartandthewholeandtheirrelationshiptoeachother.Hewillbelikethestonecutterwho,beingaskedwhathewasupto,answerednot,“Iamdressingastone,”andnot,“Iamhelpingbuildacathedral,”but,“IamglorifyingGod.”

Andtheradical-gospelorientationwillgivehimfreedom,freedomtoheartheindividualtextinitsindividuality,tohearjustthisvoiceinitscloserormoreremotecontrapuntalrelationshiptothecantus firmuswhicheverringsinhisears;freedomtoexaminewithcomposure,toevaluate,toutilizecriticallywhatevertech-niquesormaterialsarediscoveredorrediscoveredinthecourseoftheBible’sprog-ressthroughhistory.

Inaword,theradical-gospelorientationleavestheinterpreteropentotheusefulness,theprofitablenesswhichPaulmarksasthedistinguishingqualityoftheinspiredword.Andthisisthemostimportantpointofall;forifinterpretationdoesnotleadtoandserveproclamation,itisasoundingbrassandatinklingcymbal—andthepercussionsectionintheecclesiasticalorchestraisalreadydisproportion-atelylarge.

Thisorientationpromisestoletusgetatthelifeofthetext;weshallnolon-gerbepreachingedifyinganecdoteslardedwithmorals,andweshallbeabletoseebeyondoursnublittlehistoricalnosesindealingwithprophecyandfulfillment.ItpromisesthatweshallgetattheheartofGod’speople;ourheartswillburnwithinus,andfirehasawayofcatchingandspreading.Witharenewedreligiousapprecia-tionoftheWord,weshallbeenabledtogetattheconscienceoftheworld:“Bytheopenstatementofthetruthwewouldcommendourselvestoeveryman’scon-scienceinthesightofGod”(2Cor4:2).

132

Endnotes1“Unlessoneunderstandsthethingsunderdiscussion,onecannotmakesenseofthewords.”

Hereafterreswillbeusedfor“subjectmatter,” verbafor“words.”2SeeKurtFrör,Biblische Hermeneutik (Munich:Chr.KaiserVerlag,1961),pp.55–56.3Frör,p.61.4SeeG.Ebeling,“Hermeneutik,”RGG,3ded.,Vol.III,col.251:“Thebeginningsof

Luther’shermeneuticsaremostintimatelyconnectedwiththegenesisofhistheology.Thechangeintotaltheologicalunderstanding,ontheonehand,andinthetheoryofunderstanding,ontheother,hereintermeshinahighlycomplicatedfashion.”“Onecangrasptheepoch-makingcharacteroftheeffectoftheReformationinthehistoryofhermeneuticsonlywhenoneenvisagesnotmerelythetechnicalquestionsofmethodbutthewholesweepoftheproblemofunderstanding….”(Translationmyown.)

5Morphologie des Luthertums(Munich:C.H.Beck’scheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1931)I,167.6ThehermeneuticalconcernitselfismoreexplicitlystatedinFormulaofConcord,Solid

Declaration,V,1:“ThedistinctionbetweenLawandGospelisanespeciallybrilliantlightwhichservesthepurposethattheWordofGodmayberightlydividedandthewritingsoftheholyprophetsandapostlesmaybeexplainedandunderstoodcorrectly.”

7“Radical”is,ofcourse,usedinthesenseoffundamental,basic,goingtotheroot.8“SomeThoughtsontheTheologicalPresuppositionsforaLutheranApproachtothe

Scriptures”inAspects of Biblical Hermeneutics,CONCORDIATHEOLOGICALMONTHLYOccasionalPapersNo.1(St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1966),pp.10–14.

9Toavoidanypossiblemisunderstanding,itmaybenotedthat“may”signifies“ispermittedandenabledbyGod”and“must”indicatesthatthereisnosecondway.

10ApologyIV,314.11Theology of the Lutheran Confessions,tr.P.F.KoehnekeandH.J.A.Bouman(Philadelphia:

MuhlenbergPress,1961),pp.106–7.12Thethird“radical”inthe“radicalgospel”complex—thetransformationofman’sexis-

tence—hasnotbeenexplicitlydocumentedinthefollowing,sinceitissoobviousinthepropheticcalltorepentanceandthepropheticinterpretationofhistory.

13M.Noth,asquotedinH.W.Wolff,“DasKerygmadesDeuteronomistischenGeschichtswerks,”Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament(Munich:Chr.KaiserVerlag,1964),p.309.

14Wolff,p.314;seealsop.315:“Itisnottotalapostasythatmakesjudgmentdefinitivebutcontemptforthecalltorepentance.”

15H.Frey,Das Buch des Werbens Gottes um Seine Kirche(Stuttgart:CalwerVerlag,1964),pp.25–26.

16Der Prophet Hesekiel,ATD22/1(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1959),p.122.17O.Weber,Bibelkunde des Alten Testaments,9thed.(Hamburg:FurcheVerlag,1961),p.330.

Translationmyown.18SeevonRad,Theologie des Alten Testaments,I(Munich:Chr.KaiserVerlag,1962)pp.453–

454,andProv.16:9;19:21;21:2;20:24.19G.Gloege,“Offenbarung,”inRGG,3ded.,Vol.IV,col.1611.20AdolfKöberle,The Quest for Holiness,tr.J.C.Mattes(Minneapolis:AugsburgPublishing

House,1938),p.2.21“WhenwereadScripture,wemustbelieve;whenwereadthewritingsofothers,wearefree

topassjudgmentuponthem.”


TheNewTestamentCanonintheLutheranDogmaticians

J.A.O.Preus,II

J. A. O. Preus, II (1920–1994) was president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois (1962–1969) and president of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (1969–1981). Special thanks to the editors of Concordia Theological Quarterly, successor to The Springfielder, for permis-sion to reprint this article from The Springfielder, vol. 25, no. 1 (1961),pp. 8–33.

OurpurposeistostudytheteachingsoftheLutherandogmaticiansintheperiodoforthodoxyinregardtothecanonoftheNewTestament,specificallytheircriteriaofcanonicity.Inordertoseethedogmaticiansintheirhistoricalsetting,weshallfirstseekanoverviewoftheteachingsofRenaissanceCatholicism,Luther,andReformedregardingcanon.Second,weshallconsidertheearlydogmaticiansofLutheranismwhowroteonthebackgroundoftheCouncilofTrent.Third,weshallconsiderthelaterLutherandogmaticianstosetthedirectioninwhichthesubjectfinallydeveloped.

I. The BackgroundIn397A.D.theThirdCouncilofCarthageborewitnesstothecanonof

theNewTestamentasweknowittoday.Augustinewaspresent,andacquiesced,althoughweknowfromhiswritings(e.g.De Doctrina Christiana II.12)thathemadeadistinctionbetweenantilegomenaandhomolegoumena.TheCouncilwasheldduringtheperiodofJerome’sgreatestactivity,andhisuseandgeneralrecom-mendationofthe27NewTestamentbooksinsuredtheiracceptanceandrecogni-tionthroughouttheWesternChurchfromthistimeon.Jerome,however,also,itmustbenoted,hadhisdoubtsabouttheantilegomena.WiththeexceptionoftheinclusionandlaterexclusionofthespuriousEpistletotheLaodiceansincertainWesternBiblesduringtheMiddleAges,thematterofNewTestamentCanonwassettledfromCarthageIIIuntiltheRenaissance.

TheRenaissancebeganwithinRomanCatholicism.Spainhadanearlyflow-eringofhumanismuntilitwascutoffbytheInquisitionwhichwasintroducedduringthereignofFerdinandandIsabella.Duringthisperiodofintellectualactiv-ityinSpain,CardinalXimenesbeganin1502andcompletedin1522hisfamousComplutensianPolyglotBible,inwhichhedistinguishesbetweenthecanonicalandapocryphalbooksintheOldTestament,notingthatthelatterwerenotinHebrewandhencelackedanessentialelementofcanonicity.Erasmus,whopub-lishedthefirsteditionofhisGreekNewTestamentin1516,dedicatedtoPopeLeo

134

X,alsoraisestheissueoftheauthorshipofHebrews,James,Jude,2and3John,andRevelation,andquotesJeromeashisauthority.ErasmuswascensuredbytheSorbonnein1526inastatementwhichsaid,“Thoughformerlysomehavedoubtedabouttheauthorsofparticularbooks,yet afterthechurchhasreceivedthemforuniversaluseunderthenamesofcertainauthorsandhasapprovedthemwiththisdefinition,itisnotrightforaChristiantodoubtthefactorcallitintoquestion.”lButErasmus’sinfluencespreadinbothRomanandProtestantcircles.AmongtheRomanistswhosharedtheseopinionswasCardinalCajetan,theopponentofLutheratAugsburgin1518.CajetaninhisCommentary on All the Authentic HistoricalBooks of the Old Testament, publishedin1532anddedicatedtoPopeClementVII,asserts“ThewholeLatinChurchowesverymuchtoSt.Jerome…onaccountofhisseparationofthecanonicalfromtheuncanonicalbooks.”2HealsosaysinregardtoHebrews,citingJeromeagainashisauthority,“Astheauthorofthisepis-tleisdoubtfulintheopinionofJerome,theepistleisalsorendereddoubtful,sinceunlessitisPaul’sitisnotclearthatitiscanonical.”3Cajetandieduncensured,butCatharinus,aparticipantintheCouncilofTrent,laterbitterlyattackedhim.

Thus,whenLutherin1522publishedhisGermanNewTestamentwithitsmuch-quotedstricturesonHebrews,James,JudeandRevelation,hewasre-echoingsomerathercommon,thoughnew,thinkingoftheperiod.Inotherwords,ifTrenthadnotcondemnedLuther,hisviewsperhapswouldhavegonelargelyunnoticed.Lutherrejectedthesebookspartlyonthebasisofhistoricalprecedentandpartlyonthebasisofhisownrathersubjectivecriterionofcanonicity,namely,theirseeminglackofwitnesstoChrist.Lutherneverleftthe“gateofheaven”hehadfoundwheninRomans1:17hediscoveredthemeaningoftherighteousnessofGodandthatChristwasnotahatefuljudgebutalovingSavior.ThisgreatexperiencechangedhisentireattitudetowardtheBible.Itmadehimlovethescripture;hefoundChristoneverypage,butitgavehimacertainsubjectivitywhichopenedhimtoacriti-cismwhichhisfollowerswereoftenatpainstoexcuse.Itisnoteworthy,however,thatLutheracceptedthepositionoftheancientchurchregardingtheauthentic-ityandauthorityofthehomologoumena.Heattackedsomeoftheantilegomena,butapparentlyonslightlydifferentgroundsthantheearlychurchandhisRomancontemporariesdid.ItissignificantthathiscriterionofwitnesstoChristbecameastandard,thoughnotsolecriterion,amonghisfollowers,especiallywithregardtotheOldTestament,evenamongthosewhodidnotsharehisstrongviewsontheantilegomena.

In1520AndreasKarlstadt,atthetimeassociatedwithLutherinWittenberg,publishedaworkentitled“OntheCanonicalScriptures.”InitheclassifiedthebooksoftheBibleintothreecategories:1)thePentateuchandthefourgospels,“theclearestluminariesofthewholedivinetruth;”2)theOldTestamentprophetsandtheacknowledgedepistlesoftheNewTestament,namely,thirteenofPaul,oneofPeter,oneofJohn;and3)theOldTestamenthagiagraphaandthesevenNew


Testamentantilegomena.Herecognizesthatthechurchcollectedandratifiedthebooks,butgrantsmennopowertogivethescriptureitsauthority.Heregardsallofthesebooksasaboveallothers,“beyondallsuspicionoferror.”4

TheReformedwerelessinterestedinthequestionofCanonthanweretheLutherans.ZwingliseemstohavesaidverylittleexceptthathedidnotregardRevelationas“abookoftheBible.”5Oecolampadiusacceptedthe27books,butsaid,“wedonotcomparetheApocalypse,theEpistlesofJames,ofJude,and2Peterand2and3Johnwiththerest.”6Calvinappearstohavehadvirtuallythesameopinion,recognizingadifferencebutacceptingall27books.Bezain1564indedicatinghiseditionoftheGreekNewTestamentstillrecognizesthedistinctionbetweenhomologoumenaandantilegomena,butheminimizesit.

ThuswecansummarizethethinkingoftheearlyReformationperiodonCanonasbeingareturntothemoreflexiblepositionoftheearlychurchbeforeCarthageIII.TheRenaissancewithitsrestudyofantiquity,theincreaseofinter-estinGreekmanuscripts,theinfluxofeasternthought,andthespiritofrebellionagainsttheimmediatepastandtheshacklesofpopery,allcombinedtoproduceintheRenaissanceman,Luther,Calvin,andtheirearlydisciples,aswellasthosehumanistswhostayedwithRome,anattitudeofindependenceandself-assertionwhichshoweditselfintheirattitudetowardCanon,aswellastowardmanyotherthings.

ThencameTrent.OnApril8,1546,lessthantwomonthsafterLutherdied,“thesacredandholyecumenicalandgeneralSynodofTrent”pronouncedtheanathemaonanyandallwhorejectedthe39canonicalbooksoftheOldTestament,theApocryphaoftheOldTestament,andthe27booksoftheNewTestamentCanon.ItalsoanathematizedthosewhorejectedtheLatinVulgateasthetrueandpropertranslation.

ThisdecreewasRome’sanswertoLuther.IntheirdesiretocondemnLutherandeverythinghesaid,theRomanprelatesalsocondemnedtheirownmen,notonlyErasmus,Cajetan,andXimenes,but,asChemnitzpointsout,alsoEusebius,Origen,andJerome.This,however,seemednottobotherTrent.ItisnoteworthythatthesubjectofcanoninCatholicismhasbeenvirtuallyadeadissueeversincethistime.

II. The Early Period of Lutheran OrthodoxyTheCouncilofTrentproducednotonlyaseriesofdecrees,butitalsocre-

atedagroupofdevoteesandopponentswhospentthenextseveralyearsevaluat-ingtheCouncilanditswork.ThechiefopponentamongtheLutheranswasMartinChemnitz,1522–1592,whointheyears1565to1573producedwhatSchmidcalls“theablestdefenseofProtestantismeverpublished,”7theExamenConcilii Tridentini. InhisfirstLocus,onscripture,8ChemnitzattacksthedecreeofApril8,1546,formakingtheVulgatevirtuallythenormativeBible,andparticularlyforarrogating

136

tothechurchtherighttoestablishthecanonandgrantauthoritytoscripture.ChemnitzshowsthattheBibleissufficientandinspired,withoutthetraditionsofthechurchandpapalpronouncements.HeshowstherelationshipbetweenthetwoTestamentsandpointsoutthattheentirescripturetestifiestoChrist,thusfol-lowingLuther.Hethen considersthebooksoftheNewTestamentindividually,astotheirauthorsandorigin,indicatingthatheconsidersitofgreatimportancethattheauthorsareknownasmenwhowerepersonalwitnessesofthematterstheyrelate.Thisbringshimtothematterofcanon,whichheintroduceswiththreequestions:1)“Whatdoestheterm‘canonical’mean,”and“howdoesthenameconfirmwhatwehavesaidregardingtheauthority,perfectionandsufficiencyofscripture?”2)“Bywhomandhowhasthecanonofscripturebeenestablished,orfromwhencedoesscripturehaveitsauthority?”and3)“Whicharethecanoni-calandwhichtheapocryphalbooks?”InanswertothefirstquestionChemnitzshowsthederivationofthetermanditsuseinthefathers.InreplytothesecondhetakesvehementexceptiontotheTridentineopinionthatscripturederivesitsauthorityfromthechurch.“Thepapistssaythatscripturehasthatauthorityfromthechurch,whichPighiusinterpretstomeanthatinsomedegreetheauthorityofthechurchissuperiortothatofscripture,sinceindeedtheauthorityofthechurchhasimpartedcanonicalauthoritytocertainscriptures,andespeciallytothosewhichdonothaveitofthemselvesorfromtheirauthors.Otherssaythattheauthorityofthechurchissofarabovescripturethatthechurchcouldrejectgospelsbyapostles,suchasthosewrittenbyMatthias,James,Bartholomew,Thomas,Philip,Peter,andAndrew;andagaincouldimpartcanonicalauthoritytothosewhichwerewrittenbyMarkandLuke,whowerenotapostles,butwhoLindanussayshadformerlybeenapostates,suchasthosewhodefectedfromChristinthe6thchapterofJohn.Therearethosewhodonotfeartoblasphemethedivinelyinspiredholyscriptureandsaythatifthechurchshouldwithdrawitsauthorityfromscripture,itwouldnothavemorevalueofitselfthanthefablesofAesop…Therefore,scripturehasitspre-eminentauthorityprincipallyfromthisthatitisdivinelyinspired,2Timothy3,thatis,thatitcamenotbythewillofmen,butholymenofGodspokeandwroteastheyweremovedbytheHolyGhost,2Peter1.Inorderthatthiswholeneces-sarymattermaybeabsolutelycertaininthefaceofalldeceptions,Godchosecer-taindefinitemenforwritingandornamentedthemwithmanymiraclesanddivinetestimonies,sothattherewouldbenodoubtthatthosethingswhichtheywroteweredivinelyinspired…AndastheancientchurchinthetimeofMoses,Joshuaandtheprophets,soalsotheprimitivechurchinthetimeoftheapostles,couldtes-tifyofacertaintyastowhichscripturesweredivinelyinspired.ForshehadknowntheauthorswhomGodhadcommendedtothechurchbyspecialtestimonies,forshehadknownwhichwerethosewhichhadbeenwrittenbythem,andfromthosethingswhichshehadreceivedbytraditionorallyfromtheapostlesshecouldjudgethatthosethingswhichhadbeenwrittenwerethesamedoctrinewhichtheapostles


handeddownorally.ThusJohn21.Thewitnessoftheapostlesandthewitnessofthechurchwerejoined…Therefore,thescripturehascanonicalauthorityprin-cipallyfromtheHolySpiritbywhoseimpulseandinspirationitwasproduced,Secondly,fromthewriterstowhomGodhimselfshoweddefiniteandspecialtesti-moniesofthetruth.Afterward,ithasauthorityfromtheprimitivechurch,asfromawitnessinwhosetimethosethingswerewrittenandapproved.”9

ChemnitzgoesontoindicatethatthecanonoftheOldTestamentcanbedeterminedbytheusageoftheOldTestamentintheNewTestament.Theestab-lishmentoftheNewTestamentCanonhedescribesasfollows,“Johnsawthewritingsofthethreeevangelistsandapprovedthem.Paulsignedhisepistleswithhisspecialsignature;Petersawthemandcommendedthemtothechurch.Johnaddedtohisownwritingsthetestimonybothofhimselfandofthechurch.FornothingotherthanapostolicauthorityisrequiredthatintheNewTestamentitbeprovedthatacertainwritingiscanonicalordivinelyinspired.”10HequotesfromJeromethestoryofthedeaconwhowasdeposedforhavingforgedthestoryofPaulandThecla.Thepresenceofthenon-apostolicallywrittenMarkandLukeheexplainsbyquotingAugustinewhosays,“Authoritywasgrantedtocertainmenwhofollowedthefirstapostlesnotonlytopreach,butalsotowrite.”AgainhequotesAugustine,“Theywroteintheperiodwhentheyhadopportunityofbeingapprovedbytheapostlesthemselveswhowerestillalive.”ChemnitzcontinuesbycitingEusebius’sthreeranksofwritings:“…thefirstofthesearethosewhichareneitherfraudulentnordoubtful,whichhaveuncontradictedtestimonyandarelegit-imate,universal,andsureaccordingtotheconfessionofallthechurches.Hemakesasecondorderofthosewritingsaboutwhichtherehadbeendoubtastowhethertheyhadactuallybeenwrittenandpublishedbythoseapostleswhosenamesandtitletheybear,writingswhichhavebeenspokenagainstbytheconflictingwitnessoftheprimitivechurch,butwhichhavebeenusedandreadbymanychurchmen,asnotunuseful.Andasthoseofthefirstrankhavebeencalledcanonicalandcatholic,sothoseofthesecondrankarecalledhagiagrapha,ecclesiastical,andbyJerome,apocryphal.Andyetsoaccurateadistinctionhasbeenmadewithsuchsalutarycare,thatthecanonmightbesureandtheruleoffaithordoctrinecertaininthechurch,sothatthey,asCypriansays,mightknowfromwhatfountainsofthewordofGodtheymustfilltheircups.Regardingtheapocryphalorecclesiasticalbooksofthesecondrank,Jeromesays,‘Thechurchreadsthesefortheedificationofthepeople,butnottoconfirmtheauthorityofchurchdoctrines.’Again,‘Theirauthorityisregardedaslesssuitableforsettlingmatterswhichcomeintocontro-versy.’”11

Chemnitzsumsuphisargumentasfollows,“Nowthequestionis:1)whetherthechurchwhichsucceededthatprimitiveandmostancientchurchorthechurchofthepresentcanmakeauthenticthosewritingswhichinthiswayhavebeenrejectedanddisapproved,andmanifestlyitcannot.2)Whetherthechurch

138

canrejectanddisapprovethosewritingswhichhavesureandcertaintestimonyastotheirauthorshipfromthewitnessofthefirstchurch.AndIdonotthinkany-onewouldsaythis.3)Thusthethirdquestioniswhetherthosewritingsconcern-ingwhichtheancientchurchwasindoubtbecauseoftheobjectionsofsome,yeabecausethetestimoniesoftheprimitivechurchdonotagreeaboutthem,whether,Isay,thepresentchurchcanmakethosewritingscanonical,universalandequaltothoseofthefirstrank?Thepapistsnotonlyarguethattheycandothis,butinfacthavetakenthisauthority,completelydisregardingthenecessarydistinc-tionoftheprimitiveandancientchurchbetweencanonicalbooksandapocryphalorecclesiasticalbooks.Butitisabsolutelyplainfromwhathasbeensaidthatthechurchinnowayhasthatauthority,forbythesamereasoningitcouldeitherrejectcanonicalbooksorcanonizeadulteratedones.Forthiswholematter,aswehavesaid,dependsuponsuretestimoniesofthechurchwhichexistedinthetimeoftheapostles,andwhenithadbeenaccepted,theimmediatelysucceedingchurchpre-serveditbymeansofdefinitehistoricalevidencewhichwasworthyofcredence.Therefore,whendefinitedocumentationoftheprimitiveandancientchurchcan-notbesuppliedfromthewitnessoftheancientswholivedshortlyafterthetimeoftheapostles,thatthosebooksaboutwhichtherewascontroversywerewithoutcontradictionsanddoubtandwereacceptedaslegitimateandcertainandcom-mendedtothechurch,nohumandecreecanalterthefact…Pighiusrepliesthatthechurchhastheauthoritythatitcanimpartcanonicalauthoritytocertainbookswhichdonothaveitofthemselvesorfromtheirauthors.TheycouldthusevenimpartthatauthoritytoAesop’sfablesorthestoriesofLucian.NotthatIwouldwantthosecontrovertedbookstobecomparedwithAesop’sfables(forwithCyprianandJeromeIattributetothemthehonorablepositionwhichtheyalwayshadintheancientchurch)butforthesakeofthelogicofthematter,Iwanttoshowthatinadisputeoverthebooksofscripture,thechurchdoesnothavethepowertomaketruebooksoutoffalseones,orfalseoutoftrue,outofuncertainanddubiousbookscertain,canonicalandlegitimateones,withoutanydocumenta-tionwhichisrequiredforsuchathing.”12

Chemnitzcontinuesbygivingthereasonswhytheantilegomenaweredoubt-ed;namely,lackofevidencefromtheapostolicchurchthatthebookshadbeenapprovedbytheapostlesandrecommendedtothechurch,andquestionsastotheidentityoftheauthors.“Therefore,”hesays,“theentiredisputedependsuponthisquestion,whetheritiscertainandundoubtedthatthosebooksoverwhichthereisthiscontroversyaredivinelyinspiredscripture,eitherpublishedorapprovedbyprophetsandapostleswhohadthedivineauthority.”13

ChemnitzisthemostvoluminousoftheearlyLutheransinregardtothecanon.WeshouldnotethatheiswritingagainstthebackgroundoftheCouncilofTrent.HepointsupadifferencewhichwouldneverbesettledbetweentheLutheransandtheCatholics,namely,thesourceoftheauthorityofscripture.He


answers,asdoallthedogmaticiansafterhimthatscripturederivesitsauthoritynotfromthechurchbutfromitself.ThusChemnitzonceandforallsettlesthematteramongtheLutheransastothepositionofthefathersandtheCouncilsregardingthecanon.Thechurchcanbearwitnesstothecanon;butthecanonhasitsownauthorityandimpressesitselfuponthechurch.Thechurchcanratify:itcannotlegislate.Chemnitzisverycareful.HeavoidstheextravagantlanguageofLuther.Hegoesasfarashefeelshecaninendorsingtheantilegomena.Heseesnostrawepistles.HeavoidsLuther’suseofonlyonecriterionforcanonicity,nordoeshetakerefugeinthetestimonium Spiritus Sancti internum,somethinghenevermentions.Hismainemphasisisonthewitnessoftheearlychurch.WemightsummarizeChemnitz’scriteriaasbeingtheinspirationofthebook,apostolicauthorshiporapostoliccommendation,andthewitnessoftheearlychurch.HeretainsenoughofthespiritofLuther,Erasmus,andotherssothathedoesnothesitatetorejecttheantilegomenaasauthoritativefordoctrine;yetherepresentsamorecautiousandjudiciousattitudethanhispredecessors,whichmakesitpossibleforGerhardtoquotehimwithoutonewordofdisapproval,whilesayingagreatdealmorethanChemnitzdoes.Incidentally,Chemnitz,bothinhisLoci Theologici,hisExamen, aswellasintheFormulaofConcordofwhichhewasamajorauthor,doesnothesi-tatetoquotetheantilegomena,eventoestablishadoctrinalpoint.

WhilewehavedevotedagreatdealofspacetoChemnitzbecausehehaswrittensomuchonthispoint,weshouldnotneglecttopointoutthathisviewswereessentiallyfollowedbyothermenofhisperiod.AegidiusHunnius,1550–l603,asigneroftheFormula,saysinThesis119 ofhisTractatus de Sacrosancta Maiestate,Autoritate, Fide ac Certitudine Sacrae Scriprae, publishedin1591,“TheEpistletotheHebrews,2and3John,2Peter,theEpistlesofJamesandJudeandtheApocalypse,areoutsidethecanonandarejudgedapocryphal.”InThesis120hecontinues,“TheNewTestamentapocryphalwritingswereworthmoreintheopinionoftheprimitivechurchandweremoreapprovedthantheapocryphaoftheOldTestament.”AndinThesis121,“IndeedmanyfatherswhoplacedcertainbooksoftheOldTestamentoutsidethecanonprohibitnoNewTestamentbookfromthecanonbutstatethatallarecanonical.TheCouncilofLaodiceadidthesame.”InThesis122hesays,“Wewillnotcontend[pugnabimus]withanyonecon-cerningtheauthorityoftheEpistletotheHebrews,or2and3John,of2Peter,andoftheApocalypse.”AndfinallyheconcludesinThesis126,“Itmustnotbeconcealed,however,thattherewasalsoconcerningthesebooks,asBellarminehimselfconfesses,doubtintheearlychurch,forthisreasonthattheydonotsupplysufficientdocumentationofapprovaltoshowthattheycamewithcertaintyfromtheauthorswhosenamestheybear.”14NotethemoreconciliatoryattitudeherethaneveninChemnitz.

AndreasOsiandertheYounger,1562–1617,isquotedbyGerhard,“Therearecertainbookswhicharespokenagainstbecausetheredoesnotexistsufficient

140

testimonyoftheearlychurchconcerningtheirauthorssuchastheEpistlesofJames,Jude,etc.Thesearecalledthehagiagrapha.Theyarealsocalledecclesiastical.Theydonothaveinthemselvesvalueforestablishingdoctrine.”15

JacobHeerbrand,1521–1600,inhisCompendium,16 publishedin1573,sub-stantiallyagreeswithChemnitz.

AnothercontemporarywhohasmuchthesamepositionisMatthiasHaffenreffer,1561–1619,whodistinguishesbetweenhomologoumenaandanti-legomena.Hesays,“Theseapocryphalbooks,althoughtheydonothavecanoni-calauthorityinjudgingofdoctrine,yetbecausetheymakeforinstructionandedification,containmanythingsandcanbereadprivatelyandpubliclyrecitedinthechurchwithusefulnessandprofit.Andifwecomparetheapocryphalbooksamongthemselves,boththoseintheNewaswellasintheOldTestament,wefindthattheyhavegreatauthority,especiallytheEpistletotheHebrews,becauseofitsexcellentcommentaryontheOldTestament,andtheApocalypse,becauseofitsillustriousandfullstatementsconcerningthereignofChrist,andothermatters,includingthecertaintyoftheoutcomeofHisreign.Thesebooksexceltheothersineminence.”17Notethathedistinguishesamongtheantilegomenaastovalue.Hereisfurtherdevelopment.

However,notallofChemnitz’scontemporariessaidexactlywhathedid.The“MagdeburgCenturies”of1562says,“Thereweresomewritingsspreadthroughthechurchduringthiscenturyinthenameofapostlesortheirdisciples,ofwhichsomeforawhilewerenotgenerallyreceivedbecauseofthedoubtofcertainindi-viduals,butafterwardstheywerereceivedintothenumberofcatholicwritings,butcertainotherswererejectedasapocryphaI.”18

AndLeonardHutter,1563–1616,states,“ItclearlycanandoughttobedeterminedthatthereisadifferencebetweentheapocryphalbooksoftheOldTestamentandthoseoftheNew,suchindeedthattheapocryphaoftheNewTestamentpossessmuchgreaterauthoritythantheOldTestamentones,evenindeedanauthoritywhichisvalidforsettlingchurchdoctrine,sothatmorecor-rectlywecan,yeaweoughttocallthemauthenticratherthanapocryphal.”19Notenowtheauthoritytosettledoctrine.

ConradDietrich,1575–1639,inhisfamousInstitutiones Catecheticae of1613saysoftheNewTestamentapocryphalbooks, “Howdoesithappenthattheseareapocryphal?Fromthisthat intheprimitivechurchtheywerenotacceptedbyallastruly apostolic,butsomechurchesweredoubtfulforawhileregarding themandsomeplainlyrejectedthem.Butaretheyofthesame valueastheapocryphalbooksoftheOldTestament?Byno means, becausetheapocryphalbooksoftheOldTestamentwereentirely uncertainandcontainedmanythingsdiametricallyopposedtothe canonicalscripturesandthushavenoauthorityinestablishing,doctrinesofthefaith.ButtheapocryphaoftheNewTestament werenotsodoubtful,nordoanyofthemdirectlyopposethecanonical scripture.Andthustheyalsohaveauthorityincontroversies regardingthefaith.Foralthoughregardingthemthere


hadbeen doubtbysomeinthechurch,theywerereceivedbyothers,however, becauseofthedoctrineofinspiration.Therewasdoubtasto theauthor,butnotastothedoctrinewhichwasreceivedasapostolic. However,theRomanistserrbecausetheysaytheapocrypha haveabsolutelyequalauthoritywiththecanonicalbooksbothofthe OldandNewTestamentinprovingdoctrinesofthefaith.”20

AndBalthasarMentzer,1565–1627,inthe1606editionofhisDisputationes Theologicae says,“ButtheecclesiasticalbooksoftheNewTestament…havealmostobtainedinourchurchesthesameauthorityasthecanonicalscriptures.Concerningthismatterwedonotthinkthereshouldbestrife[digladiandum] withanyone.ThoseoftheOldTestamentareinferior.”21HethengoesontochideTrentandtheRomanistPistoriusforremovingalldistinctionbetweencanonicalandnon-canoni-calbooks.

III. The Later Period of Lutheran OrthodoxyAstimepassedthepositionofHutter,Dietrich,andMentzerbecamethe

prevailingoneamongtheLutherandogmaticians.JohnGerhard,1582–1637,isoftencreditedwithproducingthischange,becauseinhisLoci Theologici of1622hedwellsonthissubjectmorefully;buthewasnotthefirst,aswehavenotedabove.GerhardisapparentlyunawareorunwillingtoadmitanychangeinthinkingonthesubjectamongtheLutherans,forhequotesallhispredecessorswithapproval,bothChemnitzandhisfollowersaswellasmensuchasMentzerwhosaysomethingdifferent.AsonepossiblemotiveforthisminimizingofdifferencesGerhardgivesahintinhisintroductiontothesectiononNewTestamentCanon,“UptothispointwehavediscussedthecanonicalandapocryphalbooksoftheOldTestamentingeneralandindividually,anditremainsforustoconsidertheNewTestamentbookswherethefirstquestionofallis,whetheramongthebooksintheNewTestamentsuchadifferencemustbemaintainedthatsomearecalledcanonicalandothersapocryphal.ItseemsatfirstglancethatinthismattertherearecertaindiscrepanciesamongthosewhohavesecededfromtheRomanChurch,whichthePapistsobjecttoamongus.Butwiththehelpofadistinctionthismattercanbereconciled,aswewillshortlysee.”22HethenproceedstoquoteseveralstatementsfromChemnitz,Hunnius,Osiander,andHaffenreffer,allinsistinguponastrictdis-tinctionbetweenthehomologoumenaandtheantilegomena.ThishefollowswithalongquotationfromMentzer,“Weaccepttheso-calledNewTestamentecclesiasti-calorapocryphalbooksinsuchawaythatwepermitthemtoberegardedasinthelistofthecanonical,andasfarasitispossibletoapprovethemweregardthemashavingequalauthoritywiththerest.Norhaveweaddedtheexpression‘almost’foranyotherreasonthanthatintheprimitivechurchsomeattimesspokeagainstthesebooks,sinceitcouldnotbepositivelystatedbywhomtheywerewrittenandpublished.Thusinthismatteritcouldbeeasyforustocometoagreementwiththemoderatepapists.”23

142

GerhardcontinuesbyquotingJohnSchroeder,whoinawritingof1605addsasignificantelementtothediscussion,“TherehavebeennotedcertainbooksoftheNewTestamentcalledapocryphal,butalmostfornootherreasonthanthattherewasdoubtconcerningthem—notwhethertheywerewrittenbytheinspira-tionoftheHolyGhost,butwhethertheywerepublishedbytheapostlesbywhomtheyhadbeensigned.Butbecausetherewasnodoubtconcerningthemoreimpor-tantoftheirauthors,namely,theHolyGhost(butonlyconcerningtheirwritersorministeringauthors),andbecausedespitethisdoubtfulauthorityofthesebookscertainoutstandingancientsofthechurchhadraisedthemtoahighlevel,theyhaveobtainedequalauthoritywiththecanonicalbooksintheopinionofmanypeople.Indeed,inorder,thatacertainbookberegardedascanonical,itisnotnec-essarilyrequiredthattherebeagreementconcerningthesecondaryauthororwriter.Itissufficientiftherebeagreementconcerningtheprimaryauthororthedictator,whoistheHolyGhost;forthebooksofJudges,Ruth,andEstherarecanonical,theauthorsofwhich,however,areunknown.”24Schroederintroducesthedistinc-tionbetweentheprimaryandsecondaryauthors,aconceptwhichcontinuesamongthelaterorthodoxteachers.Chemnitzandtheolderdogmaticianswereobliviousofthisdistinction;thoughDietrichhadsuggestedthatapostolicdoctrineandinspira-tionassurethecanonicityofbooksofuncertainauthorship.

Gerhardconcludeshisstudywiththreestatementsofhisown:“First,thereisagreatdifferencewhichmustbeestablishedamongthebookswhicharecontainedinthebiblicalcodexoftheNewTestament,foritisnotrighttodenythatintheprimitivechurchatonetimecertainofthemwerespokenagainstbycertainmen,aswillappearfromourconsiderationoftheindividualbooks.Second,thesebookswhichwerespokenagainstbysomearecalled,inaratherimproperway,apocry-phal,whichweprovebyathreefoldlineofargument.1)Notsomuchconcerningtheircanonicalauthorityasconcerningthesecondaryauthorsofthemwastheredoubtintheprimitivechurch-butnowthesebooks,whoseauthorsareunknown,arenotproperlycalledapocryphal.Otherwiseitwouldfollowthatcertaintrulycanonicalbooks,suchasthebooksofJudges,Ruth,Job,etc.areapocryphal,sincetheirauthorsareunknown.2)Becauseitwasnotdoubtedbyallchurchesorlearnedmen,butonlybycertainones,concerningtheauthorsofthesebooks,therearetwoevidentdifferencesbetweentheOldTestamentapocryphaandthesebookswhichsomecallNewTestamentapocrypha.Concerningtheformertherewasdoubtastotheirauthority,concerningthelattertherewasdoubtinthechurchesastotheirauthors.3)FatherswhodonotrecognizetheOldTestamentapocryphadonotexcludeanybookfromtheNewTestamentCanon.NotetheCouncilofLaodicea,canon59;alsoEusebius,Erasmus,Jerome.Third,forthesakeofteaching,onemustdistinguishbetweencanonicalNewTestamentbooksofthefirstandsecondrank.Canonicalbooksofthefirstrankarethoseofwhichneithertheauthornortheauthoritywaseverdoubtedinthechurch,butbythe


commonconsentofalltheyhavebeenregardedascanonicalandasdivinealways.SuchbooksaretheGospelsofMatthew,Mark,Luke,etc.Canonicalbooksofthesecondrankarethoseconcerningwhoseauthortherewasdoubtbysomeatsometimeinthechurch.SuchareHebrews,James,Jude,2Peter,2and3John,andtheApocalypse.”25

Gerhardcontinueswithaverylengthyisagogicalstudyofeachofthe27NewTestamentbooks,firstthehomologoumenaandthentheantilegomena.Withregardtothelatter,heassertsafteralongdiscussionthatPaulwroteHebrews,thusgivingitfullapostolicauthority.WithregardtoJamesheseekstoexplainawayLuther’sstricturesagainstthebook,evenmentioningthatafter1526noeditionofLuther’sBiblecallsita“strawepistle;”acontentionwithwhichReudisagrees.26ButGerhardconcludesthatJamesisapostolicandthuscanonical.On2Peterisheverydefinite,quotingLuthertothesameeffect.Hisattitudeisthesamewithregardtotheotherantilegomena.Allarecanonicalandofapostolicauthorship.

GerhardmarksadefinitechangeinthinkingamongLutheransonthissub-ject.WhilesomemenbeforeGerhard,suchasHutterandSchroeder,hadtakenmuchthesamepositionhedid,becauseofGerhard’sgreatprestigeaswellashisfulltreatmentofthematter,afterhistimethedogmaticians,whilestillpay-inglip-servicetoChemnitz,forallpracticalpurposesabolishedthedistinctionbetweenhomologoumenaandantilegomena.Thisisthestateofaffairswhichcontinuestothepresentday.ItisquiteclosetothepositionoftheRomanistsandtheReformed.Onlyatrareintervals,asinthecaseofDr.WaltherandPastorRoebbelin,hasthedistinctionbeenrevivedasalivingtheologicalfactor.27Ofcourse,insayingtheLutheranshaveapproachedtheRomanandReformedposi-tion,wemeanonlythatallthreecommunionsaccept27books.TheLutheranshavenevermadethecanonamatterofconciliarorconfessionaldecision.

Tocompletethepictureuptotheendoftheageoforthodoxy,wecanciteafewmorewitnesses.JohnAndrewQuenstedt,1617–1688,nephewofJohnGerhardandfather-in-lawofAbrahamCalov,voicesvirtuallythesameopinionasGerhard,“WecallthosebooksoftheNewTestamentprotocanonical,orofthefirstrank,concerningwhoseauthorityandsecondaryauthorsthereneverwasanydoubtinthechurch;andthosedeuterocanonical,orofthesecondrank,concerningwhosesecondaryauthors(nottheirauthority,however)therewereattimesdoubtsenter-tainedbysome.Therewasdoubt,Isay,anddiscussionconcerningthesebooks,yetnotamongall,merelyamongafew;notatalltimes,onlyoccasionally.Andthesedoubtsdidnothavereferencesomuchtotheirdivineauthorityorprimaryauthor,theHolySpirit,astotheirsecondaryauthors.”28Quenstedtevensaysthatknowl-edgeofthesecondaryauthorisunimportant,“ForevenifPhiliporBartholomewhadwrittenthatgospelwhichisreadunderthenameofMatthew,itdoesnotaffectsavingfaith.”29Note,however,thathedoesnogooutsidetheranksoftheapostlesinsuggestingotherauthors.Heheld,asdidallthedogmaticians,toapostolic

144

authorshipasacriterionofcanonicity.Yettoknowforcertaintheexactauthorofabookwasnotnecessary.Headds,“Fortheauthorsofmanycanonicalbooksareunknown,suchas,theauthorofthebookofJoshua,ofRuth,Kings,Chronicles;however,itiswellestablishedconcerningtheirinspirationandcanoni-calauthority.”30

JohnWilliamBaier,1647–1695,issomewhatstrongereventhanQuenstedt.Hesaysoftheantilegomena,“Itcannotindeedbedeniedthatsomeoftheancientsdidsodoubtinregardtothesewritersastorefusetothemtheauthoritythatbelongstoinspiredbooks.”31Again,“Theyarenotignoredwhenweareaskedfortheruleoffaith,buttheyhaveauthorityinsuchcasebycommonconsentatthepresentdayamongChristians,especiallythoseofourconfession.”32Hesaysingen-eraloftheantilegomenathat“oftheirauthorsandthusoftheirdivineorigintherewasoncedoubtonthepartofsome,buttodaynocontroversyrenlains.”33NoteinalloftheselatermentheabsenceofallreferencetoLutherandChemnitz.

AbrahamCalov,1612–1688,writingin1684,setsforthhiscriteriaofcan-onicity:“1)withreferencetotheprincipium itisrequiredthatacanonicalbookbeinspiredbytheHolySpirit;2)withreferencetotheinstrumentalcause,thatitbewrittenbyaprophetoranapostle;3)withreferencetothematerial,thatitcontaindivinemysteriesandnotfables;4)withreferencetoitsinternalform,thatitbeGod-breathed;5)withreferencetoitsexternalform,thatitbeinHebrewintheOldTestamentandinGreekintheNew;6)withreferencetoitslimits,thatitpos-sessthetestimonyofthechurch,eithertheJewishorearlyChristian.Moreoveryouwillnotethattheserequisitiesaretobetakencollectively.”34Calovrepresentsaveryinterestingposition.Heenumerateseverycriterionofcanonicitywiththepos-sibleexceptionofLuther’semphasisonChristologicalcontent;althoughhedoesrequiredivinemysteries,whichtoaLutheranimplytheteachingofthegospel.AndCalovsignificantlysaysthatallofthesecriteriamustbetakencollectively.Thisisimportant.

DavidHollaz,1648–l713,isusuallyregardedasthelastgreatrepresentativeoforthodoxy.Pietismhadbeguntomakeitsappearance,andamongotherthingsthestudyofthecanonwentintodeclineinthisperiod.Infact,onemightsaythatithaddeclinedevenbythetimeofHollaz.Heremovesthedistinctionentirelybetweenthetwoclassesofbooks,saying,“Sinceatthepresenttimeallevangelicalteachersassigndivineauthoritytothesedeuterocanonicalbooks,thereseemstobenooccasionanylongerforthatdistinction.”35

MichaelWalther,1593-l662,evenbeforeHollaz,afterreadingChemnitz,Hunnius,Osiander,Gerhard,andothers,sumsupbysaying,“Ifwecomparewhattheywrote…itwillappearthatthereissomedifferenceofopinion.”36HethengoesontoquoteGerhardalmostverbatim.Itseemedtocausehimverylittleexcitement.

AstwofinalwitnessesweshalldepartfromthedogmaticiansandquotetheNewTestamentscholarBuddeusandthehistorianSeckendorf.


JohnFrancisBuddeus,1667–l729,aglimmeringlightoforthodoxyinapietisticworld,writesin1727,“inregardtotheepistlewhichisattributedtoJamestherewasdisputeastotheauthorityandauthor,anditiswellknownwhatthethinkingandopinionofourownblessedLutherwasregardingit.ForbeingarousedbytheheatofthecontroversyagainsttheCatholicsheplainlydeniedthatthisepistlehadcomefromanapostle;heevencalleditastrawepistleinthepref-aceofthefirsteditionofhisGermanBible,andonthisaccounthegaveoccasiontohisadversariestohurlvariouscalumniesagainsthim,fromwhichamongothersHenryMaiushasvindicatedhimandalsoRichardSimon….ButthatthisletterwaswrittenbyJamestheApostlehasbeenplacedbeyondalldoubttoday.”37

AndVeitLudwigSeckendorf,1629–1692,writinginthelastyearofhislife,says,“Now,asRomanCatholicstodayhavenodoubtsconcerningtheEpistletotheHebrews…evensoevilshouldnotbethoughtofus,sincewehavegivenupthedoubtsofLutherconcerningtheEpistleofJames”38

WithintheReformedChurchthesameprocesswasinprogress,butitwentfurther.WestcottgivesaveryfinesummaryofthisinhisworkontheNewTestamentCanon.HepointsoutthatinZwingli’stimenonoticewastakenofthelimitsofthecanon.InthefirstHelveticConfessionof1536,theGenevaCatechismof1545,publishedbyCalvin,andthelaterHelveticConfessionof1566referenceismademerelytothecanonicalscripturesas“theWordofGod,givenbytheHolySpirit,andsetforthbytheProphetsandApostles.”TheBelgicConfessionof1561–1563liststhe66books,asthenormoffaith.SodoestheWestminsterConfessionof1643andtheSwissDeclarationof1675.MuchthesameoccurredamongtheEnglishProtestants.39By1700throughouttheProtestantchurchtherewasgeneralagreementthattheNewTestamentcontains27canonicalbooksofvir-tuallyequalauthorityandinspiration.Thisopinionhasnotbeenmateriallyalteredsince.

InthehistoryoftheMissouriSynod,orofAmericanLutheranismforthatmatter,thereseemstohavebeenonlyoneeruptionofthisquestionpublicly.Acer-tainPastorRoebbelinoftheMissouriSynodinthe1850shaddoubtsregardingthecanonicityofRevelation.HewasaccusedoffalsedoctrinebyanotherpastoroftheMissouriSynod;butDr.WaltherinanarticleinLehre und Wehrein1856defendedRoebbelin’sorthodoxyatthesametimeasheemphasizedhisownbeliefinthecanonicityofRevelation.WaltherquotedLuther,Chemnitz,andothersoftheearlydogmaticiansinsupportofRoebbelin.40Thematterseemedtoendwiththisonestatement.

ToexplainwhythethinkingoftheorthodoxLutheransgraduallychangedregardingthevalueoftheantilegomenaisnoteasytodiscoverfromtheirwritings.Butsomereasonsdoappear.First,therewouldseemtobetheintrinsicvalueofthebooksthemselves.EvenLutherandChemnitzuseHebrews,Revelation,and2Peterconstantly.Second,thehistoryofthechurcheversince397favoredtheinclusionofthesebooksinthecanon.Suchatraditionishardtobreak.Third,the

146

quotationsfromGerhard,Mentzer,Seckendorf,andBuddeusallindicatethattheattacksoftheRomanistsagainstLuther’spositiononJamesinparticularandtheearlyLutheranpositionontheantilegomenaingeneralwereunpleasantandembar-rassingtotheLutherans.BuddeusisatpainstopointoutthatRichardSimon,aCatholic,hadtriedtovindicateLutheronJames.

IV. ObservationsAfewremarksonthecriteriaofcanonicityareinplace.Astudyofthe

foregoingmaterialrevealsthatbasicallytherearefourcriteriawhichappearinthethinkingofthedogmaticians:1)content,2)apostolicauthorshiporsupervision,3)theuseofthebookintheearlyhistoryofthechurch,and4)inspiration.Thedog-maticiansallusethesecriteria,sothatactuallythereisnotsuchagreatdifferenceamongthemaswouldfirstappear.Lutheremphasizedcontentmorethantheothercriteriaandmorethanthedogmaticiansdid,yetherecognizedapostolicauthorshipandhewitnessoftheearlychurchasfactors.Hecertainlyemphasizedinspiration,anddespitehisstricturesheusedtheantilegomena.WequoteafewsentencesfromLuther’sChristmassermononHebrews1:1–12,“Thisisastrong,forcible,nobleepistle…ThepresumptionthatitwasnotwrittenbyPaulissomewhatplausible,becausethestyleisunusuallyornamentalforhim.SomeareoftheopinionitwaswrittenbyLuke,othersbyApollos…Certainitis,noepistleenforcesthescrip-tureswithgreaterpowerthandoesthis.Henceitisevidenttheauthorwasanemi-nentapostolicindividual,whoeverhewas…scarceanyportionoftheBiblemorestronglyenforcesthedeityofChrist…”41

Chemnitzperhapsmorestronglythananyotheremphasizedapostolicauthorship,yetheaddsinspirationasoneoftheprimecriteriaofcanonicity.Thequotationswehavecitedabundantlypointtohisinsistenceontheunbrokentradi-tionofuseandacceptanceinthechurch.Hisurgingthattheantilegomenamustbetestedbythestandardsofthehomologoumenashowstheimportanceofdoctrinalcontentinhisthinking.He,likeLuther,thoughrejectingtheantilegomena,seemstomakeampleuseoftheseworksnotonlyforpurposesofedification,butalsofordoctrinalproof.InrefutingpapisticclaimsmadeonthebasisofJames5forextremeunction,andonthebasisofHebrewsforpurgatory,Chemnitzdoesnotevadetheargumentbyadvancingthefactthatthesebooksareantilegomenaandhencenotsuitableforprovingdoctrine.Ratherheexplainsandinterpretsthepas-sagesunderconsiderationtoshowthatevenonthebasisofantilegomenabookstheRomanistshavenogroundsfortheirideas.42IncontendingagainsttheRomanmassChemnitzgoesevenfurther,quotingHebrews5,7,9,and10ashisonlyscriptureproof,seeminglyputtingHebrewsonthesamelevelwiththehomologou-mena;forheusestheepistletoproveapointwhichisnotnearlysoclearlyoreasilyprovedelsewhereinscripture.43Chemnitzalsouses2Peterondifferentoccasions.ThusallfourcriteriaarepresentinChemnitz.Thisappliesalsototheotherearlydogmaticians.


Thelaterdogmaticiansemphasizedthecriterionofinspirationmorethansomeoftheothercriteriaandmorethandidtheearlydogmaticians.Yetitwasbynomeanstheironlyemphasis.PhilippifaultsthelatermenforemphasizingtheauthorshipoftheHolySpirit,evenoftheantilegomena,sostronglythatthedis-tinctionbetweenthetwoclassesofbooksmadeintheearlychurchandrevivedbyLutherandChemnitzwaslargelyforgotten.44Whilehischargeispartlyvalid,intheirdefenseitmustbestatedthattheydidnotentirelydropthedistinction,norinemphasizinginspirationdidtheyforgettoinsistonapostolicauthorshipandChristocentriccontentasadditionalcriteria.Further,Luther,Chemnitz,andeventheearlychurchfatherswereneverconsistentthemselvesinthematter,aswehaveseen.

Thus,wemaysummarizebysayingthatthedifferenceamongthedogmati-cianswasnotoneofexclusivenessbutofemphasis.Theywereallbasicallyagreedastowhatmadeabookcanonicalandastowhichbookswerescripture.Itissig-nificantthatdespitethedifferenceinemphasisandapproach,noneofthedogma-ticiansevertakesissuewithanyofhisfellowLutheransonthispoint.Wedonotbelievethiswasdueeithertoindifference,ortofearofwhattheRomanistsandReformedmightsay,ortothereverenceinwhichLutherandChemnitzwereheld.TheearlyLutheransdidnotscrupletoattackMelanchthon,Flacius,Osiander,andquiteanumberofothernotableswithintheircommunion,despitethefactthatitbroughtcriticismfromtheirrivals.Itappearsthattheconsensusamongthemwasthatwhilesomeemphasizedoneaspectandsomeanother,yetallspokethetruth.ChemnitzlayslittlestressonLuther’scriterionofChristo-centricity,yetheneverrejectsit;GerhardquotesChemnitz’strongstatementsonapostolicity,yetpointsoutthattheantilegomenaarealsoapostolicandworthyofatleastasecondarypositioninthecanon.Calov,whoseldomhasbeenaccusedofmediatingorcom-promising,acceptsallthecriteriaofcanonicityheldbyhispredecessors:content,inspiration,apostolicauthorship,andthewitnessanduseintheearlychurch,andsaysthattheymustallbeconsideredtogether.Gerhard,whilesatisfiedtoacceptascanonicalabook,whoseauthorisunknownoruncertain,makesstrenuouseffortstoshowthatsuchbookswerewrittenbyapostles.Noonecancitethedogmati-ciansinproofofapositionthatitisamatterofindifferenceastowhoIwrotethebooksoftheBible,orthatsuchwritingsarenotapostolic.

Further,allthedogmaticiansseemtoagreethatauthorshipisnotanarticleoffaith.Chemnitz,whowouldcomeclosesttothisposition,neversaysthatitis.Gerhard,says,“Althoughitisanarticleoffaiththatallinspiredscripture…whichcontainswithinitselfrevelationsimmediatelyinspiredbyGod,isdivineandcanonical;however,itisnotanarticleoffaith,butanhistoricalassertion,whenthechurchbearswitnessconcerningaparticularbook,thatthisorthatbookistheworkofthisorthatauthor,e.g.,thatthegospelofMatthewisMatthew’s,theEpistletotheHebrewsisPaul’s.”45TheLutherans,holdingthatalldoctrinemustbedrawnfromGod’sWord,couldnotmakethecanonanarticleoffaith,sinceno

148

suchlistisfoundinscripture.TheCatholics,teachingthatthechurchcanestablishdoctrine,heldthatadecree,suchasTrent’s,madethecanonanarticleoffaith.Thecanonisthesourceofdoctrines,butitisnotitselfanarticleoffaith.ThechurchintestifyingtothecanononlyrecognizesGod’sWord;itdoesnotestablishit.Hunnius,whoholdsthesamepositionthatChemnitzdoesontheimportanceofapostolicauthorship,says,“ThattheEpistletotheRomansisofPaul,wehavefromthetestimonyoftheprimitivechurch,butthatitissacred,canonicalandtheruleoffaith,thiswehaveandreceivenotfromthewitnessofthechurchbutfrominternalcriteria.”46Quenstedtvoicesthesameidea,“Faith,whichconsidersthetes-timonyoftheprimitivechurchwhichwitnessesthatthesebookshavebeenwrittenbyapostlesandevangelists,isahumanandhistoricfaith;butfaith,whichbelievesthatthisorthatbookisdivineandcanonical,orcomesfromtheHolyGhost,isdivinefaith,andthisdoesnotrestonthetestimonyofthechurch,butontheinter-nalcriteriaofHolyScriptureandprimarilyonthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.”47InthesamesectionQuenstedtemphasizesthatcontentisimportantindeterminingcanonicity.

Itappears,therefore,thatthepositionoftheLutherandogmaticians,whiledifferinginemphasis,indicatesalikenessofthought.Allagreedthatthecanonwasmadeupofbookswhichwereinspired,writtenbyapostles,knownandwitnessedintheearlychurch,andcontainingdivineandevangelicalteaching.Itisimportanttonote,too,thatnodogmaticianissatisfiedtobuildhiscaseononlyoneofthesecriteria.AsCalovsays,theymustbetakencollectively.Nosingleoneofthesecri-teriaissufficientbyitselftoestablishthecanonicityofabook.Inspirationcannotbepositedofabook,regardlessofitsexcellentcontents,unlessitisknownfromthewitnessoftheearlychurchthatthebookcamefromanapostleoronework-ingunderanapostle.Apostolicauthorshipcannotguaranteetheacceptanceofabook,asinthecaseoftheEpistletotheLaodiceans,unlessthereistheadditionalevidencethatthebookhadstrongtestimonyfromtheearlychurch,andcontaineddivinedoctrine.DisputesaboutauthorshipdisturbedtheacceptanceofHebrews,eventhoughitscontentsweregenerallywellreceived;whiledisputesovercontentdisturbedtheacceptanceofRevelation,eventhoughitsJohannineauthorshippreviouslyhadnotbeendebated.Thewritingsoftheapostolicfatherswereoftenrejectedbecauseofuncertainuse,lackofapostolicauthorship,andespeciallyquestionablecontent.Bookswhichwentunderthenameofapostles,suchasmanyoftheApocrypha,wererejectedonthebasisofcontent,sometimesbecauseoflackofwitnessfromtheearlychurchorbecauseoflackofwideacceptanceintheearlychurch.Thusitappearsthatthedogmaticiansheldaprinciplewhichisequallyvalidtoday,thatthesecriteriamustbetakencollectively,andthatcanonicitycan-notbeprovensolelyonthebasisofoneofthem.Whileitisaxiomaticthatonlyaninspiredbookiscanonicalandonlyacanonicalbookinspired,thehistoryofthechurchhasalwaysdemonstratedthatitrequiresthepresenceofothercriteria,suchasthewitnessoftheearlychurchandthecontentofthebookstoestablishthe


canonicityofagivenbook.Nobookcanberegardedasinspiredunlessitisalsoregardedascanonical.

AcriticalreaderofthismaterialwillrapidlydiscoverthatmostofwhathasbeensaidregardingtheteachingsofLutherandthedogmaticianscanberefutedonthebasisofcoldlogic.EvenCalov’sinsistenceonacollectiveuseofthecriteriacanberefutedonthelogicalpremisethatseveralpartiallyprovablethesesdonotmakeoneinvincibleargument.Eachofthesecriteriahasbeenandprobablywillcontinuetobeattackedononepointoranother.Thecriterionofinspirationfallsbeforethestonyunbeliefofmoderncriticismandthedemandforscientificproof.Thatscriptureisinspiredcannotbeprovenscientifically;itisanarticleoffaith,asourdogmaticianssaiditwas.ThecriterionofapostolicityhasalsofallenbeforetheshaftsofliberalcriticswhoinsomecaseshavedeniedtheapostolicauthorshipofnearlyeverybookintheNewTestament.ItiscertainthatamongtheranksoftheendlessandvariegatedisagogicaltheoriestheauthorshipofeverysingleNewTestamentbookhasbeendenied.Thewitnessoftheearlychurchiscertainlysub-jecttodaytoagreatdealofscrutinywhichishighlysubjectiveandequallynegative.Thecriterionoftheuseofabookinthechurchisalsoopentothecriticismthatcertainapocryphalbookshavebeenusedanddropped,othersaddedforatime,andevendifferentcanonsadoptedindifferentagesanddifferentchurches.Theinternalevidenceofthebooksthemselvesishelpful,aslongaswedealwithpeoplewhoapproachtheBibleasGod’sWord.Thereshouldatleastbenoproblemastotheapostolicauthorshipofthosebookswhicharesigned,asisthecasewithPaul’sepistles,andevensomeoftheantilegomena.Butunlessweuseaprocessofanal-ogy,namely,thatwhatappliestoasignedbookalsoappliestoanunsignedone,weareforcedinthecaseofunsignedbookstofallbackuponthesecondofthecriteria,namely,thewitnessoftheearlychurch,whichforverygoodreasons(rea-sonswhichwhilenotonthelevelofscriptureitself,yetaremuchmorecogentthanthesubjectivismofmuchofmodernscholarship)assignedthebookstoparticularwriters.Yetwhenallissaidanddone,itappearsthatwearefacedwithaproblemwhichperhaps,likemosttheologicalproblems,defiesamathematicalanswer.TheLutherandogmaticianslikedtogiveanswerswhichwereasclosetomathematicallycorrectastheycouldmakethem;butastudyoftheirwritingsoncanonrevealthattheyfacedthesameproblemwedotoday.Exceptintheirwell-foundedobjectionstoRome’sarrogationofauthoritytoestablishthecanon,theyweresurprisinglyundogmaticinregardtothecanon.SowasLuther.Whenoneconsiderstheirabso-lutisminmatterswhichwereclearlystatedinscripture,andthencomparestheirmildnessandlatitudewithregardtocanon,wecanonlyconcludethattheyfeltthemselvesongroundwhichwasnotentirelydoctrinal,butratherhistorical.Anditwasanincompleteanduncertainhistory.

Arewetheninastateofdarknessandconfusionwhichmakesusastheolo-gianssounsureofourmooringsthatwearenotquitesurewhetherGodmightalsohaverevealedhimselftothepiousofantiquityortothecontemplativeamongthe

150

HindusandthevirtuousamongtheMoslems?Muchofmoderntheologytodayhasarrivedatthispoint,largelybecausemenhavegivenupscriptureastheauthorita-tiveandinerrantwordofGod.Againourdogmaticianssupplyuswithananswer.Scriptureisautopistos. Itisitsownauthority,needingneitherthedecreesofcoun-cilsandpopes,northescientificallydocumentedwitnessofhistory,noreventheabsoluteproofregardingspecificapostolicauthorshiptoestablishitsauthorityandvalue.ThesamescriptureswhichconvincedtheearlyChristiansthattheyweretrulyGod-breathedbooksconvinceusofthesame,ifweapproachthemwiththeatti-tudewhichChristrequiresofallthosewhowillworshiphimandbehisdisciples.PerhapstheLordinhiswisdomhasdealtwiththecanoninthesamewayashedidwiththetext.Thereisconfusion,uncertainty,andahostofunansweredquestions;yetthescripturecontinuestoaccomplishitsmightyactsamongmen.Thereisapeculiarcombinationoffaithandhistoryinvolvedinthestudyofthecanon.Wecanbescientificandscholarlyuptoapoint,butatthatpointfaithmusttakeover.Wherefaithislacking,notonlythecanonfalls,butsodoestheBibleandultimatelytheChristtowhomthescripturetestifies.Strictlogicandadherencetoprobablehistoricaldatawillgopartofthewayonly.Thatisthereasonthatmuchmodernscientifictheologyhasfailed.Liberalismhasdeniedinspiration,rejectedapostolicauthorship,attackedthecontent,debunkedthewitnessoftheearlychurch,andnowfindsitselfwithanhistoricterm‘canon’whichitusestodescribeagroupofbooksforwhichitultimatelyhasnouse.ThatwasnottheattitudeofLutherorthedogmaticians.Wehopeitwillneverbeours.

Inconclusion,wewishtomakeafewremarksaboutthetestimonium Spiritus Sancti internum, sincethisquestionisofteninjectedintothediscussion.Further,itiscloselyrelatedtowhatwehavejustsaidaboutscriptureasautopistos. Thetestimoniuminternum hasbeendefinedas“Hissupernaturalwork,bywhichthroughourreadingandhearingofGod’sWord,HemovesandenlightensourheartstofaithinHisWordandpromises.”48AccordingtoSchmid,itisverydoubtfulthatthedogmati-ciansapplythisconcepttothematterofauthorshipofBiblicalbooks.Hesays,“MostofthetheologiansspeakofthetestimonyoftheHolySpiritonlywhentheyarediscussingthegroundsuponwhichtheauthorityofscripturerests…forwhenitisassertedthateachindividualattainstodivineassuranceoftheauthorityofscriptureonlythroughthetestimonyoftheHolySpirit,thisisstillsomewhatdiffer-entfromtheassertionthatthecanonicityofeachseparatebookmustbeprovedinthecaseofeachindividualbythetestimonyoftheHolySpirit.AndChemnitz,fur-ther,doesnotmention,inthisconnection,thistestimonyoftheHolySpirit;but,inordertoprovethecanonicityoftheseparatebooks,pointsonlytothetestimonyoftheearliestchurch,whichcouldappealtotheendorsementoftheApostles.And,finally,inalltheinvestigationsbythedogmaticiansinregardtothecanonicityofasinglebook,thereisneveranyallusiontothetestimonyoftheHolySpirit…buttheyareallconducteduponthebasisofhistoricalevidence.”49


Thetestimonium internum convincesusoftheauthorityofscripture,thatthescriptureisautopistos. ThispointthedogmaticiansraiseinoppositiontoRome’scontentionthatscripturederivesauthorityfromthechurch.But,sincethechurchdoesnotgiveitsauthoritytoscripture,itisequallycertainthatitdoesnotcompileordeterminethecanon.Abookisnotcanonicalbecauseofachurchdecree,butofitself,byvirtueofitsdivineoriginandinspiration.Gerhardsays,“Webelievethecanonicalscripturesbecausetheyarethecanonicalscriptures,thatis,becausetheywerebroughtaboutbyGodandwrittenbytheimmediateinspirationoftheHolySpirit.Wedonotbelievethembecausethechurchtestifiesconcerningthem…Thecanonicalbooksarethesourceofourfaithfromwhichthechurchitselfanditsauthoritymustbeproved.Aprincipium isbelievedonaccountofitself,notbecauseofsomethingelse.Aprincipium canbedemonstrateda posteriori,butitcan-notbeprovedbymeansofsomethingolder.Insuchacaseitwouldnotbeaprin-cipium.”50 Thus,whileabookcanconvinceus bythetestimonium internum itisGod’sword,andthusinspiredandcanonical,theSpirit,inthecaseofanunsignedoranonymousbook,doesnottellusofitsauthorship,whichthedogmaticiansestab-lishsolelyonisagogicalandhistoricalprinciples.

Manyofourproblemsanddifficultiestodayregardingauthorshipandisa-gogicalmatterswereunknowninthetimeofthedogmaticians,primarilybecausetheentirechurchheldstronglytothedoctrineofverbalinspiration;butitseemslikelythatthedogmaticianswouldapplytheprincipleofthetestimonium internum tobookswhichbeartheirauthor’ssignature,sincethentheauthor’snamewouldbeapartofthedivinelyinspiredtext.Forexample,itseemsthatthequestionoftheauthorshipofthePastoralEpistleswouldnotberegardedmerelyasanhistoricalone,butamatteroffaith.ChemnitzmakesagreatdealofPaul’ssigninghissecondlettertotheThessalonians,andGerhard,inattemptingtoestablishthecanonicityofRevelationand2Peter,alwaysemphasizesthementionoftheauthor’snameinthetextasevidence.

Perhapsourdogmaticianssupplyuswiththebestclueastowhatouratti-tudeshouldbewithregardtoourpresentdiscussionsonthecanon.AgainstthebackgroundofTrenttheydeclarethatneitherhistorynorthechurchmakeabookcanonical;yetneitherhistorynorthethinkingofthechurchcanhedisregarded.Thedogmaticiansteachustwothings:1)thecanonviewedasalistofbooksbyadefinitelyknowngroupofauthorsisnotanarticleoffaith;2)weneedhavemoreofthedogmaticians’reverenceforscriptureastheGod-breathed,authoritativeword,whichwerecognizeonthebasisofitsauthorship,humananddivine,itscon-tent,andthehistoryofitsusethroughtheagesofthechurch.

152

Endnotes1Westcott,B.F.,General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament,London,3rded.,

1870,p.439–42.2ibid.,443.3ibid.4ibid.,452–3.5ibid.,455.6Epistola,Bk.1,p.3,editionof1548.7Scmid,H.,Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church,tr.from4thed.byHayand

Jacobs,Philadelphia,1899,p.666.8Chemnitz,Martin,Examen Concilii Tridentini,sec.ed.1578Francofurtensem…adjecitEd.

Preuss,Berlin,1861,p.6.9ibid.,53–4.10ibid.,54.11ibid.,55.12ibid.,55–56.13ibid.,58.14Hunnius,Aegidius,Tractatus de Sacrosancta Maiestate, Autoritate, Fide ac Certitudine Sacrae

Scripturae,1591,quotedfromGerhard’sLoci Theologici … editionisbus1657et1776…ed.Fr.Frank,Lipsiae,Tom.1,p.103.

15Gerhardibid.;quotedfromOsiander’sPapa non Papa; Responsa ad Analysin Gregorii de Valentia de Ecclesia cum Defensione Huius Responsi.

16Heerbrand,Jacob,Compendium Theologiae Methodi Quaestionibus Tractatum,Tübingen,1573;translatedintoGermanundertitleKurzes Handbuch des Christlichen Glaubens und Sittenlehrë,St.Louis,1877p.185–7.

17Gerhardibid.;quotedfromHaffenreffer’sLoci Theologici.18Gerhardibid.p.102;quotedfromMagdeburg CenturiesI,Bk.2,col.4,col.54.19Hutter,Leonard,Loci Communes Theologici,Wittebergae,1619,p.18.20Dietrich,Conrad,Instituiones Catecheticae,Lipsiae,1722,p.I5.21Mentzer,Balthasar,Disputationes Theologicae & Scholasticae XIV De Praecipuis quibusdam

Controversis Christianae Doctrinae Capitibus,Marpurgi.,1606,p.11.22Gcrhardibid.23ibid.,103.24ibid.;quotedfromSchroeder’sTractatus Theologicum de Principio Thzeologiae & Judice Supremo

Controversiarum Theologiarum.25Gcrhard,ibid.,104.26Reu,M.,Luther and the Scriptures,Columbus,1944,p.42ff.27Walther,C.F.W.,“IstDerjenigefüreinenKetzerodergefährlichenIrrlehrerzuerklären,

welchernichtalleindemKonvolutdesNeuenTestamentsbeginglichenBücherfürkanonischhältunderklärt?”inLehre und Wehre2(1856)203–15.

28Quenstedt,J.A.,Theologia Didactico-polemica sive Systema Theologicum,Lipsiae,1702,1.235.29ibid.,1.96.30ibid.31Baier,J.W.,Compendium Theologiae Positivaecur.Walthcr,St.Louis,1879,2vols.,vol.1,p.

150.32ibid.,153.33ibid.,150.34Calov,A.,Apodixis Articulorum Fidei,Lunebergi,1684,p.29.35Hollaz,D.,Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum,HolmiaeetLipsiae,1741,p.131.36Walther,M.,Officina Biblica,Wittenbergae,1703,p.196.37Buddeus,J.F.,lsagoge Historico-theologica,Lipsiae,1730,2vols.,vol.2,p.1291,cf.alsopp.


1296and1309–10.38Seckendorf,V.L.,Ausführliche Historie des Lutherthums und de Heilsamen Reformation,Leipzig,17

14,col.2–9–20.39Westcott,ibid.459ff.40Cf.footnote27.41Cf.Luther’sEpistle Sermons,ed.Lenker,J.N.,vol.1,p.166ff.42Chemnitzibid.,469–471.43ibid.,392–393.44Philippi,F.A.,Kirchliche Glaubenslehre,Stuttgart,1854,vol.1,p.108.45Baieribid.,144.46ibid.,142.47Quenstedtibid.,89.48Preus,R.,The Inspiration of Scripture,Edinburgh,1955,p.108–109.49Schmid,ibid.,87.50Preus,ibid.,104–105.

Grammarian’s Corner

COncordiaournalJ


GreekParticiples,PartIX

Intheprevious“Corner”onParticiples(Fall,2009)wespoketothemat-teroftimeandparticiplesandwesaidthatthekeywas“focus,”specifically,inthecaseofapresent participle, focus upon the connection between the action of the participle and the doer of that action,andinthecaseofanaorist participle, focus upon the activity conveyed by the participle itself, not its connection to the doer of the activity.Wethenturnedouratten-tionchieflytothepresentparticipleanddiscoveredthatthefocusuponconnectionallowedustodevelopanoverallunderstandingofthetimerelationshipbetweenitandthemainorleadingverbofasentence.InthisGrammarian’sCornerweturn,totheaoristparticiple.

Anaoristparticiplecarrieswithitafocusuponaction(asdoallaoristforms),specifically,theactionconveyedbytheverbalformoftheparticiple,whichactionissubordinatebutrelatedtotheactionofamain/leadingverb.Whattherelation-shipbetweentheverbalactivityconveyedbythesubordinateaoristparticipleandtheactivityofthemain/leadingverbactuallyis,however,isnosmallproblem.Thiscanbeseeninexamplesthreeandfourfromthepreviousinstallment:

Aorist Participles3.Acts1:8: avlla. lh,yesqe du,namin evpelqo,ntoj tou/ a`gi,ou pneu,matoj evfV

u`ma/j(Butyouwillreceivepower,after[?]theHolySpiritcomes/hascomeuponyou…)

4.Acts25:13:…JVAgri,ppaj o` basileu.j kai. Berni,kh kath,nthsan eivj Kaisa,reian avspasa,menoi to.n Fh/ston.(…AgrippatheKingandBernicearrivedatCaesarea,after[?]theyhadgreetedFestus.)

NotethehypotheticaltranslationsIhaveplacedwitheachofthesetexts.In#3,doestemporalforce,andactionprecedingtheactionofthemain/leadingverbreallygivethebestsense?Inthatcase,thereceptionofpowerwouldhappenaftertheHolySpiritcomesuponthedisciples!#4isanevenmorecuriousexample,iftemporalforceandactionprecedingtheactionofthemain/leadingverbaretobeapplied.DidthekingandqueenarriveinCaesareaaftertheyhadissuedgreetingstoFestus?Thatisunlikely.In#3,the“force”oftheparticipleisprobablyidentical totheactionofthemain/leadingverb(“bytheHolySpiritcominguponyou),whilethe“force”of#4seemstobesimplyanadditionalactivity(“arrived…[and]greeted”).Butwhatdoesthatdototherelationshipin timebetweeneachparticipleanditsmain/leadingverb,whichisourspecificconcerninthiscolumn?Theanswerisbothsimpleandcomplex,viz.,thetimerelationshipbetweenthesubor-dinateactionfocuseduponbyanaoristparticipleandtheactionofthemain/lead-ingverbcan only be determined from context;itcannotbedeterminedbythefactthattheparticipleisintheso-called“aoristtense.”Ineffect,asentencecon-

158

taininganaoristparticipleseemsto“say”:“Thereisasubordinateactinsomerela-tionshiptotheactionofthemain/leadingverb,andinsomerelationshipintermsoftime.Youmustdeterminewhatthatrelationshipis,baseduponthecontext.”Thus,in#3above,thetimeoftheparticipleiscoterminouswiththeactionofthemain/leadingverb(becausetheactionsareidentical).In#4thetimeoftheparti-cipleissubsequenttothatofthemain/leadingverb,becauseitconveysanadditionalactivitytothatofthemain/leadingverb.Putanotherway:theaoristparticiplesays:“Hereisan(other)activity—Iambringingthatintofocus—relatedtothemain/leadingverbbutsubordinatetoit.Youfigureouthowitisrelated,alsowithregardtotime.”

Why,then,doesitseemthatthe“cheap,quick,anddirty”explanationofanaoristparticiple’stimerelationshiptothemain/leadingverb,i.e.,thatitconveysactionprecedingthemain/leadingverb,sooftenholds?Probablysimplyfromthelogicofthecases.TakethefollowingversefromMatthew2asatypicalexample:

Matthew2:11:kai. evlqo,ntej eivj th.n oivki,an ei=don to. paidi,on meta. Mari,aj th/j mhtro.j auvtou/( kai. peso,ntej proseku,nhsan auvtw/| kai. avnoi,xantej tou.j qhsaurou.j auvtw/n prosh,negkan auvtw/| dw/ra( cruso.n kai. li,banon kai. smu,rnan.

Literally,thesentencesaysthatthereisanactivityofcomingwhichisassoci-atedwithandsubordinatetoseeing,thenanactivityoffallingdownassociatedwithandsubordinatetoworshiping,followedbyanactivityofopeningassociatedwithandsubordinatedtobringingto/presenting.Logically,then,theMagienterbeforetheysee,prostratethemselvesbeforetheyworship,andopentreasureboxesbeforetheypresentgifts—whichgivesrisetothe“cheap,quick,anddirty”understandingthatissocommon.

Buttherearetheotherexamples,suchasthetwofromActsabove,thatarenot“cheap,quick,anddirty,”whichiswhyadiscussionensues.Infact,ascanbeseenintheseexamples,problemsgenerallyarisewhenaoristparticiplesfollowthemain/leadingverbsinthephysicalsyntaxofthesentence.Butitisthoseexamplesthatdo“probe”therule,anditisforthisreasonthatamoresatisfactoryunder-standing—suchaswearesuggesting—mustbedeveloped.

Weclosewithseveralmoreaoristparticipleswhoseactionsareverylikelynotpriortotheactionsoftheirleadingverbsintime.Enjoy.

1Thessalonians1:6:Kai. u`mei/j mimhtai. h`mw/n evgenh,qhte kai. tou/ kuri,ou( dexa,menoi to.n lo,gon evn qli,yei pollh|/ meta. cara/j pneu,matoj a`gi,ou.

Acts16:23:polla,j te evpiqe,ntej auvtoi/j plhga.j e;balon eivj fulakh.n paraggei,lantej tw/| desmofu,laki avsfalw/j th/rein auvtou,j.

Acts23:30:mhnuqei,shj de, moi evpiboulh/j eivj to.n a;ndra ))) e;pemya pro.j se. paraggei,laj kai. toi/j kathgo,roij le,gein ta. pro.j auvto.n evpi. sou/.

JamesW.Voelz

Homiletical Helps

COncordiaournalJ


HomileticalHelpsonLSBSeriesC—FirstLesson

Easter 6 • Acts 16:6–15 • May 9, 2010

Submitted below is a full manuscript of a sermon delivered in the chapel service at Concordia Seminary on April 30, 2010, three days after the spring assignment service (“Call Day”). The reader has permission to utilize any useful aspects of this manuscript in crafting his own sermon based on this text. This manuscript reflects the conditions at Concordia Seminary following Call Day, and so the reader will need to make adaptations to his setting of ministry.

Herewearethreedaysaftertheday—nottheDayofYahweh,butclose—CallDay!Onthatdaytheassignmentsofcallstoourseminarycandidateswereannounced.Graduatingseminariansdiscoveredwheretheywillbegintheirpasto-ralanddeaconalministries—inurbansettingsandruralsettings,outontheopenplainsandinthemountainfoothills,atsmallcongregationsandinmegachurches.Thevarietyofplacesofministryandtypesofcongregationstowhichtheyaresentisdazzling!

However,IexpectthattherearesomewhoreceivedcallsonTuesdaywhodonotwishtogowheretheyhavebeenassigned.Theyaredisappointedwiththeirassignments.Notonlyhavetheirexpectationsbeenmissed,buttheirdreamshavebeendashed.PerhapstheyevenquestionthatthisiswhereGodwantsthemtobe,thatthiscallreflectsGod’scall.Theysay,“Thiscertainlyisn’ttheplacethatIwanttogoto!CoulditreallybetheplacewhereGod wantsmetobe?”

Intheaccountrecordedinourtextfortoday,Paulcouldhavebeenaskingthesamequestion:“IsthiswhereGodwantsmetobe?”Hecertainlyendedupataplacethatheoriginallywasn’tplanningtobe.Paulandhiscompanions,SilasandTimothy,aretravelinginwhatisnowTurkey.Theirintention,accordingtoActs(15:36,16:1),istogotothechurcheswhichPaulhadplantedinapreviousjourney,checkonthem,strengthenthem,andsharewiththemthedecisionoftheJerusalemcouncil.PaulrevisitsthechurchesinDerbeandLystrawhichhehadplanted(16:1),butthenGodredirectshisplans.Acts16:6–7read:“AndtheywentthroughtheregionofPhrygiaandGalatia,havingbeenforbiddenbytheHolySpirittospeakthewordinAsia.AndwhentheyhadcomeuptoMysia,theyattemptedtogointoBithynia,buttheSpiritofJesusdidnotallowthem.”Wedon’tknowhowtheSpiritrestrainedthem—whetheritwasthroughavisionorpropheticvoice,orsim-plybycircumstantialbarriers.ThepointisthatwhereGodsentthemisnotwheretheyexpectedtogo;whatGodcalledthemtodowasnotwhattheyhadplanned.ApparentlytheyhadexpectedtogotoAsiaandBithynia,buttheHolySpiritsaidno.WhattheywantedwasoverriddenbywhatGodwanted.AndsotheSpiritsentthemtoaplacewhichtheyhadneverexpectedtogo—toMacedonia,toawholenewcontinent,toEurope!

162

Wealsooftenhaveourplansofwhatwethinkshouldhappentous.Wehaveourdesignsonwhereweshouldgoandwhereweshouldlive.Thatincludesourfirstassignmentinministry.Oneofmyroleshereattheseminaryistoassistwiththeplacementprocess.Iinterviewcandidatesandtheirwivesaboutwheretheywouldliketobeplacedandwhatareasofministrytheywouldliketospecializein.UsuallythecouplesthatIinterviewarequitespecificabouttheirpreferredloca-tionandtypeofministry.It’sokaytohavepreferencesandtocommunicatethem.Aproblemarises,however,whenpeopleexpecttohavealltheirpreferencesmet!

Thisisbecause,althoughwehaveplansaboutwherewewillgotocarryoutministry,lifefrequentlydoesnotgoasweplan.Someonehasobserved:“Lifeiswhathappenswhilemakingotherplans.”God’splanandhisdesignsuponourlivesareoftennotwhatwewantorhopefor.Anothersagehassaid:“Manproposes,butGoddisposes.”WhatweproposetobeourpathinlifemaynotbewhatGoddisposestohappen.

SowhatdowedowhenGodtakesusalonganotherpathwayuponwhichwehadnotplannedtotravel?Oftenwebecomeresentfulandbitter.Wethink:“Howcouldthishavehappened?Howcouldmyhopesbesoshattered?”WeevenbecomeangrywithandresentfulofGod.Weresentthathehasn’tgivenusourheart’sdesire,especiallysincewe’vegivenourselvestodohisministry.Doesn’tthededicationofourlivestohisserviceearnussomerighttohaveourpreferencesmet?Shouldn’tGodcomplywithmydesignformylife?WebegrudgeGodwhenhefailstogiveustheassignmentwehadhopedfor.

ButGodisnotourcelestialsocialsecretary,arrangingthecircumstancesofourlivesaswedirecthim.Wecan’tjustdictatetohimourfutureandexpecthimtocomply.Todosoisnothinglessthanidolatry!TodosoisnothinglessthanexaltingourselvesoverthetrueGod!TodosoistoinsistuponGod:“Notthywill,butminebedone!”SuchpresumptionbyusdeservesonlyjudgmentfromGod.

“Manproposes,butGoddisposes.”Goddisposeshiswilluponusevenwhenitconflictswithourwill.ButthegoodnewsisthatGod’swill,asLutheraffirms,is“goodandgracious”(ExplanationtotheThirdPetitionoftheLord’sPrayer).Goddisposesuponushisgoodness.Goddisposesuponushisgrace!Thatgracecomes,firstofall,asforgivenesstothosewhorepentoftheirsinfulidolatry.Thatgracecomestousbecauseoftheonewhointhegardenprayed,“Thywill,OGod,notmine,bedone.”ThatgracecomestousbecauseoftheServantoftheLordwhosubmittedtothewilloftheLordtocrushhim.Indeed,hewascrushedbytheweightofthejudgmentuponourrebelliousidolatry.Hewenttotheplacewhereweshouldgo—tohellitself.Talkaboutanunpreferredassignment!ButthereChristalsodeclaredhisvictoryoversin,avictorywhichhenowshareswithusinthisEastertideandforevermore!


YetGoddisposeshisgraceuponusinanotherway.Thatisbyblessinguswhereverhesendsus,evenifitistowherewedon’twishtogo.That’swhathap-penedtoPaulandhiscompanionsasdescribedinActs16.GodcloseddoorsinAsiaandopenedadoorintoEurope.PaulcrossedtheHellespontandwenttoPhilippiinMacedonia.TheretheHolySpiritusedPaulasamessengertobringtheGospeltopeoplewhohadneverhearditbefore.FirstLydiawasconverted,thenherhousehold,thenajailerinPhilippi.Andthen,overcenturies,muchofthecontinentofEuropewasconverted!AndfromEuropetheGospelmissionspreadthroughouttheworld.ItallhappenedbecausePaulwentnottowherehewantedtogo,buttowhereGodsenthim.AsCampbellMorganobserves:“Thatinva-sionofEuropewasnotinthemindofPaul,butitwasevidentlyinthemindoftheSpirit.”[QuotedinJohnStott,The Spirit, the Church, and the World: The Message of Acts,1990,p.258].

Goddisposeshisgracetoblessuswherehesendsus,andalsotouseustobringhisblessingtoothers.Throughoutthehistoryofmissions,Godhasbeenredirectingthepathsofhispeople,sendingthemwheretheyhadnotplannedtogo,andusingthemgreatlyintheseunintendedplaces.Forexample,CareysoughttogotoPolynesiatobringtheGospelmessage,butGodredirectedhispathtoIndia.LivingstoneintendedtodomissionworkinChina,butGodredirectedhimtoAfrica.JudsonplannedtocarryoutministryinIndia,butGodbroughthimtoBurmainstead[fromStott,p.261].Ineachofthesecases,Godusedthesementocarryouthiswillinpowerfulways,bringingthelife-givingGospeltomyriadsofpeople.Butthishappenedinplacesandamongpeoplethesemeninitiallydidnotexpecttovisitorintendtoliveamong.

Andsoitiswithyoutoday.YoumayhavehopedtobeplacedinNorthDallas,butGodhassentyoutoNorthDakotainstead.ThisiswhereGodwantsyoutobe!Youexpectedtobeplacednearyourwife’sfamily,butinsteadyouhavebeenassignedtoserveGod’sfamilyhundredsofmilesaway.ThisiswhereGodissendingyou!Youplannedtoministerinaprosperoussuburbancontext,butyourcallistoaneconomicallychallengedurbanarea.ThisisGod’swillforyou!Nevertheless,rememberthatitisGod’sgoodandgraciouswillforyou.Forwher-everheissendingyouhisgracewillsustainyou.Andwhereverhesendsyou,hisgracewillbedeliveredthroughyou.Youwillbetheconduitofhisgracetothem.

“Manproposes,butGoddisposes.”Hehasdisposedforyounotonlytoanswerhiscallbutalsotoreceiveanddispensehisgrace.Gowithjoytowherehesendsyoutobe.

DavidPeter

164

Easter 7 • Acts 1:12–26 • May 16, 2010

With One AccordAstheElevenreturnedfromtheAscensionofJesus,Luketellsusthatthey

wereof“oneaccord”(v.14).TheunionwasfoundwithinthecontextofprayingtogetherwithotherswhowerefollowersofJesus.InthisinterimperiodbetweentheAscensionandPentecost,PeteraddressesthelargergroupofJesus’sfollow-ers.ThepurposeofhisaddressistoencouragetheselectionofareplacementforJudasIscariot,whohadceasedtobeof“oneaccord”withJesusthroughhisactofbetrayalandsubsequentdeath.Thefractureintheunityamongthedisciplescreat-edavacancyamongtheTwelve,whichPeterarguedshouldbefilled.Peter’sargu-mentdrewuponPsalm69:25andPsalm109:8tosupporttheassertionthatJudasshouldbereplaced,sothattheElevenwereonceagaintheTwelve.

ReplacingJudasemphasizedtheimportanceoftheunityamongthebelieversandfollowersofJesus,butevenmoresoamongtheEleven.AsPeterlaysouttheargumentforreplacingJudashealsoidentifiesthequalificationsnecessaryofawor-thycandidate.AqualifiedcandidatetofillthevacancywouldhavetobesomeonewhowaspresentalongwiththedisciplesforalloftheeventsofJesus’spublicmin-istryfromthetimeofhisbaptismuntiltheAscension.Inparticularthiscandidatewouldneedtohavebeenawitness,alongwiththeEleven,oftheResurrection.UnityinbeliefwiththeApostleswasnotsufficient;thecandidatehadtohavebeenineverywayconnectedtoJesus’publicministryastheElevenhadbeen,ifthecan-didatewastobeaddedtotheirnumber.Twocandidateswereputforward:JosephcalledBarsabbasandMatthias(v.23).

Thetextprovideslittleinformationabouteithercandidate,beyondthefactthattheymetthecriteriaestablished.Clearly,theywereof“oneaccord”withthelargergroupofJesus’sfollowers,andmorespecificallytheyhadbeenongoingwit-nessesofJesus’spublicministryandhisresurrection.NoparticulardistinguishingcharacteristicsarediscussedandthusthetextsuggeststhateithercandidatewouldhavebeenasuitablereplacementfortheBetrayer.Gatheredtogetherinunity,thegroupcalledupontheLordtodemonstratewhichcandidateshouldbeselected,throughtheprocessofcastingalot.TheselectionprocessresultedinthelotfallingtoMatthias,andhebecameunitedwiththeElevenastheTwelfthApostle.

TheselectionprocessutilizedtoreplaceJudas,thecandidateselected,andtherestorationoftheApostolicTwelveservetounderscoretheunityofthefollow-ersofJesusgatheredin“oneaccord.”Thetextprovidestheopportunitytobecomeburdenedwiththedetailsoftheprocess,adiscussionofwhetheritwasproperforPeterandtheotherstotakethetaskofreplacingJudasuponthemselves,orevenofwhythelotfelltoMatthiasandnotJoseph.Thesedetails,whileinterestingforstudyandnotentirelyunimportant,shouldnotbetheprimaryfocusoftheproc-lamationofthetext;rather,theunityamongthefollowersofJesusintheearliest


daysoftheformationoftheChurchshouldbethethemeandfocus.EvenbeforetheoutpouringoftheHolySpiritatPentecost,themembersoftheearlychurchwereunitedinChristandtheproclamationofhisresurrection,ofwhichtheywerewitnesses.ThecostofseparatingoneselffromthisbondofunityisreferencedinthediscussionofJudasinverse25.

TheunityoftheApostles,inparticular,andthatofallofthefollowersofJesusreferencedinthetext,providestheopportunitytofocusupontheunityoftheChurchgatheredinprayerandworshiparoundtheWordandtheSacraments.Theunityexperiencedbythoseinthetextdescribedofbeingof“oneaccord”isthesameunitythatissharedbythosewhotogetherconfesstheirsins,receiveChrist’sHolyAbsolutionandhisgiftsofforgiveness,life,andsalvation.TheApostolicTwelvehavepasseddowntheirfirsthandaccountofJesus’spublicministryandhisresurrection,andinfaithwehavereceivedtheblessingsofbeingunitedwithChristin“oneaccord”withtheApostlesandallthefaithful.

Suggested OutlineI.TheEarlyChurch—“OfOneAccord”II.Self-ExclusionfromUnity—SinfulSeparation.III.UnityRestored—UnitedwithChrist.

PaulPhilp

Pentecost Sunday • Genesis 11:1–9 • May 23, 2010

Textual NotesGenesis1:1throughGenesis11:1–9hasbeenreferredtoas“primeval

history.”AccordingtotheHebrew,Genesis11:1–9formsatextualunit.ThetextreferstothetimeaftertheFloodwhen“thewholeworldhadone

languageandthesamewords”(ESV).AftertheFlood,God(Elohiym)hadinstructedNoahandhissons(Gn9:1),“Befruitfulandmultiplyandfilltheearth.”Thepeopleinthetexthavebeenreferredtoas“earthlings,”“humankind,”

“descendantsofAdam,”and“Adamites.”ThedivinenameYHWHappearsfivetimesinthispassage:11:5,11:6,11:8,

11:9(2x).MosesunderstandsthatYHWHwasthecovenantGodalreadyinthedayspriortoAbram/Abraham.YHWHwasincontrolofthedestiniesofmankind.

TheHebrewverbbanah(build)(v.5)isintheperfecttenseandshouldordi-narilybetranslated“hadbuilt”(ESV)or“built.”ThisgivesrisetothesuggestionthatthereasonYHWH“camedown”wasthatintheeyesofYHWHtheeffortof

166

the“earthlings”wasminusculeandemphasizedthe“smallness”oftheproject.“Wordplays”intheHebrewtextinclude:“brickbricks;”Babylon,“cityof

god(s),”becomes“Babel,”“cityofconfusion.”

Verses1–4ofourtextindicatethe“earthlings’”actionsandmotiveVerse5introducesYHWHasthedominantfactor.Verses6–9indicateYHWH’sreactionandaction.

Thetextprovidesthebiblicalbasisforunderstandinghowalltheworld’slan-guagesandthedivisionsofpeoplecametobe.

Humankind’sattemptstoestablishoneuniversallanguagecontinuetofail.TheHolySpiritestablishedtheoneuniversallanguage—thelanguageof

faith—basedonGod’sforgivenessandloveasevidencedthroughJesusChrist(hisincarnation,perfectsubstitutionarylife,suffering,death,resurrection,ascension,andanticipatedreturninglory).

Liturgical ContextInitscontextintheLessonsforSeriesC,PentecostSunday,Genesis11:1–9

providesthebackdropfortheaccountofthefirstChristianPentecostreportedinActs2:1–21.YHWHisincontrolofthesituation.The“earthlings”/”humankind”/thedescendantsofAdamandNoaharedescribedasactingcontrarytotheexpresswillofYHWH.YHWHconfusesthelanguage/speechofthepeople.Thepeoplearescattered.

Acts2:1–21reportstheoutpouringoftheHolySpiritwhichresultsinpeopleofvariousethnicbackgroundsunderstandingintheirownlanguagethepreachingoftheApostles.

Suggested Outline

Earthlings ProposeTheydecidetomakeuseofcurrenttechnology.Earthlings Act They“brickbricks”andselect“bitumen”/“tar”for

mortar.

Earthlings Propose Theydecidetousethebuildingmaterials.Earthlings Act Theybuildacityandatower.Motive Theydonotwanttobescattered.

YHWH ObservesYHWHcomesdown.YHWH Acts YHWHconfusestheirabilitytounderstandone

another.Purpose Toreturnthemtohisoriginalplan.


The Persons of the Trinity Propose TheFatherdeterminedtosavepeoplefromtheirsins

throughhisSon. JesusChristdeterminedtosendtheHolySpirit. TheHolySpiritdesirestosavepeoplethroughthe

MeansofGrace—theWordofGodandthe Sacraments.

Purpose ToreturnpeopletoGod’soriginalplanatthetimeof Creation.

The Holy Spirit ActsResult TheWordofGodproclaimedbythefollowersof

JesusChristbecomestheoneuniversallanguageof faith(Law/Gospel)thatenablespeopletocallonthe nameoftheLordinanticipationof“theLord’sgreat andgloriousday.”

ArthurF.Graudin

Holy Trinity • Proverbs 8:1–4, 22–31 • May 30, 2010

ThisSundayprovidesanopportunitytohighlightoneofthemostsignifi-canteventswithinthehistoryofthechurch.Bythefourthcentury,thechurchhadfounditselfwithaconflictbetweenitsmonotheisticprinciple(theonenessofGod)anditsChristocentricprinciple(thedeityoftheSon).ManyarguedthattheonenessofGodcouldnotbecompromisedandsoproposalslikeadoptionismandmodal-ismeithersubordinatedtheSonordeniedhisdistinctpersonhood.TheNiceneCreedinsteadinsistedthattheChristocentricprinciple(deityoftheSon)couldnotbecompromised.Andsothe“oneness”ofGodhadtobedefinedsoastoincludetheSonandlatertheSpirit.

Proverbs8isfamousbecauseitlayattheheartofthecontroversyoverthedeityofChristthatculminatedintheNiceneCreed.NearlyeveryoneintheearlychurchunderstoodthispassagetobeaboutChrist.AriusarguedthattheSondidnotexistatonetime.Instead,hecameintoexistenceatthebeginningofcreation.TheFathermadehimashisfirstcreature.ThisenabledAriustoaffirm(againsttheSabellians)thattheSontrulysufferedonthecrosssinceeveryoneagreedthatGodcannotsuffer.Creatures,however,cansuffer.AriusalsoarguedsincetheSonwasthefirstandmostpowerfulofallGod’screaturestheSoncouldsaveus.Butintheend,hewasstillacreature.

168

To Confess the Trinity is to Confess ChristIntroductionManypeopleseeeverythingineitherspiritualormaterialterms.Thosethings

thatarespiritualtendtoberegardedassuperiortothosethingsthataremate-rial.ButthatisnothowtheBibleviewslife.TheOldTestamentseeseverythingthroughthetwolensesofcreatorandcreature.Thereisthecreatorandtherearecreatures.Thisdividebetweenthecreatorandthecreaturelayattheheartofthedebateinthefourthcentury.WastheSonofGodourcreatororwasheacreaturelikeus?Andhowdoesthatimpactoursalvation?

I. WhatmakesJesusGod? A. PeopleoftenthinkthatwhatmakesGodGodisthatheisthe oppositeofus.Inotherwords,wearefinitesoGodisfinite. WearelimitedinpowerandknowledgeandsoGodmustbe unlimitedinpowerandknowledge.Yougettheidea.Butthat isnottheprimarywayinwhichtheBibledescribesGod.God istheonewhocreatedeverythingthatexists.Ifonedidnot createeverythingthatexists,thenthatoneisnotGod.It’sthat simple. B. TheearlychurchidentifiedthistextaboutWisdomasspeak- ingabouttheSonofGod.Andforgoodreason.Pauldoesit in1Corinthians1:18–31andColossians2:2–C.Verses22–26, whichspeakofWisdomasexistingbeforethecreationofthe world,findexpressioninJohn1:1–2andRevelation22:13. Verses27–31,whichspeakofWisdom’sroleincreationfind clearreferencetoChristinJohn1:3–5;Colossians1:15–20.II. What’satStake? A. InJesusChristdowecomefacetofacewithGodandhis salvationornot?IfJesuswereanythingotherthanGod,for example,acreatureasAriusproposed,thenwecannotsayin truththatGodhimselfsavesus.Heisnotlimitedbycreation orconstrainedbyanythingwithincreation.TheSonofGod becameahumanbeinginordertodieforus“andour salvation.” B. TheNiceneCreedconfessedthedeityoftheSonbysaying that“beingbegotten”doesnotmeancreate.Itdenotesa certainkindofrelationshiptotheFather.Byconfessingthat heisGodinthesamewayastheFatherisGod,thechurch confessedsalvationinChrist.Thusthechurchconfessedthe TrinityinordertoconfesswhoJesusisandwhyhematters.


Conclusion. ChristianityredefinedmonotheisminawaythatincludedtheSonandthe

Spirit.Forthisreason,theothertwogreatmonotheisticreligionsoftheworld(JudaismandIslam)donotregardChristiansasmonotheists.Christianitycouldnotdootherwise.AtstakewastheidentityandsignificanceofChrist.

CharlesArand

Proper 5 • 1 Kings 17:17–24 • June 6, 2010

AquestionIwanttoaskyou:Does it matter to you if this story is true or not?Idon’tmeanthequestionasatestofyourorthodoxy.Itisnota,Do you believe the Bible is true or a bunch of fables? typequestion.Idon’tmeanitasthekindofquestionyoucananswerrightorwrongandgoyourway…unchanged.

WhenIask,Does it matter to you? ItisaDoes it matter to you what the doctor tells you after she looks at the x-raystypequestion?Does it matter to you what the woman you love will answer you?typequestion.ItisaIs my son or daughter going to be okay?kindofmatter …Achurningstomachmatter !Asweatypalmsmatter !Doesthetruthofthestorymatterinthatwaytoyou?

Formostofyou,probablynot.(Andsomeofyoumaybethinking—smugly—“whatdoyoumeanby‘true’?‘True’inwhatway?”)Butthat’sonlybecauseyouaren’tholdingadeadchildinyourarmslikethiswidowfromZarapheth.Inthestory,truthcamedownfromitsloftyabstractionsandfellintothewidow’sarms.Truthboreintoherheartaskillingguilt—condemningherasanaccompliceinhisdeath.

Now,thatmightnotmattertoyou.(It’sjustastory,right?)Butthat’sbecauseyouareable(fornow)todenythetruththatthiswomancouldnot.

Itisthemostbrutaloftruthsthatrarelyshowsitsface.Tolookfullinthefaceallthetimeattheterrorwouldconsumeus,andsowepushitintotheback-groundandbyandlargeremainoblivioustoitinourdailylives.PsychoanalystGregoryZilboorgsaysitthisway:“Amanwillsay,ofcourse,thatheknowshewilldiesomeday,buthedoesnotreallycare.Heishavingagoodtimewithlivingandhedoesnotthinkaboutdeathanddoesnotcaretobotheraboutit—butthisispurelyintellectual,verbaladmission.Theaffectoffearisrepressed.”1

WilliamJamessaysthesamething:“Letsanguinehealthy-mindednessdoitsbestwithitsstrangepoweroflivinginthemomentandignoringandforgetting ,stilltheevilbackgroundisreallytheretobethoughtofand the skull will grin in at the banquet ”(italicsadded).2

Inthestory,thegrinningskulldemandedaseatatthewidow’stable.Shenolongercouldlivetheillusionofimmortality.Theterrifyingtruthhadshatteredit.If

170

youhavebeengivenearstohear,Deathasyour truthshowsitsfaceinthisstory.Ifthestorymatterstoyou,noticethatElijahdoesnotministertothis

womanbyrepressingthetruth,orbytellingherthateverythingwillbeokay,i.e.“Godiswatchingoveryou”andsoon.Hesaid:“Givemeyourson.”AndhestretchedhimselfthreetimesoverthebodyandaskedGodtoraisehim.ANDGODLISTENED!ThenElijahgavetheboybacktohismotherandsaid:“Look,yourson’salive.”Justlikethat!

Can God do that? Will God do that? Is there another Elijah—a prophet who has God’s ear? Can I find him? Can he do that for me? Can it happen again?Whenthetruthhasshatteredyourillusions,whentheskullhangstheregrinningatyou,thenthetruthofthisstorymatters.Weallknowdeepdownthattheonlysolutionfortheever-pres-entfearofdeathisresurrection.

Therapy,psychoanalysis,ignoring,forgetting,won’treallygetyouanywhere.Theonlyrescuefromdeathisbeingraisedfromit.TheonlytruecomfortforthiswidowwasjustwhatElijahdid—hegaveherdeadsonbackalive!

Onereasonwekeeprepeatingthisstoryandotherslikeitistobringthepos-sibilitytoyourimagination.Wetellit,sothatinourgriefandlongingweimaginewhatitwouldbelikeforsuchathingtohappen!Just imagine it!Ourliturgyandhymnsandprayers,musicandartandarchitectureallservethesamepurpose—toconfronttheterrorofdeathwiththehope—thebeautifuldream—ofresurrection.TheultimatebalmagainstDeath’smortalwound!

Inwithandunderitall,ofcourse,standstheResurrectionStory:thedeathofGod’sownSon.Andthen…justwhenallseemedlost…hisresurrection!Goddidaresurrectionforthiswidow!GoddidaresurrectionforhisownSon.Isittrue?Willitbetrueforyou?Insteadoftheskullgrinninginonthebanquet,isJesusdoingthesmiling,thelaughingatyourbanquet?AtTHISbanquet[HolyCommunion]?Thequestionsmatterlikenothingelse!

Attheendofthestory,thewidowsayskindofanoddthing.ShesaystoElijah:“NowIknowthatyouareamanofGodandthewordoftheLordinyourmouthistruth.”It’sthatphrase,“thewordoftheLordinyourmouthistruth.”Thewomanknewtruthwhenshesawit!Hersonwasdead,butnowhewasalive.Yea,sheknewtruth!

Andherwitnesscallsouttousthroughtheages:The Word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.It’stheWordoftheLordyouhearinyourBaptism:youareburiedandraisedwithChrist.It’stheWordoftheLordyouhaveathisBanquet:thisismybodyandbloodgivenforyoufortheforgivenessofyoursins!YouhearitintheAbsolution:yoursinsareforgiven.

Getit?TheWordoftheLordisinyourstorytoo!TheLordhasspokentoyouaswell.Andwithitisthetruthoftheresurrection.Amen.

TimSaleska

Endnote1QuotedinErnestBecker.The Denial of Death(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1973),17.2Ibid.,16.


Proper 6 • 2 Samuel 11:26–12:10, 13–14 • June 13, 2010

The SettingDuringtheseasonofPentecost,thetextsappointedforthethirdweek

underscoreGodtheHolySpirit’sspecificactivityofconvictingusofoursin,call-ingustorepentanceandfaith,andpronouncingabsolution.Bymeansofastory,prophetNathanconvictskingDavidofhis‘affair’withhisgeneral’swife,yetabsolveshimastheLordhastakenawayhissin(12:13).IntheGospellesson(Lk7:36–8:3),inaPharisee’shouseourLordforgaveinnouncertaintermsthemany sinsofawomanwhohadbeenleadingasinfullifeinaparticulartown.Theselect-edversesfromGalatianschapters2and3speakofGodwhojustifiesJewandGentilealikeinChristwhoinourplacebecameacurseforoursinsthatwemightthroughfaithinhimreceivetheHolySpirit(3:14).

Readtogether,theseveryfamiliartextsaccentuateaveryfamiliarandanequallysignificantbiblicaltheme,namely,“SinandGrace.”

Message AnalyzedInourtext,KingDavidstandsoutasatype.Hetypifiesthehumanpredica-

mentChristiansknowassinwithallitspredictabledimensionsandconsequences.Covetingissin,anditincludescravingtoclaimingashisownanotherman’swife.WiththeintentionofmakingUriah’swifehisown,DavidplottedtokillUriah,hisownpersonalbodyguard,bystrategicallyplacinghiminharmswayinthebattle-field.Davidineverywaytrieshardtocoveruphiscrime.Nevertheless,sin’srip-plingeffectvisitsDavidwithavengeanceinhisrelationshipwithGodandfellowhumanbeingsasisclearlyevidentinthisaccount.Onceconvicted,DavidconfessesthathehassinnedagainsttheLord(v.13).Hehadmadeamockeryofhimself[andGod]amongthepublic.Infact,bydisobeyingwhatappearstobeonecommand-ment,Davidhadbecomeguiltyofbreakingallcommandments.ThissinwouldprickDavid’sownconscienceandcosthischilditslife.Later,hissonAbsalomwouldliewithDavid’sownconcubinesinpublicplacesinthesightofallIsrael(16:22).Howmuchmoreshamecouldbebroughttoafatherbyhisownson?

Apparentlytheking’sscandalous“affair”withBathshebaisfamiliareventothosewhomaynotknowwhothebiblicalkingDavidactuallyis.Regardlessoftheadmonitiontonotletthisspecificsinreignoverthemortalbodyandbeitsmas-ter,adulteryanditscroniescontinuetobeperhapsthemostpopularandtheleastresistedsinsinourworld.Thissinagainstthesinner’sownbodyisthemostcom-mittedandtheleastadmittedand,pitiably,theleastacknowledgedandthemostoverlooked.Neitherroyaltynorpovertycanpleadexceptiontothisunholyrule,andneitheraffluencenorinfluencecanconcealthisquandaryforever.

172

Message AppliedIfinthistextkingDavidisa‘type”ofsin,healsopointstoDavid’sgreater

Son,JesusChristwhoalonecanforgivesins(Lk7:49).Theingressiveintentional-ityofsincanneverbeoveremphasized.ThroughNathantheprophet,God’slawconvictedDavidassinnerundeniably(v.7).David’sownconscience,bymeansofthepropheticwordandbyhisownwords,pronouncedjudgmentonhimthatsin,regardlessofwhotheculpritmightbe,mustbepunished.Onceconvicted,DavidbecameawarethathiscraftyandcunningwaysatjustifyinghisactionswerefutilebeforeGodandpeople.Hisprivilegedroyaltymayhavelegitimizedhisactionsincustomaryfashionbeforethepublic;butbeforeGodwhositsonhisthronetojudge,noneofitcouldhelpescapedivineretribution.Yet,forDavid,therewasnowheretoturnexcepttothemercyseatofGodandsay,“IhavesinnedagainsttheLord”(v.13).

EquallyrelentlessandreassuringisthepropheticwordthatabsolvedDavid,“TheLordhastakenawayyoursin;youshallnotdie”(v.13).JustassinsquashestherelationshipbetweenGodandmanandfabricatesunsettlingrepercussionsinthemoral,social,andpoliticallivingofcommunities,forgivenessofsinonthemeritsofJesusChristtheunblemishedLambofGodthattakesawaythesinoftheworldbringslifeandsalvationtoallwhobelieve,andinhisnamerestoresallbro-kenrelationships.Wherethereisforgiveness,thereislifeandsalvation.

GodhaskepthispromisetosavehispeoplethroughOneMan,David’sSonwhoisalsoDavid’sLord.David’sbloodlinewouldcontinuethroughSolomonwhosemotherhadbeenUriah’swife.God’spromiseremains“yes”allthetime,inspiteofman’ssin,inthatOneManandbyhisdeathandresurrection.

Hence,theScripturalwarrantstaysputthatjustasbyoneman’sdisobedi-encesinbecamethedestinyofall,byOneMan’sobedienceGodhasimputedhisrighteousnesstoallwhobelieveinhim;JewandGentile,manandwoman,slaveandfree.InthatOneMan,Godhasbrokendownthewallsofhostilityandbroughtnearthosewhohadbeenoncefaroff.EspeciallyduringthisseasonofthePentecost,empoweredbytheHolySpirit,thegospelofthekingdomwillbepreachedasatestimonytoallpeople.Afterall,thegraceofGodisconvicting,affirming,andcomfortingforallwhobelievethatChristJesuscametotheworldtosavesinners.

AsaQumrandocumenthasstated,“WhenIthoughtofmyguiltydeeds,Isaidinmysins,‘Iamlost.’ButthenwhenIrememberedthestrengthofyourhandandthefullness of your grace,Iroseagainandstoodupright…foryouwillpardoniniquityandyouwillpurifymanofsinthroughyourjustification.”1

VictorRaj

Endnote1J.LouisMartyn,Galatians,(NewYork:Doubleday,1997),266.


Proper 7 • Isaiah 65:1–9 • June 20, 2010

Let’sbehonest.GiventhewondrousepistlereadingfromGalatians3(“Butnowthatfaithhascome…ThereisnolongerJeworGreek…Butwhenthefullnessoftimehadcome,GodsenthisSon…Soyouarenolongeraslavebutachild…”)andthemultifacetedaccountoftheGerasenedemoniacinLuke8,thisreadingfromIsaiahmighttakethirdplaceonthepreacher’shitlist.Yetithassomestrikingfeatures.Aretherepropheticthemesherethatmightresonateintherhe-toricalheightsofPaulandtheamazingactoftheChrist?

Weshouldbeginbyacknowledgingthat,beginninginIsaiah65,Godanswersthepeople’scryoutofthedepthsin63:7–64:12.“Thereisnoonewhocallsonyourname,orattemptstotakeholdofyou;foryouhavehiddenyourfacefromus,andhavedeliveredusintothehandofouriniquity”(64:7).That’sthecontext.God’sanswerformsthegrandfinaleofthebookofIsaiah,afinalethatanticipatestheentirefutureofGod’sreign(65:17,66:22–23).

Yet,verse1openswithirony.“Iwasreadytobesoughtoutbythosewhodidnotask,”Godsays,“tobefoundbythosewhodidnotseekme.”Godanswersthosewhohavebeenseekinghim—thechildrenofAbraham(64:16)andMoses(63:11)—byopeninghimselftothosewhodonotseekhim.ThisironyisnotlostonPaul,whocitesthistextinRomans10asevidencethatGodhasopenedsal-vationtotheGentilesthroughfaithinChrist(Rom10:20).Matteroffact,thereisdeepresonancebetweenthissectionofRomans10—particularlyvv.10–12,17–21—andtoday’sGalatians3pericope.

GodextendinganinvitationbeyondhischosenpeopleisaLukanthemeaswell.TheopeningversesofIsaiah65arereminiscentofthegreatfeastparableinLuke14:15–24:“…Thenthemastersaidtotheslave,‘Gooutintotheroadsandlanes,andcompelpeopletocomein,sothatmyhousemaybefilled’”(Lk14:23).Ofcourse,italmostgoeswithoutsayingthattoday’sLuke8pericopebeginswithJesusarriving“atthecountryoftheGerasenes,whichisoppositeGalilee”toa“hillsidewherealargeherdofswinewasfeeding”(8:26,32;cf.Is65:4).Inotherwords,Gentilecountry.

Isaiah65:4issignificantinlightofLuke8foranotherreasontoo.Godisaddressingthose“whositinsidetombs,andspendthenightinsecretplaces.”Soundlikeanyoneelseweknow(cf.Lk8:27)?Interestinglyenough,mostofthe“abominablethings”thatGodcitesinIsaiah65connotepagandivination,border-ingonthedemonic.Again,soundfamiliar(cf.Lk8:29–30)?

Thereisanintenselaw-GospeldialecticatworkinIsaiah65,betweenaGodwhohas“heldoutmyhandsalldaylong”(v.2)andapeoplewhomGod“willindeedrepayintotheirlapstheiriniquities”(vv.6–7).Nevertheless,God’slov-ingkindnesshasthefinalword:“Asthewineisfoundinthecluster,andtheysay,‘Donotdestroyit,forthereisablessinginit,’soIwilldoformyservants’sake,

174

andnotdestroythemall”(v.8).ThiswordofpromiseisforbothJewandGentile(v.9).Andagain,thetextreverberatesinLuke,intheparableofthefigtree(Lk13:6–9).

Intheend,Isaiah65goesalongwayinhelpingusunderstandJesus’curiousinstructionstothehealedGeraseneman.Weallcanidentifywithhisimpassionedpleatostaywithhishealer.Whowouldn’twanttosoakupeverysecondatthefeetoftheChrist?Wecanalmosthearthedisciples:“Please,Lord,letthemancomewithus.Thereisnothingforhimhere.”

Butno:“Returntoyourhome,”Jesussays,“anddeclarehowmuchGodhasdoneforyou”(Lk8:39).Staytoproclaimgoodnewstothosewhohaven’theard?Sure.Butmoreimportantly—asIsaiah65wouldremindus—staybecauseGodisjustasmuchatworkintheGerasenesasinGalilee.Sometimesevenmoreso.“Bloomwhereyouareplanted,”theoldclichégoes.Because,whereverthathap-penstobe,asgrapesbecomewine,“thereisablessinginit.”

TravisJ.Scholl

Proper 8 • 1 Kings 19:9b–21 • June 27, 2010

Notes on the pericopeThispericopepresentsElijah’sencounterwithYahwehonMountHoreband

hiscallofElisha.RecentlyElijahhadbeenonanothermountain,Carmel,wherehechallengedtheprophetsofBaalanddemonstratedthetruthaboutYahweh(1Kg18).ThisinfuriatesJezebel,soherunsforhislife.Oncehemakesittothedesert,however,Elijahcrawlsunderatreeandpraysnotfordeliverancebutfordeath.ButjustasGodhadsustainedhimoncewithravensandagainthroughthewidowofZarephath,nowhesendsanangeltofeedhimandsendhimonhiswaytoHoreb,themountainofGod(19:1–8).

Oncehearrives,thegreetingispointed.TheWordofYahwehcomestohim:“Whatareyoudoinghere,Elijah?”Thefirsthalfofverse9reads:“Andheenteredthereacaveandlodgedthere.”ButGodwantstoknow,“Whatareyoudoinghere,Elijah?”Thesituationandtheseadverbssuggestthatwealsocouldinferthis:“andnotwhere you are supposed to be.”(Laterdevelopmentsreinforcethissuggestion.)ElijahexplainsthathehasbeenveryzealousforYahweh;thatoftheprophetshealoneremainsalive;andthatthepeopleofIsraelseektokillhim.ButtheresponseissimplytheinstructiontogoandstandbeforeYahwehhimself.AsYahwehapproaches,thewindbreaksrocks,theearthshakes,andafirerages.ButGodwasnotinthewind,norintheearthquake,norinthefire.Wemightsaythatthesecome“beforeYahweh,”thatis,theysignalhisadvent.ButwhenYahwehhimselfarrives,hearrivesinquietness(v.12).ElijahrecognizesthisandcovershisfacebeforeGod.


Readershavenotagreedaboutthisquietness(qol dammah daqah),asalookatEnglishtranslationsshow.TheKJVandRSVrenderthisas“astillsmallvoice,”whiletheNIVsays“agentlewhisper,”theESV“thesoundofalowwhisper,”andtheNASB“asoundofagentleblowing.”TheNRSV,however,suggestsamoredramaticorawesomeencounter:“asoundofsheersilence.”Ipreferthisrendering,buttheexactEnglishwordschosenarelessimportantthanthemoodconveyed.Howeveryourenderthisphrase,thewordsmustfitthecontext.WalterBrueggemannhelpfullyexplainswhyandhow:“Intheend,itisevidentthatthephraseisbeyondus.Caremustbetakenthatonedoesnottakethephraseoutofcontext;for,incontext,itispreludetoademandingconfrontation.Itisnottheofferofintimatesolace,forsuchanofferwouldseemincongruoustobothpartiesinthenarrative”(from1 & 2 Kings,Smyth&HelwysBibleCommentary[Macon,GA:Smyth&HelwysPublishing,Inc.,2000],236).

“Demandingconfrontation”summarizeswellwhathappensonthemoun-tain.Inperson,Yahwehsays:“Whatareyoudoinghere,Elijah?”AsIsuggestedearlier,wecanwellimaginewhatisleftunsaid:“andnotwhereyouaresupposedtobe.”TheprophetrepeatshimselftoGod.Yahweh,however,offersneithercom-fortnorsupport.HeordersElijahtoreturnandgettowork:“GobackwhenceyoucameandgototheDesertofDamascus,”Yahwehtellshim.“Andwhenyougetthere,dothis:anointHazaelkingoverAram;anointJehusonofNimshikingoverIsrael;andanointElishasonofShaphatasyoursuccessor.Jehuwillkillany-onewhoescapestheswordofHazael,andElishaanywhoescapesJehu.”ThenYahwehadds:“IhavekeptseventhousandinIsraelwhohavenotboweddowntoBaalorkissedhim.”GodhascalledElijah,andGodexpectsElijahtoheedhiscall.Itdoesn’tmattertoGodthatprophetsthroughoutthecountryhavebeenkilledandthathislifeisindanger,andsoitshouldn’tmattertoElijah.“Getbackandgetgoing,”istheWordoftheLord.“Hereareafewthingstotakecareofwhenyougetthere…”

ThestorycontinueswithElijahcallingElisha.HethrowshiscloakonElishaasheisplowing.Elishaleavestheoxenbehind,runsafterElijah,andtellshimsaysthathewillfollowrightafterhesaysfarewelltohisparents.Elijahmakeshimreconsider.“Goback;whatdidIjustdotoyou?”Elishagetsthepoint:hegoesbacktotheoxen,sacrificesthem,cooksanicemealforthepeople,andgoesalongwithElijah.AsfortheotherinstructionstoElijah,itisElishawhodeclarestoHazaelthathewouldbekingoverSyria(2Kgs8)andwhosendsaprophettoanointJehukingoverIsrael(2Kgs9).

Notes for preachingThispassageprobablywasselectedbecauseitsfinalverses(19–21)parallel

theappointedGospelfortheday(Lk9:51–62,especiallyvv.57–62).ThelectionaryidentifiesElijahasatypeofChristinhiscallingofElishaandinhisresponsetoElisha’swishtobidfarewelltohisparentsbeforedeparting.

176

Inthiswaythelectionarysuggestsa“topical”sermonaboutthenatureandsomeimplicationsofdiscipleship.Bothlessonspointtothediscipleshipasutterdevotionandcompleteconfidence,andtothecalltodiscipleshipasamatterofurgency.SuchasermonmightbeginbyassertingthattheOldTestamentlessonandtheGospelappointedfortodaybothhavesomethingdefinitetoteachaboutwhatitmeanstobeadisciple.ThenthesermonmightmakethecallofElishathepointofdepartureandmakethecallingofdisciplesandintheteachingsaboutdiscipleshipintheGospelsasitsfulfillment.TheGospellessongivesoneinstance;Luke’sGospelalsoreflectsthesefeaturesinthecallingofthedisciples,wholefteverythingandfollowedJesus(4:11;4:28);inhisteachingsaboutthe“costofdis-cipleship”(seeespecially8:23–26and14:25–33);intheepisodewiththerichruler(18:18–30);andintheparableoftheweddingbanquet(14:15–24).AssumingasermonbeforeaChristiancongregation,thecalltofollowJesuswillhavehappenedalready.Itwouldmakesense,however,torepeatthepromisesfordisciples;torecallGod’sfaithfulnessinkeepinghispromises;andtourgeongoingfaithfulness,especially,asourlessonssuggest,inviewofsuchtemptationsastheaffectionsoffamilyandfriendsandthesecuritythatmoney,possessions,andincomeprovide.

Clearly,asermonthatdealswithentirepericopewouldhavetomovealongdifferentlines.SuchasermonwouldrecognizeYahwehasthecentralfigureandhischaracterandplanasbasicmotifs.

Tomakeitclearwhyyouwouldstresssomethingsandnotothers,andalsotoavoidtheimpressionthatyouaretreatingtheScripturesmerelyasasourceofillustrationsfordoctrinalandethicalinstruction,thesermonfirstmightshowhowthispericopefitsintotheScriptures’accountofGodandhisdealingswithhischo-senpeople,beforeittriestoshowhowitbearsontoday’shearersandtheirlives.Yahweh’sinstructionstoElijahmakeitclearheisincontrolofthefutureofIsrael.HeshowsthattheunfaithfulnessanddisobedienceofAhab,Jezebel,and[mostofthenation]mattergreatlytohim.HeletsElijahknowthathehasthesituationwellinhandandtellshimhowheplanstoaddressit.HeshowsElijahhisownpartintheplan.Moreover,hisabruptdealingswithElijah,whohasfledIsraelandfearedforhislife,suggestthatElijahhasbeenaman“oflittlefaith,”asJesusmighthavesaid.Heshouldhaveknownbetterthantorun,andhenowshouldknowthatGodexpectshimtogetbacktohisresponsibilitiesrightaway.

HearersintheUnitedStatesareinasignificantlydifferentsituationthatElijah’s.Hewasaprophet,calledtospeaktotheNorthernKingdomandthreat-enedbythequeen.InhisdistresshegetsanaudiencewithGod.Theoffice,thesituation,thepersecution,andtherecourseofElijahmakehimdifferentthananyofustoday.

ButitstillmatterswhetherGodisincontrol,whatheplanstodo,andhowGod’speopleshouldfacetheirsituation.Why?BecauseGodhasyettofulfillhis


promisetoestablishhisreign.AsGod’speoplewait,wefindallkindsofunfaithful-nessanddisobedience,evenamongthosewhoidentifywithJesusChristandhisChurch.Shouldwegiveup?Shouldwethinkourlivesdon’tmatter?ShouldwewonderwhatGodisupto?No.JustasGodappointedHazael,Jehu,andElishatotakecareofthings,sohehasappointedJesusasLordtodealwithallthings.Godhasmatterswellinhand.Hisplanisunfoldinginawaythatmayseemexcruciat-inglyslow,butChristiansshouldtrustinGod.FromGod’sdealingswithElijah,wefindthatthismeansbelievinginhispromises,especiallyinthefaceofthreatsandtroubles,andlivingaccordingtotheofficestowhichcalledeachofus.

JoelP.Okamoto

Proper 9 • Isaiah 66:10–14 • July 4, 2010

IntroductionSeveralchallengesfacethepreacherofthistext:onechallengeishowbest

tounderstandthistextinitsliteraryandhistoricalcontextwhereitspeakstotherestorationofIsraelfromcaptivityandhow—ifatall—thismessagethenrelatestoourhearerstoday.OtherchallengesstemfromthistextusingtheimageryofJerusalemasanursingmother:someChristiansmayreadilymakeaconnectionfrom“motherZion”to“motherChurch,”butonemustaskifthismoveisjustifiedonthebasisofthistext.YetanotherchallengeishowthepreachermightproclaimamessageofGod’sloveusingtheimageryofJerusalemasanursingmothertoacontemporaryAmericanaudiencethatmaynotreadilyidentifywiththisimage.

The ContextToday’slessoncomesinthesecondthematichalfofIsaiah—chapters

40–66.OnemainconcerninthesechaptersisYahweh’spromisetorestorethoseexiledintheBabyloniancaptivity.Theinitialexhortationtothepreacherin40:1is“Comfort,comfortmypeople!”ThisexhortationisrecalledaswehearYahweh’spromisein66:13:“ImyselfwillcomfortyouandinJerusalemyouwillbecomfort-ed”(theverb~xnisusedinboth40:1and66:13).

AlookthroughseveralIsaiahcommentariesshowsthatthereissomedis-agreementinseeinghowthevariouspropheticutterancesinIsaiah66aretobeorganizedinrelationshiptooneanother.TheMasoreticparagraphsinBHSindicatethatvv.10–11arereadtogetherandvv.12–14withv.15ff(seemyoutlinebelow).Severalmoderncommentariessuggestthatvv.7–14arealiteraryunit(seealsothedivisioninESV).Verses7–9,ifreadwithourtext,doprovidethemostimportantimmediatecontext:intheseversesGodspeaksofZiongivingmiraculousbirthtoa

178

son.Thecontextindicatesthatthisnon-literallanguagedescribestherestorationofIsraelfromcaptivity.This“rebirth”ofthenationthenseemstobethebasisfortheexhortationtorejoiceinv.10.

The TextVerses 10–11.Threesynonymousverbsintheimperativeexhortthehearers

to“rejoicewithJerusalem.”Again,ifwereadwithvv.7–9,thebasisforthisjoyisthatZion/Jerusalemwillgivemiraculousbirthtothisson/nation/children.Thusthosewhoarecalledtorejoicearethosewhoboth“loveJerusalemandmournoverher.”Thesearethosewho,asDanielinDaniel9,understandwhyJerusalemwaspunished,mournoverthis,andtrustinYahweh’spromisetorestoreher;theymaintainthetruefaithinthemidstoftheexile.Jerusalem/ZioniskeybecauseitisthecentrallocationaroundwhichthepeopleofGodbasedtheiridentity:Itisthecapi-taloftheDavidickingdomandtheplacewheretheTemplewas(andwillbeagain),theplacewhereYahwehhasputhisnameandwhereIsraelistogoandpresentthemselvestohim.

Intheimageryofvv.7–10thecityislikenedtoamothergivingbirth.The“Zionasmother”imagecontinuesinv.11wherethehearersarepromisedthattheywill“nurseandbesatisfiedfromherconsolingbreast”and“slurp/drinkdeep-lyfromhergloriousabundance.”Thehearersarebothinvitedinv.10torejoiceatthebirthoftheson/nation/childrenmentionedinvv.7–9andpromisedinv.11thattheytoowillnurseaschildrenthemselves.Are the hearers supposed to see themselves as distinct from the son of v. 7 to whom Zion gives birth?Thepromiseofv.11mayindicatethatthehearersareperhapsidentifiedwiththechildrenofv.8,butthereappearsatleastaninitialdistinctionmadebetweenthehearersandthesonofv.7whenthehearersareinvitedtorejoiceatthebirthofJerusalem’ssonbeforetheythenarepromisedthattheytoowillnursefromJerusalemaschildren.Thesonofv.7isthenationofIsraelandthehearerseachmembersofthisnation.

Verses 12–14.“ForthussaidYahweh”—theinitiallineofv.12indicatesthatwhatfollowswillcontainexplanation/expositionofvv.10-11.Verse12aprom-isesthatpeaceandthegloryofthenations(seeIsaiah2:2–3)willextend/flowtoJerusalemlikeariver/wadi.Verse12brecallsonceagaintheimageryof“Jerusalemasmother”inthepromisethatthehearerswillbecaredforaschildrenbythismother.Verse13,however,ismostimportantinexplainingwhattheearliernon-literallanguagemeans:theagentofthisactofcomfortingisnotJerusalembutYahweh:“Asamanwhosemothercomfortshim,Imyselfwillcomfortyou,andyouwillbecomfortedinJerusalem.”Yahweh is the one who will bring about this rebirth and restoration of the nation in Jerusalem.

Thepromiseinv.14aisthatthehearerswillsee,rejoice,andthrive.Verse14bcontainsapromiseandthreatthatactuallyprovidesagoodsummaryofthewidercontextofIsaiah65:9–66:24:“ThehandofYahwehwillbemade


knownwithhisservantsandhewillbeindigentwithhisenemies.”Thethreatofpunishmentisthendevelopedfurtherbeyondourtextinvv.15ff.ThosewhotrustinYahweh’spromisetorestorehispeopletoJerusalemwillbecomfortedandlive;thosewhoscoffandrejectthispromisewillbesubjecttohiswrathandpunishment.

Considerations for PreachingInitsoriginalliteraryandhistoricalcontextthistextspeakstotherestoration

ofIsraelfromexile.YahwehpromisesthatthoseinexilewillreturntoJerusalem;thefaithfulresponsetothesewordsbythoseincaptivitywouldhavebeentobelievethispromise.ThenarrativeofEzra-NehemiahrecordsthefulfillmentofYahweh’spromiseswhenmanydidreturnandtheTempleandJerusalemwererebuilt.Yahweh was faithful to Isaiah’s hearers and fulfilled his word to them.

ThoughYahweh’spromisesarefulfilledinthereturnfromexile,neverthe-lesstheprayerofNehemiah9,Daniel’sprayerinDaniel9,andevenZechariah’sprayerinLuke1:67–79indicatethatthereturnoftheexilesfromBabylondidnotalonerepresentafullrestorationofIsrael:David’skingdomwasnotrestored.Israelremainedunderforeignrule.TheMessiahhadnotyetcome.Peaceandthegloryofthenations(see66:12a)hadnotflowedintoJerusalem.And so the OT narrative itself indicates that there is still more that God will do to restore his people.

IntheNTthisstorypicksupagainwiththeperson,life,andministryofJesusChrist,theSonofGod,andwearenowcalledtobelieveinhim.AstheGospelsseeIsaiah40fulfilledintheministryofJohntheBaptist,Jesus’sforerun-ner,soperhapswecanalsosaythatthecomfortpromisedinIsaiah66isalsoultimatelyfulfilledintheministry,death,andresurrectionofJesus.(ManywouldprobablyobjecttotheideathatJesuscanbeidentifiedas“theson”of66:7,butthatsonisthenation,andJesusisbyextensionIsrael-reduced-to-one.)Yetthedis-ciples’questioninActs1:6indicatesthatalthoughrepentancefortheforgivenessofsinsisnowpreachedtothenationsinJesus’sname(Luke24:47),wealsostillawaitthefinalrestorationofthekingdomofIsrael.Thuswefindourselvesinasimilar(thoughnotexactlythesame)situationasIsraelinexile:astheyawaitedthereturnfromexile,weawaittherestorationofallthingsonthelastday.In the meantime we, as they once did, live by faith in the word and promises of God.

Sincethenon-literallanguageof66:10–12speaksofYahweh’sactofcom-fortinghisexiledpeople—asliterallyexpressedinsecondhalfofthesimilein66:13—Idonotthinkthattheinterpreterneedsto(orevencan)makemoreofthemetaphorandsoforceaconnectionbetweenJerusalemandtheChurchbasedonthispassage.Ifthepreacherchoosestomakethismovefrom“motherJerusalem”to“motherChurch”forhomiletic reasons,thenheshouldstillstressthatitisGodtheFatherwhogivesandsustainslifethroughtheworkofhisSon;theChurchmaybehisagent,butheisthecause.

180

Incultureswherebreastfeedingissimplyacceptedasthenaturalandnormalmeansthroughwhichveryyoungchildrenreceivetheirdailynourishment(duh!),theimageofJerusalemnursingIsaiah’shearerscanbeaverypowerfulimageofGod’ssustainingcomfort.Inaculturewhere“politesociety”oftenmarginalizesthismotherlyactivity,thisimagemayseembizarreandevenoffensive.Thepreach-ershouldbeawareofthisifhechoosestospeakatlengthinunpackingthisimageforhishearersinthepews.

DavidI.Lewis

Proper 10 • Leviticus (18:1–5); 19:9–18 • July 11, 2010

A Bible Study What statement is made repeatedly here to help God’s people remember and take to heart what is said? Itis“IamtheLordyourGod,”sometimesabbreviated:“IamtheLord.”It

tellsthepeopleofGodthattheyarehisspecialpossession,redeemedandgovernedbyhim.

What does this remembrance call for, according to Leviticus 19:2 and other passages?God’speoplearetobeholy,forwhichhemakeshisownbeingthestandard.What is holiness? Itreferstobeingsetapart.Godisholybecauseheisexaltedandtranscen-

dentoverall.Thishasamoraldimension,sinceitincludesbeingsetapartfromsinners,inabsolutepurity.SoGod’speoplearetobesetapartforGodandconse-cratedtoservingHim.Themoraldimensionofhisholinessisthestandardfortheirlives,asmanifestedintheexamplesofmoralinjunctionsandprohibitionsgiveninthispericope.

How can this remembrance be a painful one? Itwillbe,ifconsideredapartfromtheGospeltruth,sinceweneversatisfy

allthatisdemandedinthecommandsinthistextandelsewhere.ApartfromtheGospel,theLawalwaysaccusesus,astheApologysays(IV,166–7inTappert,alsoindicatedonp.148inKolb-Wengert).ThepeopleinthetimeoftheOldTestamentScripturescouldnotgaineternallifebyobeyingtheholydemands,asthewiseamongthemsaid(e.g.,Ps65:3;106:6;1Kgs8:46;Eccl7:20).Norcananyonesincethen,Romans3:20.

How can the remembrance be one that cheers and comforts? ItwillinthelightoftheGospel,sincethentheremembranceoftheholy

Godincludesknowledgeofhiswillthatsinnersbereconciledtohim—andofwhathehasmercifullydonetobringthisabout.


How is it possible for a just and holy God to declare sinners righteous? SomehearersinthecongregationmayrecognizethisGospelquestionasone

theyhaveusedinLuther’s Small Catechism with Explanation(No.182in1991ed.).Theanswer:“GoddeclaressinnersrighteousforChrist’ssake,thatis,oursinshavebeenimputedorchargedtoChrist,theSavior,andChrist’srighteousnesshasbeenimputedorchargedtous.2Corinthians5:21.”Thisalsoispartoftheremem-branceofourholyGod:reconciliationthroughfaithinJesusChristisinconfor-mitywiththedemandsofdivineholiness.He,theholyGod-man,wastheonlyonewhowasperfectlyobedienttotheLaw,andhisobedienceandpenaltiesareimput-edtothosewhotrustinhim.ThepromisedatonementoftheMessiahwastheulti-matebasisofreconciliationalsoforIsaiah’speople(Is53:5–6)andAbraham’s(Gn12:3;15:6;Gal3:6–10).

Why was it a helpful remembrance for the Old Testament Israel to hear God saying to them, “I am the Lord your God”? HewastheirGod,becausetheybelongedtohim(Dt7:6–7),whomthey

knewchieflyastheirdelivererfromoppression(Lv11:45;19:36;etc.).Takenseri-ously,thiswasremembrancefruitfulinlovingpraiseandservice,consecratedtohimingratefulrecognitionofhisloveshowninactsofdeliverance.

How does the Epistle for the Day (Col 1:1–14) help us New Testament believers in Christ to use ancient Israel’s remembrance? Wehavesupremedeliverancethroughhimandhavebeenbroughtintothe

communityoftheholypeople,orsaints,andsoaretrulypartoftheIsraelofGod(vv.12–13).Furthermore,wetooarecalledtolivealifeworthyof(i.e.,appropriateto)suchadeliverer,bybeingfruitfulingoodworks(v.10).Ifwetakethisseri-ously,wearedeeplymovedtoliveinimitationofhimandhislove(Eph5:1-2;Jn15:12;1Tm2:1–6),andinconfidenceandjoybeforetheholyGod(Rom5:1)

Why was the remembrance in the Old Testament pericope helpful and fruitful for ancient Israel in obeying the divine commands? ItwasanencouragingremembranceoftheirGod’spromisedhelpforliv-

ingthenewlife—ofhiswilltorestoreandedifythem.TheOldTestamentpeopleknew,orwerereminded,thattheycouldnotflawlesslykeepthecommandsoftheLaw,becauseofthesinfulflesh(e.g.,Ps51:5;Jb5:7).ButthewisealsohadtheknowledgethatGodgiveshelpfortheobedientlife,seeninmanyprayersforhimtolead,guide,openlips,inclinehearts,orturn(e.g.,Ps5:8;25:5;31:3;51:15;119:3,35–37;1Kgs8:57–58).TheywerefamiliarwithhisgiftsofrenewalandthecreativeworkofhisSpirit(Ps51:10–11).

Why is this remembrance helpful for the New Testament people of God? BelieversinthedaysoftheMessiahhavestillclearerandfullerrevelations

oftheirGod’spromisesofhelpfortheobedientlife,bothinMessianicprophecies(suchasEz36:26–27andJer24:7)andindisclosuresoftheirowntimes(likeJn

182

7:38–39;1Cor6:11;Gal5:22-23;Rom8:13–14).InthesebestowalstheimageofGodisbeingrestoredinhispeople(Col3:8–10;Eph4:24–32)totransformthem,andthustheLordhimselfbringsaboutthefulfillmentofthecommandtobeholylikehim.

Can the promise of Leviticus 18:5 ever be applied by earning eternal life with God, as the lawyer in the Gospel for the day (Lk 10:25–28) thought? TheLordJesusansweredhisquestionbyindicatingthatthepromiseapplies

ifyouperfectlyservetheneighborwithawholeheart.Hisparableshowedthelaw-yer’s(andour)failuretodoso.St.PaullamentedwithallhisheartthathisfellowJewswerewanderingdownthisfalsepathintheirthinking(Rom10:1–5).

Does this mean that this well-known parable should not be used at all for commending obedience to God’s Law? Bynomeans!ButtheLaw’scommandtohelptheneighbormustbeunder-

stoodinaproperway:notasonewaytomeriteternallife,butratherasthewayoflifeinwhichitisworthy(appropriate)forthechildrenofGodtowalk,astheyexpressChristianinwarddelight(Rom7:22)inwhatGod’sLawcallsfor.

How is the remembrance in the Old Testament pericope productive for the holy work of helping the neighbor? Itisalsoaremembranceoftherelationwiththeneighborwhichtheholy

Godwantsustohave.WhetheritistherelationwiththeneighborinthechurchasafellowbelieverandservantofJesus,ortherelationwiththeneighboroutsidethechurch,eventhealientothecommunityofbelieversandsaints,werecognizethateachpersonisanobjectofhislove,aseachofusisinthisworldofsinners,forallofwhomtheSaviordied.Eachisapersonwithneedsandproblems,physicalandspiritual.Wearetohelpandavoidhurtingthem,asmuchaswecan,andweshouldnotlosesightoftheLord’sdesirethatallsharethejoythathispeoplehave(1Tm2:3–4).

Can Leviticus 19:18 and 34 be misused as encouragement of a self-cen-tered, self-gratifying approach to the religious life?Ofcoursetheycan,andpastorsandteachersshouldadmonishagainstsuch

misuseandmisconceptionsofwhat“lovingyourself”mightbe.Butontheotherhandgratefulnessfordeliveranceandempathyarisingfrommemoriesofafflictionscommontousandtoothers—arepropercomponentsoftheobediencewhichMosesandtheLordJesus(Mt23:39)arecallingforinthelivesofGod’speople.

Suggested Outline

The Fruitful Remembrance I. ThisisaremembrancethatcallsforGod’speopletobeholy. A. ConsideredapartfromtheGospel,itisapainful remembrance.


B. ButinthelightoftheGospelitisaremembranceofthewill ofourholyGodthatwebereconciledtohim.II. Itisalsoaremembrancethatisfruitfulforaholylife. A. Itisagratefulremembrancethatisfruitfulinlovingpraiseand service. B. Itisanencouragingremembranceofhispromisedhelpfor livingthenewlife. C. Itisaproductiveremembranceoftherelationbetweenthe childofGodandtheneighbor.

ThomasManteufel

Proper 11 • Genesis 18:1–10a (10b–14) • July 18, 2010

General approach to preparing your sermon A. Start the process by praying about the subject or topic area B. Select and clearly state to the audience the subject area that you plan to address. C. At the point of your sermon delivery, start with an arousing statement or illustration in order to gain your audience’s attention. D. For the body of the sermon there are several styles from which to choose: Topical or Textual with an illustration, application, and conclusion. The untimely prediction

Childbearingisamiracle.Haveyoueverbeeninalabor/deliveryroom?Icanimaginethewait—longorshort,withitsexcitinganticipationofthatmiracu-lousbouncingbaby.ThemiracleofachildisstillGod’sgreatwondertoourhumanmind.ThatpromisedwonderhastrulybeenexemplifiedthroughSarahasGod’scovenanttoAbrahamandtousallasGod’severlastingpromise.

Theunthinkableishappeningbeforeourveryeyes.God’stimingandpur-posesquiteoftenperplexesourfinitehumanmind.ThethoughtofSarahatthatadvancedage(Gn17:17),speaksnotonlytoimpossibilitybutsomethinglaugh-able.God’spurposethough,ischaracterizedbyitsspecifictimereference.InGenesis18:10,theLayman’s Parallel BibleplacesGod’sreturntoSarahduring“springtime.”Tobethisspecificisanindicationthatthereisapromisewhichisnotlaugh-ablebutrealandthattheLordwouldovercometheimpedimentsforthesakeof

184

fulfillinghispromise.Pessimismhoweverisoneofourgreatesthumanproblems.ThereisahumanlackoftrustwhichbyitselfunderminesourfaithandbeliefinGodtotheextentthatmiraclesareeithertrivializedoreasilydismissed.Themir-acleofchildbirthorlifeitselfisnothingbutamiracle,takenasasimplemundanething.Afteryougotobedatnightyouwakeupthefollowingday.Inmymindthatconstitutesamiracle.

ThebirthofIsaacnotonlyrepresentsfaithandtrust,itprovidesadoublechallengeandacceptanceofthehumanfamily.ThatisJews,Christians,andMuslimsneedtoacknowledgethatwesharethesameplanetandsomustresistthetemptationofeitherignoringorrefusingtodialoguewitheachother.Thereisapracticalproclamationpiecehere.JustasfatherAbrahamisanexampleoffaithandrighteousness,soallChristiansareinvitedorchallengedtobuildabridgeofcom-municationbetweenMuslimsandChristians.Jesus’sbirthintheQur’an(Sura3:45)isuniqueandsignificant.PerhapswhenyouandIengagethemontheconceptoffaithitmayverywellleadthemtothepromiserevealedinJesusChrist.

Inconclusion,inthecovenantpromiseallofus,especiallythosewhoareinthehouseoffaith,doclaimoureternalinheritanceinourLordJesusChrist.Justasspringbringsnewlife,thatmiracleofnewbirthisthepresenceofourLordinallwhoembracehispromise.

JohnLoum

Proper 12 • Genesis 18:(17–19) 20–33 • July 25, 2010

IntroductionThetextpresentstwoparticularproblemsforinterpreters.Thefirstisthe

questionofhow“ADChristians”readthe“BCOldTestament.”Thesecondper-tainstothewholeissueofprayeringeneral,andintercessoryprayerinparticular.Iwillcommentonthelatterproblemfirst.

Itisdangerouslyeasytotake“promises”regardingprayeroutofcontext,evenwhentheyoccurindirectdiscourseaboutthesubject.James1:6–8isaprimeexample:“Butlethimaskinfaith,withnodoubting,fortheonewhodoubtsislikeawaveoftheseathatisdrivenandtossedbythewind.ForthatpersonmustnotsupposethathewillreceiveanythingfromtheLord;heisadouble-mindedman,unstableinallhisways.”Inisolationthesewordsdrivetodespair,forwhocanbanishalldoubtfromhismindwhenheprays?Butverse5actuallysetsthestage,andtakesawaymostofthedifficulty:“Ifanyofyoulackswisdom,lethimaskGod,whogivesgenerouslytoallwithoutreproach,anditwillbegivenhim.”ThisisateachingaboutprayingtoGodfor wisdom;giventhecharacterofGod,Idonotdoubtthathewillanswerthisprayer.So,itwillbeextremelyimportanttoreadthe


textthatdescribesAbraham’s“negotiatingprayer”in its Old Testament context,ratherthanassumingtooquicklythatthisnarrativeteachesaboutprayeringeneral.

Inanswertothefirstquestion,IwouldhighlighttheimportanceofreadingtheOTtypologically.Tobesure,therearetimeswhenOTfiguresareexemplars,andwemaymutatis mutandisapplytruthsandlessonsfromtheirlivestoourown;seeHebrews11.Nevertheless,thefundamental“move”ofreadingOTtextslocatestheminthehistoryofsalvation,andseestheminlightoftheonewhoistheanti-typeandfulfillmentoftheentireOT.Samson,forexample,isnot“JoeIsraelite”withwhomeachChristiantodaymayidentify.Rather,SamsonisadelivererofIsrael,andasmall(thoughdeeplyflawed)typeforwhomJesus,delivererparexcel-lence,istheantitype.

Abraham’suniquenessiseverywhereinthecontext.Hewillbethefatherofmanynations(17:5);withhimGodfirstmakesthecovenantofcircumcision(17:9–14).GoduniquelypromisesasontohimandagedSarah(17:15–21).Inauniqueway,GodvisitsAbraham,andrepeatsthepromise(18:1–15).InthehistoryofGod’swaysintheworld,Genesis18presentsAbrahaminhisuniquenessasonewhom,unworthythoughhewas,GodhadchosenandthroughwhomGodwouldwork.

Ifthisisthecase,thenatypologicalreadingofthistext,thatfindsultimatefulfillmentandmeaninginChristwhois“greaterthanAbraham,”isappropriateforChristianpreaching.Thetask,then,istodiscernthenatureofAbraham’sprayer,whatitsaysabouthimandabouttheworldandaboutGodhimself,andthentofindavalidapplicationinthepersonandworkofChristJesusforusandfortheworld.

Textual ThemesBecauseofAbraham’suniqueplaceinhistory,Godmakesknowntohimthe

plantovisitSodomandGomorrah,andtojudgetheminrighteousness.AbrahampleadswithGodonbehalfoftherighteousinthesetwocities.Abraham’sprayerassumesthatGodlovestherighteous,thatis,thosewhotrusthiswordandkeephiscovenantinresponse.Whilethewickeddeservetobepunished,itwouldnotberightforpunishmenttofallindiscriminatelyuponrighteousandwicked.

Remarkably,however,thereisroomforAbrahamtopleadthatGod’sloveandcarefortherighteous“overlap”graciouslyuponthewicked,sothatforthesakeofonlyfifty…no,fortyfive…indeed…onlyTENrighteousones,Godwillholdbackhisjudgment.NotonlydoesAbrahambelievefirmlyinthejusticeandmercyoftheGod;healsoclingstothemysteryofdivinegracewherebytheguiltydonotalwaysreceivewhatisduethem.Godgrantshisprayerandpromisesthatiftenrighteousarefound,thenSodomandGomorrahwillbespared.

So,then,thesignificantthemesofthetexthavetodowithAbraham’sknowledgeofGod’scharacter,andhisdesiretointercedefortherighteous,andforGodtodowhatisright.ThisisAbraham,whoisGod’s“friend”(2Chr20:7;Is

186

41:8;Jas2:23)asonechosenforacrucialroleinthehistoryofGod’ssalvationintheworld.Hisintercessionisinformed,andeffective.

Intypologicalterms,ChrististheuniquechosenoneofGod,andhisinter-cessionflowsoutofhisperfectknowledgeoftheFather.Evenmore,ChristalonemakestheFatherknowntomenandwomen(Mt11:25–27).Evenmorethaninter-cedingfortherighteous,Christintercedesforall,thoughnonedeservehisinterces-sion:Peter(Lk22:31–34)aswellasthosewhocrucifiedhim(Lk23:34).Theunbe-liefandwickednessofSodomandGomorrahserveasarchetypes,but“allhavesinnedandfallenshortofGod’sglory”(Rom3).GreaterstillistheintercessionandworkofJesusonbehalfoftheworld.God’sjudgmentfelluponhim,sothatitneednotfalluponus.

ThisreadingfromGenesis18couldleadthecongregationintoarenewedsenseoftheworld’sandtheirownfallenness.Specificapplicationshouldbemade,andnotjusttomattersofsexualtemptationandsin;1Corinthians6:9–10remindsusthatthereisnodistinctioninGod’ssightbetweenhomosexual(andheterosexu-al!)sinandthingslikegreedorthepracticeofrevilingothers.EvenasthesermoncouldcallallaliketohumblesilencebeforethejusticeofGod,soevenmorecouldthegoodnewsofJesus,one“greaterthanAbraham,”turnallinfaithandgratitudetoChrist,hisatonement,hisresurrection,andhisintercessorbeforetheFather.

JeffreyA.Gibbs

Proper 13 • Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12–14; 2:18–26 • August 1, 2010

Comments on the text1.Whetherintendedornot,thereareremarkablesimilaritiesintheemphases

ofthereadingsappointedforthisSunday.The“Allisvanity”messageoftheOldTestamentreading,ourtext,isdramatizedbytheParableoftheRichFoolintheGospel,Luke12:13–21.Bothreadingsdemonstratethat“aman’slifedoesnotconsistintheabundanceofhispossessions”(Lk12:15).Therichman’sconstruc-tionofevermoreandbiggerbarnsturnsouttobewhatourtextdescribesas“achasingafterthewind”(Eccl1:14).ThequestionofGodtotherichman,“Youfool!Thisverynightyourlifewillbedemandedfromyou.Thenwhowillgetwhatyouhavepreparedforyourself?”(Lk12:20)echoestheobservationsofourtextthat“Imustleavethem[thethingsIhavetoiledforunderthesun]totheonewhocomesafterme”(Eccl2:18)and“hemustleaveallheownstosomeonewhohasnotworkedforit”(Eccl2:21).AlsotheEpistle,Colossians3:1–11,cautionsagainst“greed,whichisidolatry”(Col3:5)andurges,“Setyourmindsonthingsabove,notonearthlythings”(Col3:2).


2.“Allisvanity”isthethemenotonlyofourtextbutalsooftheentirebookofEcclesiastes.Othertranslationsusedifferentwordsfor“vanity”(“futility,”“emptiness,”“meaninglessness”),butwegettheidea.

3.Ordowe?OgdenNashinhispoem“Ha!OriginalSin!”quips,“Vanity,vanity,allisvanity/That’sanyfunatallforhumanity,”thencontinues,

Theprophetschantandtheprophetschatter,Butsomehowitneverseemstomatter,FortheworldhangsontoitsancientsanityAndordersanotherroundofvanity.

Wepainfullyrecognizethatthematerialthingswetoooftenliveforare“achasingafterthewind”—andyet,irrationally,wecontinuetochaseafterthewind.

4.Thereisnothingtheoreticalorphilosophicalaboutthe“Allisvanity”conclusionofourtext.It’snotsomethingthebiblicalauthoroncereadaboutandsubscribesto.It’ssomethingheexperiencedinlife.HelearneditwhilehewaskingoverIsrael(Eccl1:12–14).

5.Profoundandeloquentasourtextis,itishardlyaGospeltext.ItisLaw:severe,stinging,crushingLaw.Noapologyforthat.ForitisLawdesignedtopre-pareusfortheGospel.Thetextstripsusofallourvanities,allourshoddygoals,allourfalsehopes,andallourself-delusions,sothatwemightbedesperatelyopentotheGospeltruththatourLordJesusis“theonethingneedful,”“theJoyofman’sdesiring.”“Allisvanity”maybetherule,yes,buttheLordJesusandthesalvationhehasprovidedusarethegloriousexceptiontothatrule.Thatis,“AllisVanity—exceptJesusandhissalvation!”

6.AlthoughthetexthasnothingtosayabouttheJesuseventanditsmeaningforus,itdoeshintatthegraciousnatureofGodin2:24,wherethewriterpointsoutthatordinarydailyactivitieslikeeating,drinking,andworkingandthesatisfac-tionwederivefromtheseactivitiesareblessingsfromthehandofGod.(ItwouldevenbeagreatervanityifsuchdailyroutineswerenotgiftsfromamercifulGod!)Thefollowingversestrengthensthe“Gospelly”aspectofthistruthbyassertingthattherecanbenoenjoymentapartfromGod:“forwithouthim,whocaneatorfindenjoyment?”

7.Ecclesiastes2:26providesthebesttextualopportunityforGospelwhenitassertsthat“Godgivethtoamanthatisgoodinhissightwisdom,andknowledge,andjoy”(KJV).Here,ofcourse,GospelwillneedtobeimportedfromnumerousplacesintheBiblethatinformusinclear,directtermsthatamancanbe“goodin[God’s]sight”onlywhenGod declares him to be good in his sightthroughtherighteous-nessofhisSon,Jesus,creditedtohimbyGod’sgrace.

8.Asindicatedabove,Gospelwillneedtobeimportedtothistextwhenthepreachermakesitthebasisforhissermon.Thisimportationwillseemlessforced

188

andarbitraryifoneusesaGospelhandle.Ecclesiastes2:21providessuchahandle.TheRSVversionofthatversereads,“Sometimesamanwhohastoiledwithwis-domandknowledgeandskillmustleavealltobeenjoyedbyamanwhodidnottoilforit.”

Themantalkedaboutinthisverseisanymanandeveryman.Itcouldbeanyoneofus.Apersonworkswiselyandindustriouslyinthislife.Andwhatmaywellhappen?Heleavestheaccumulatedfruitsofhislabortoanotherpersonwhoisnowherenearsowiseandindustriousandhard-workingashe.

Yet,cometothinkofit,isn’tthatpreciselywhattheMan,theGod-man,ChristJesus,hasdone?Hespentalifetimeonearthtoiling“withwisdomandknowledgeandskill.”HewentaboutthelandofPalestinedoinggoodandbeinggood,keepingeveryoneofGod,hisFather’s,commandmentsperfectly.Andwhatwastheoutcome?Heleft“alltobeenjoyedbyamanwhodidnottoilforit!”Heleftittoyouandme.Christaccumulatedtherighteousness,andwe,inthegood-nessofGod,inheritit,wewhohave“nottoiledforit”—indeed,couldnottoilforitevenhadwewantedto.OurLordisaclassicinstanceof“amanwhohastoiledwithwisdomandknowledgeandskill”andhasleftit“alltobeenjoyedbyaman[youandme]whodidnottoilforit.”

ThatisnotwhatthePreacherinEcclesiastesmeanttosayinourtext.ButitiswhatGodtellsusintheBible.Andthisisnotvanity.ThisistheGospel!

Suggested outlineThe Rule—and the Exception to the Rule

I. Therule:“Allisvanity.” A. Theauthorofourtextexperiencedthetruthofthisrule(Eccl 1:12–14). B. Therichmanintoday’sGospelexperiencedthetruthofthis rule. C. Alas,wetoohaveexperiencedthetruthofthisrule. 1. Anenumerationandanalysisofourindividualvanities, shoddygoals,falsehopes,andself-delusions. 2. Despitebetterknowledge,westillpursuethesevanities, westill“chaseafterthewind.”(RefertotheOgdenNash poemquotedabove.)II. Theexceptiontotherule:“Allisvanity–exceptJesusandthe salvationhewonforus!” A. Eventhecynicalauthorofourtexthintsatthegraciousnature ofGod(Eccl2:24–25). B. Clarifythat“themanwhoisgoodinGod’ssight”(Eccl2:26) isamanwhohasbeendeclaredgoodinGod’ssightthrough


therighteousnessofhisSon,Jesus,creditedtothatman throughGod’sgrace. C. ImportadditionalGospelthroughtheGospelhandleprovided byEcclesiastes2:21(cf.No.8above).

FrancisC.Rossow

book reviews

COncordiaournalJ


CONCORDIA COMMENTARY: Proverbs.ByAndewE.Steinmann.SaintLouis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,2009.719pages.Hardcover.$42.99.

AndrewSteinmannhasprovidedthechurchandacademywithanexcel-lentresourceforthestudyofthebookofProverbs.Withcarefulresearchandgreatinsight,heilluminatesthemean-ingofthetextandsituatesitsteachingwithinthecontextofthewholecanon.Likemostcommentaries,Steinmannbeginshisworkwithanintroductionthatcoversissuesofauthorship,date,literaryform,structure,andtext.Inaddition,hetreatstherichvocabularyofwisdomandfollyaswellaspoeti-calconventions(particularlydifferentformsofparallelism).Steinmannalsodescribeshowlawandgospelplayoutinthebook(39–42),atopicthatprovesveryimportantforhispassage-by-pas-sageanalysisofthebook.

Thebodyofthecommentarypro-videsanexpositionofthetext.EachunitbeginswithSteinmann’stransla-tionofthepassage.Thetranslationisclosetothetext,butnotatallwooden.Histranslationisexplainedandsup-portedbywell-writtenandhelpfultextualnotesthatdealwiththetextual,grammatical,andphilologicalissuesofthepassage.Thetextualnotesappearwrittenwiththeadvancedstudentparticularlyinmindsincetheperti-nenttextiscitedinHebrew,makingitdifficultforthosewhodonotknowthelanguage.Afterthetextualnotes,Steinmannexpositsthepassageina

sectionsimplycalled“Commentary.”Thissectioniswrittenwithclarityandinawaythatwillelicitinterestfromallreaders,specialistsandnon-specialistsalike.Eachpassageisdiscussedquitefully,thoughofcoursenosinglecom-mentarywillanswereveryquestionthatthereaderwillbringtothetext.SpecialmentionshouldbemadeofthedozenexcursesinwhichSteinmanntakespausetodigmoredeeplyintoadiscus-sion.Theserangefromadiscussionoftheconnectionbetweenspecificpas-sagesinProverbstootherbiblicaltextstoanimportantconsiderationoftherelationshipbetweenProverbs8andChristinthelightoftheAriancontro-versy.Readers,notonlyLutheranones,willfindfascinatingSteinmann’sessayonLuther’sapproachtothebookofProverbs(499–502).

IgreatlybenefitedfromreadingthiscommentaryandwillreferenceitinmyfutureworkonProverbs.Evenso,IfoundmyselfdisagreeingwithSteinmannoncertainkeyissuesandwithparticularexegeticalconclusions.Iwillbrieflymentiononeexample.

OneofSteinmann’sconcerns,athemeofthecommentaryseriesasawhole,istohighlightthatwhich“promotesChrist”inapassage,afeaturenotsurprisinginconfessionalLutheraninterpretation.ImustsaythatIapplaudandpromoteChristologicalreadingsofthetextandIpursuesuchinmyownwork,includingmycom-mentaryofProverbs.1Inmyopinion,however,SteinmannmovestooquicklyandwithoutexplanationtoaChristianreadingofthebook.Acaseinpoint

193

ishistreatmentofWomanWisdom.AccordingtoSteinmann,“WisdomisChristhimself”(61).Inotherwords,WomanWisdomistobeidentifiedasChrist.Contrarytothisapproach,IwouldtreatWisdomasapersonifica-tionofthewisdomofYahweh,stand-ingultimatelyforYahwehhimself(andthereforenotahypostasis).ThechoicebetweenWomanWisdomandWomanFollyinchapter9isthenachoicebetweenYahwehandpagandeities.Proverbs9theologizestheveryconceptsofwisdomandfollysoactionsandattitudesassociatedwithwisdomindicatethatapersonisactinglikeaproperworshipperofYahweh,whereasthosewhoarefoolsareact-inglikeidolaters.SteinmanniscorrectthattheNewTestamentrelatesChristandWomanWisdom,butnotbywayofidentificationbutratherassociation.Bythisapproach(againasopposedtoSteinmann’s),wepreservewhatBrevardChildscalled“thediscretevoiceoftheOldTestament.”2Ithinkitisimportanttofirstinterpretthetextintermsofwhattheoriginalauthorandtheoriginalreaderswouldhavethoughtbeforeproceedingtotheimportant,indeedessentialforChristianreadingoftheOldTestament,taskofreadingtheOldTestamentasanticipatingChrist,asourSaviorhimselfencouragedhisdisciplesinLuke24:25–26,44–49.Again,though,IaffirmSteinmann’simpulsetoseetheGospelintheOldTestamentthushelpingministerspres-entChristfromtheirsermonsbasedontheOldTestament.

Inspiteofthisandotherdisagree-ments,IenthusiasticallyencouragestudentsofthebookofProverbs,espe-ciallyministers,toaddthiscommen-tarytotheirlibrary.Itisaninvaluableresourceforthestudyofthisancienttextofwisdom.

TremperLongmanIIIWestmontCollegeSantaBarbara,CA

Endnotes1TremperLongmanIII.Proverbs:Baker

Commentary on the Old Testament: Wisdom and Psalms.(GrandRapids:Baker,2006),64–69andthroughout.

2BrevardChilds,Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis:Fortress,1993),76.

A HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Volume 2. The Medieval through the Reformation Periods.EditedbyAlanJ.HauserandDuaneF.Watson,withSchuylerKaufman.GrandRapids/Cambridge:Eerdmans,2009.xi+570pages.Hardcover.$50.00.

AsstudentsoftheHolyScripturehavecomeincreasinglytorecognizethatallexegesisispartofalongerconversation,stretchingbackoverthecenturies,andasthestrangleholdofhistorical-criticalpresuppositionsorhermeneuticsonthepublicdiscussionofbiblicalinterpretationhasbeenbro-ken(thoughnotentirelysetaside),theimportanceoflookingatthehistoryofinterpretationhasbecomeeverclearer.EerdmansPublishingCompanyhas

194


performedasignificantserviceforbib-licalscholarshipbyprovidingthisseriesofaprojectedthreevolumestoguidereadersintoanappreciationforcurrentdiscussionsofthehistoryofhermeneu-ticsandexegesis,discussionsthatareexpandingamongexegetesandchurchhistoriansalike.

Theessaysaredesignedtoleadreadersintothestoryofbiblicalinter-pretationbuttodosowithspecialfocusonsecondaryliterature,recentscholarlyexplorationsofaspectsofeachofthevolume’sfifteentopics.Theeditorsprovideaneighty-pageoverviewoftheessays,inwhichtheyintegratethesecontributions.Theoverviewenhancesthereader’sabilitytodigestandassimilatethematerialpresentedthroughout.Atseveralpointstablesofferavarietyofmaterials,includinglistsofexegetes,Bibletranslations,manuscriptsources,importantpub-lishedworks,etc.inagivenperiodorforaspecificinterpreter.

FiveessaystreatwesternandeasternChristianexegesisandJewishinterpretationintheMiddleAges.Twoessays,“thetextoftheTanak”and“thetextoftheNewTestament”(thelatterbyoccasionalConcordiaguestinstructorKeithElliott),surveycurrentstudiesintextcriticismintheperiod.Anessayon“theRenaissancehumanists”leadstosixessaysonLuther,Melanchthon,Calvin,English,Anabaptists,andCatholicreformedexegesis.Aconcludingessaytreats“Scripturesinthevernacularupto1800.”Readersfindsomerepetition,

notonlyfromtheeditors’anticipationofwhatistocomebutalsobecausecertaintopicsfallnaturallyintomorethanonechapterassignment.Ingener-al,therepetitionreinforcesratherthandistractsfromthelearningexperiencewhichthevolumeaffords.

LutheranswillfindthemselveswellservedbytheessaysonLutherandMelanchthon,byMarkD.ThompsonofMooreTheologicalCollege,Sydney,Australia,andTimothyJ.Wengert,ofLutheranTheologicalSeminary,Philadelphia.Thompsonlabels“Luther’sengagementwiththeScriptures…[as]undeniablythecriticalcatalystforthetumultuousReformationintheEuropeanchurchesinthesixteenthcentury”(299).HeacknowledgeshowcomplextheattempttoreadLuther’scommentsonthenatureanduseofScriptureintheabsenceofanytreatisefocusingonthesubjectspecificallyandduetotheseveralissuesLutherfacedwhencom-mentingonScripture.ButThompsonmakesclearthatLutherheldtothesoleandultimateauthorityoftheBiblewithinthecontextofhisChristologicalconfessionofthecentralityofJesusChristforthefaithandconsolationoftheindividual.Luther’sinsistenceonthetwofoldclarityofScripture,internalandexternal,hisuseofthelaw-gospelhermeneutic,andhisdependenceontheguidanceoftheHolySpiritareclearlytreated.ThompsonalsorelatesthebiblicaltexttoLuther’sbeliefinthenecessityoftheoralformofGod’sWord,the“livingvoiceofthegospel.”

195

Althoughhedoesnotusethisformu-lation,hemakesitclearthatLutherbelievedthatGodistrulypresentinthepagesofScriptureandworkshiswillthroughitswords,whetherreadorheard.

Wengert’squartercenturyofliv-ingwithMelanchthon’sexegeticallaborscomestoasfullafloweringasashortessaypermits.Hisexposi-tionofMelanchthon’soriginalworkonrhetoricalcriticismandhisassess-mentofthePraeceptor Germaniae’suseofdialectics,theloci communesmethod,andotherhumanistictools,alongwithhislaw-gospelhermeneutic,provideanexcellentintroductiontothetopic.WengertoffersasuccinctoverviewofMelanchthon’slecturesontheBibleinhisWittenbergcareer.HeconcludeswithabriefviewinthedirectionofhiscontinuinginfluenceonLutheranexegeticalinsightsandpractices.

Inaddition,IfoundKeithElliott’sevaluationofearlymoderntextualcriticismadelightfulintroduction,afoundationaleducation,onthetopic.ChristopherOcker’ssurveyofscho-lasticbiblicalinterpretationwillservereaderswellasabackgroundtounder-standingmuchofwhathappenedinReformationexegesis.BarbaraPitkin’sessayhelpsreadersgraspCalvin’sownapproachtothebiblicaltext,howhisexegeticalpreachingandteachingformedasasignificantelementofhisreformingcareer,andwherecurrentCalvinscholarshipstandsonthevarietyofissuesthetopicraises.

Theeditorsandpublishersaretobethankedforasecondusefultoolfor

thestudyofthehistoryofexegesisandmustbeencouragedtocompletethesetwiththefuturevolume(s)thatwillcompletethisvaluableseries.

RobertKolb

Editor’s Note: The following reviews by Professor Tim Saleska reflect some of his lat-est research in anticipation of his Concordia Commentary on the Psalms. The fact that he reflects on both scholarly and spiritual issues in the Psalms make these reviews helpful for theological, pastoral, and devotional reflection.

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE: Psalms 1–50. EditedbyCraigA.BlaisingandCarmenS.Hardin.DownersGrove:IVP,2008.458pages.Cloth.$40.00.

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE: Psalms 51–150.EditedbyQuentinF.Wesselschmidt.DownersGrove:IVP,2007.499pages.Cloth.$40.00.

IntheGeneralIntroductiontothistwovolumesettheSeriesEditor,ThomasOden,describestheAncient Christian Commentary on Scriptureseries(ACC)as“aChristianTalmud”(xii)becauseliketheTalmudtheseriesisacompendiumofcommentsonthebiblicaltextbutwithexegeticalcom-mentsdrawnfromtheGreekandLatinChristiantraditionratherthantherabbinictradition.However,tothisreviewer,thegenremorecloselyresem-blesDr.M.M.Kasher’sTorah Shelemah

196


(CompleteTorah),andespeciallytheEnglishtranslationofpartofthatwork,entitled:Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation.Inthiswork,Dr.KasherhasattemptedtoorganizeandmakeaccessiblethevastseaofJewishexege-sisandcommentary,encyclopedia-style,oneveryverseintheBible.Thesmallertranslationisespeciallyusefulfornon-specialistswhoneedanaccessibleentreeintowhatisnormallyahighlyspecializedfieldofstudy.

TheancientChristian Commentary on ScriptureperformsthesamefunctionforChristians.Theseries,ofwhichthistwo-volumesetonthePsalmsisanexemplarycontribution,iswrittennotspecificallyforspecialistsinpatristicliterature,butforpastors,studentsandlaypersonswhowouldliketoseewhatthechurchfatherssaidaboutthepar-ticulartextsonwhichtheyaremeditat-ingorpreaching.

Tothatend,thesevolumescon-tainmuchinformationthatishelpfultoscholarandlaypersonalike.Forexample,bothvolumescontainthefol-lowingAppendices:a.anappendixlist-ingtheearlyChristianwritersandtheirdocumentscitedintheCommentary.ThisenablesreaderstoeasilyseethedepthandnatureofthematerialfromwhichthequotesintheCommentaryaretaken.b.biographicalsketchesoftheChristianauthors.Thisappendixgivesthedateswheneachfatherlivedandbriefinformationabouthim.Forpeoplewithnopriorknowledgeoftheauthorsoftheexcerpts,thissectioniscrucialforgettingabasicorientationtothematerial.c.atimelineofwritersin

thepatristicperiod.Again,thisappen-dixishandyfortracingtheinfluenceoftheauthorsoneachother.d.completebibliographiesoforiginallanguageworksandworksavailableinEnglishtranslation.Studentswhowanthandyreferencestothemajorworksoftheexcerptedauthorswillappreciatethesebibliographies.

Bothvolumeshavebriefandhelp-fulIntroductionstotheirsectionofPsalms.QuentinWesselschmidthaswrittenaparticularlyenlighteningpieceinwhichhedescribesanumberofwaysthattheearlychurchmadeuseofthePsalms(xvii–xxiii).WesselschmidttracestheuseofthePsalmsinthelitur-gicalanddevotionallifeofthechurch,thechurch’suseofthePsalmstosup-portitsteachingsandtorefuteheresy,andtheuseofthePsalmsintheNewTestament.HisoverviewunderscorestheimportanceofthePsalmsinthelifeofthechurchthroughoutherhistory.HispointisthatChristiansofallageshavebeenenrichedbythePsalms,andhehopesthatthisvolumeofexcerptswillcontinuetoenrichthespirituallivesoftwenty-firstcenturyChristiansaswell(xxiii).

Asmightbeexpectedwithaworkofthisnature,theexcerptsthemselvescanprovideonlybriefglimpsesintothequestionsandconcernsthatoccupiedthefathers.Theycanleavemodernreaders“beggingformore,”sotospeak,orwiththeirownquestionssuchas,“Whyisthewriterreadingthetextlikethat?”Or,“Whatisbehindthatexplanation?”This“provoking”ofthereaderstoaskhowthebiblicaltextis

197

beingreadorshouldbereadisaposi-tivething,becauseitmayforceustothinkaboutpsalminterpretationinnewwaysandtoexamineourownassump-tionsbywhichweinterpretthetext.

Oneexamplewillsuffice.ThemeaningofPsalm24:7–8isenigmatic:Lift up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in. Who is the King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord, mighty in battle! SincethepreviousversesofPsalm24seemtotalkaboutthephysi-calsanctuaryonZion,the“gates”invv.7–8wouldnaturallyseemtorefertothesanctuarygates.However,almostunanimously,thefathersinterprettheseversesasadescriptionofChrist’sascensiontoheavenandthegatesasthegatesofheaven.TheangelsaresaidtospeakthesewordsasChristapproaches.

Theexcerptsthemselvesdon’texplainhowthewritersarrivedatthisinterpretation,norhowtheyconnectthisexplanationwiththeearthlysanc-tuary,whichseemstobethesubjectofthefirstpartofthepsalm.Whatassumptionsliebehindtheirunder-standing?Inthiscase,theexcerptsleavereaderswantingmoreexplanationtohelpthemconnectthedots.(Bylookingagainatthewell-knownHymn“LiftUpYourHeads,YeMightyGates”[LBS340],readerswillsoonseethatthisinterpretationofPsalm24isnottheonlyoneinthechurch’shistory.)

Inaddition,thequestionofv.8,“WhoistheKingofGlory?”seemstobeunderstoodbysomeofthefathers,

notasrhetorical,butasarealques-tionaskingforinformation.Inotherwords,thequestioninthebiblicaltext(assumedtobespokenbyangels)raisedthequestioninthemindsofsomethefathers:“whydidn’ttheheavenlyprincesorangelsrecognizeChrist?”JustinMartyrsuggestedthattheydidn’trecognizehimbecauseheappearedwithoutbeauty,honororglory,anditwastheHolySpiritwhoanswered,“TheLordofhosts.HeistheKingofglory.”TheodoretofCyrus,pickinguponthetraditionthattheangelsdidnotseethedivinenatureconcealedinthehumannature,explainedthatangels,likeotherheav-enlypowers,knowonlyasmuchastheyaretaughtandhadtolearnthedivinewisdomthroughthelifeofthechurch.

Mostmodernreadersofthispas-sagewouldnotseetheproblemthatthefathersdid,norattempttosolveitinthisfashion.Whetherallreadersagreewiththeseearlierexegetesornot,throughthesecommentaries,theyareexposedtointerpretiveperspectivesthattheydidnotpreviouslyhave.Thus,thecommentariesprovideavaluableserviceinbringinghermeneuticalques-tions—questionsabouthowthebibli-caltextwas/is/shouldbereadwithintheChristiancommunity—backtothechurchforcriticaldiscussionandreflection.TheeditorsofthesetwovolumesaretobethankedforbringingtheseinterpretivevoicesbackintotheconversationabouttheChristianinter-pretationofScripture.

TimSaleska

198


PSALMS FOR LIFE: Hearing and Praying the Book of Psalms.ByJohnEaton.Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,2006.389pages.Paper.$19.95.

PSALMS THROUGH THE YEAR: Spiritual Exercises for Every Day.ByMarshallD.Johnson.Minneapolis:AugsburgBooks,2007.393pages.Paper.$14.99.

BothPsalms for Life(PL)andPsalms through the Year(PTY)fitunderthegen-eralcategoryof“devotionalliterature.”BeginningwithPsalm1andcontinuingthroughPsalm150,bothbookscontainshortmeditationsandspiritualexercisesoneachofthepsalmsinthePsalter.PTYhastheadditionalfeatureofassigningonepsalmorpartofapsalmtoeachdayoftheyear,resultingin365shortmeditations.ThedevotionsinPLarenotattachedtoparticulardaysoftheyearandareslightlylengthierthanthedevotionsinPTY.

Butforthemostpart,thesimilaritybetweenthetwobooksendsatgenre.Thespecificinterpretationsthateachauthorconstructsdifferconsiderably.Someexampleswillillustratethispoint:InhismeditationonPsalm2:7–12,Johnson(PTY)writes:

WhatwouldhappentoPsalm2whenthemonarchycametoanend?Itwasnotsimplydiscard-edbutinsteadcametobereadasapplyingtothefutureking,themessiah.Itisthereforenotsurprisingthatverse7,“Youaremyson;todayIhavebegot-

tenyou,”isusedtointerprettheresurrectionofJesusasthebeginningofJesus’divineson-shipinActs13:33andRomans1:4…Christians honor Jesus as the Son of God in a unique sense—not as a leader in battle but as the model of the ideals of peace and justice among nations (italicsadded).

Inhismeditationonthesamepsalm,Eaton(PL)writes:

Stilltodaythepsalmcallsouttothenations…The psalm may be heard to foreshadow the voice of Christ, calling to the nations to pon-der the cross on Zion’s hill. By this divine work, evil will be shattered(italicsadded).Itisthesupremesignoflove,giventhroughtheSonbegotteninthe‘day’ofeternity.Butitisaloveterribletoevil,utterlycertaininitsfinalconquest.WisearethepeoplesandrulerswhoacknowledgeGodtheKingandbowdowntohim.Happyareallwhocometotrustandshelterinhim.

InanotherexamplefromhismeditationonPsalm22Johnson(PTY)writes:

ItisunderstandablethatChristiansoftenhavethoughtofacrucifiedvictimandthatsomehavesoughthereaprefiguringofthedeathofJesus.Thepsalmdoesnotpredictthingstocome;itdescribestherealsufferingofarealpersonintherealtimeoftheworshipingcommunity.It should be read as an expression

199

of the agony of all those who face the extremities of life… The psalm-ist gives voice to the plea of all such sufferers. It is appropriate to lament when the occasion calls for it (italicsadded).

Incontrast,Eaton(PL)writes:

Anamazingpsalmindeed!Soundingfromdepthsofsuf-feringandthevictoryoffaith,it is somehow of a piece with the death and new life of Christ, somehow pro-phetic of his destiny(italicsadded).ItisasthoughthevoiceoftheCrucifiedcouldechothroughcenturiesbeforeaswellasafterthosedaysunderPontiusPilate.AndsowerecognizeinChrist’ssalvationalightthatshinestotheBeginningaswellastotheEnd.Werecognizetheeternaldimensionofthedivinesacri-fice,theLambslainfromthefoundationoftheworld.

Finally,inhismeditationonPsalm98Johnson(PTY)writes:

ImagesoffinaljudgmentinancientandmedievalChristianwritingsandartoftencenteredonterrifyingandhorrificpun-ishmentofevildoers,withtheobviouspurposeofscaringpeopleintofollowingtherightpath.InPsalm98,bycontrast,wehaveonlyjoyintheultimatetriumphofequityandrighteous-nessforallpeoples.Therearetimesinlifewhenitmightseemthatweliveinahostileenvi-ronment.Inthefinalanalysis,

however,thegracethatstemsfromtheheartofGodwillreignsupremeoverall.

Bycomparison,Eaton(PL)writes:

Throughthepsalm’sopeningwordsnowshinesthemarvelofthesalvationwonbyChristforhispeopleandforallcreation…ThepatternsofChristianservic-eswillvarywithcircumstances,butwecanalwayshearthegos-pelresoundinginsuchpsalms.Theonetruthshinesthroughthescripturesoldandnew,thetruththatflowsfromGod’sancientpurposeandhiseternalreality.

Theseexamplesillustratethedif-ferenceinthewaysthatJohnsonandEatonreadthePsalms.IntheNT,JesusandtheApostlessawthatevents(i.e.,theExodus),people(i.e.,KingDavid),andinstitutions(i.e.,theTemple)foreshadowedorforetoldofChristandhiskingdom(Col2:16–17).ThePsalms,whichassumeIsrael’s“history”withYahwehandreflectonit(muchasourhymnsandliturgi-calmusicreflecttheologicallyonthewordsanddeedsofGod),arealsoreadas“prophetic”oftheworkofChrist.Heisthefulfillmentofthehopesandprayersofthepsalmists(cf.Lk24:44;Acts4:25–27;Acts13:33–35).

InPL,Eatontakeshisplaceinthislineofinterpreters.HeandtheNTauthorspracticethesamekindsofreading.Eaton,ashesaysinhisPreface (ix),readsthePsalmswithinthetraditionoftheNTandtheChristian

200


Church,whichunderstandsthemtobepropheticofChristandhisking-dom.OneofhiscoreassumptionsisthateveninOTtimes,thePsalmshadcometobeseenasforeshadow-ingthecomingoftheMessiah.Asaresult,Eaton’smeditationsinterpretthePsalmsinthelightofthepersonofChristandhisgreatworkofsalvation.TheyarerelevanttomodernChristians,inlargepart,becausetheyprovidetheologicalinsightandreflectiononwhatGodhasdoneforusinChrist.

Johnson,incontrast,arguesagainstthiskindofreading(379–80).Hewrites:“ChristianswhoreadthepsalmsreflectivelywilloftenberemindedofsimilardetailsinthestoryofJesusintheNewTestamentGospels.TheywillespeciallyfindlinksbetweenthepsalmsoflamentandthestoryofJesus’pas-sion,death,andresurrection.Butallsuchcasesareparallelsandnotpredic-tions;theyareourreadingandnotthatoftheworshipersofancientIsrael”(380).

Healsowrites:“Butmany[psalms]alsoreflectthespecificcontextsofancientIsrael—worshipintheJerusalemtemple,popularattitudesofthetimetowardthekinginJudah,thesystemofsacrifices,theconquestoftheland,andmuchelsethathaslittletodowithChristianityeitheroftheearlyperiodsoroftoday”(379).

Asaresultofhisassumptions,JohnsondoesnotreadthePsalmsasdoJesusandtheapostles,andhismeditationsdonot,forthemostpart,reflectonthemeaningofChrist’sworkinlightofthePsalms.Instead,

Johnsontendstodrawmoreuniversal,generaltruthsfromthem.Ashesays:“Theveryactofreadingthetextwithanopenorseekingmind,however,initiatesadialoguebetweenthetextandourownlifesituation,andthisprocesscanleadtopersonalgrowth”(379).Indeed,manyofhismeditationsendwithpersonalreflectionsonthegeneralstateofaffairsinourmodernworld(cf.hiscommentson107:4–9),exhortationstopeopleoffaithtoworkforjustice(cf.hiscommentsonPsalm79),andageneralhopethatsomehowGodisgoingtomakethingsrightintheend(cf.Ps98:4–9).HopeinChrist,thecenterofourChristianfaithandlife,playsonlyabitpartinPTY.Forthisreason,Eaton’sPsalmsforLife,ismuchmoretoberecommended.

TimSaleska

MARTIN LUTHER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE ROYAL PSALMS: The Spiritual Kingdom in a Pastoral Context.ByMichaelParsons.Lewiston,NY:Mellen,2009.318pages.Cloth.$119.95.

Parsons’goalinthisstudyistoinvestigatehowLutherusesthecon-ceptofthekingdomofChristtocom-fortChristianbelieversintheirdistress(15).Specifically,ParsonwantstoshowhowLutherusesthe“twokingdomsdoctrine”inhisexpositionoftheroyalpsalmsexplicitlytocomfortbelieverswhofacesuffering,persecutionandtemptations(19).

201

202

FollowinghisIntroductioninChapter1,Parsonsbeginswithasuc-cinctsummaryofLuther’sdoctrineofthetwokingdoms(chapter2).HerehesummarizespreviousscholarshipandlaysoutLuther’steachinginaveryaccessibleway.Throughoutthechap-ter,ParsonsiscarefultoshowhowLutherusesthetwo-kingdomdoctrinetocomfortbelievers.PastorswillfindParsons’explanationclear,coherent,andmercifullybrief.Pastorswillalsofindthechaptertobearelevanthelpforthinkingaboutthechurch-stateissuesthatconfrontustoday.

Inthenextfivechapters,ParsonsexaminesLuther’sexpositionsoffiveroyalpsalms(82,2,45,110,and118).Again,ParsonsisabletoanalyzeandsynthesizeLuther’scommentaryinawaythatmakesLuther’sthoughtacces-sibletonon-specialists.Throughoutthesechapters,ParsonsconvincinglysupportshisargumentthatLutherwritesasapastorwhoisinterestedincomfortingChristianswhoaretrou-bled.

Forexample,inhisexplanationofPsalm110,ParsonspointsoutthatLuthercomfortsGod’speoplebyspeakingasatheologianofthecrossandnotasatheologianofglory.QuotingRandallZachman,Parsonswrites:

‘Asatheologianofthecross,Lutherconsistentlycontrastswhatweseewithwhatwebelieve,andheclaimsthatthetruthishiddenunderanappearancethatcontradictsit.’Thisappearstobethegen-

eralorunderlyingcontextforLuther’scommentsasheseekstoencouragebelieversthatthewaythingsappearisnotastheyare.HeconcedesthatwhereasChristis‘aninvisible,eternal,immortalPerson’hispeoplelivein‘thismiserable,mortalcondition,subjecttodeath’…WemusttrustGod’sWord,notoursensesorexperience.Inthisway,Lutherwantstohigh-lightthecontradictionbetweentheWordthatwehearandthethingsthatweseeandexperi-ence…(175–77).

Throughouthisstudy,Parsonshighlightsthemessuchasthisone,whichLutherusestocomfortdis-tressedbelieversonthebasisoftheroyalpsalms.OverandoverinParsons’analysiswearetreatedtoLuther’sChristologicalperspectiveandtohisfocusontheWordandPromiseofGodasthatthroughwhichtheHolySpiritcomfortstroubledChristians.ForLuther,theseroyalPsalmswerewrit-tenforjustthispurpose,andParsonsshowsushowLutherreadthemandfoundcomfortinthem.

AsParsonsanalyzesLuther’scom-mentary,healsohighlightssomeofthepersonalreflectionofLutherasheundergoeshisownsufferingduringtheperiodinwhichhiscommentsonthesepsalmswerewritten.Lutheranpas-torswilldeeplyresonatewithParsons’analysisofLuther’spastoraltheology.Thesechapterscanprovidehelpfulreviewandspiritualguidanceforpas-torstodayastheyseektocomforttheir


ownpeoplewhoareundergoingsuffer-ingandtemptation.

Inthefinalchapter(chapter8)Parsonsbringstogetherthemaininsightsfromthepreviouschapters.Hesummarizes“thepastoralproblem”(262–64)andthen“Luther’spasto-ralmethod”(264–73).Thesummary

cohereswellwiththerestofthebookandnicelyreinforceswhatParsonshadearlierhighlighted.Thoughthe$119pricetagisabitsteepforpastors,thisbookisworthcheckingoutofthelibrary.Itcanserveasavaluablespiri-tualresourceforallChristianpastors.

TimSaleska

ALUMNI REUNION

concordia s e m i n a r y

S T . L O U I S

June 8-10, 2010

“The Way We Were… Are…and Will Be: Under God’s Grace”

For further details contact Cathy Whitcomb in the Alumni Relations office at 314-505-7370 or [email protected].

2010 Summer Workshops June 10-12: Cristo, redentor de la familia: Ministrando a la familia hispana/latina en el contexto

norteamericano (Christ, Redeemer of the Family: Ministering to the Hispanic/Latino in a North American Context) (Spanish only) – Mark Kempff. First Immanuel Lutheran Church, San Jose, CA.

June 21-23: Isaiah, The Fifth Gospel – Dr. Reed Lessing. Emmanuel Lutheran Church, Dearborn, MI.

June 21-23: Cristo, redentor de la familia: Ministrando a la familia hispana/latina en el contexto norteamericano (Christ, Redeemer of the Family: Ministering to the Hispanic/Latino in a North American Context) (English only) - Mark Kempff. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO.

June 25-26: Cristo, redentor del matrimonio: Herramientas para la consejería pre-matrimonial

y matrimonial (Christ, Redeemer of Marriage: Tools for Premarital and Marital Counseling) (Spanish only) – Benito Pérez López. Messiah Lutheran Church, Tampa, FL.

July 12-14: Pastoral and Professional Decision Making “Can We Think Gracefully?” – Dr. David Wollenburg. Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Cedar Crest, NM.

July 26-28: Two Kinds of Righteousness: A Better Paradigm than Law and Gospel – Dr. Joel

Biermann. Christ Church Lutheran, Phoenix, AZ. Aug. 2-4: The Johannine Epistles and the Apostle of Love – Dr. Louis Brighton. Concordia

Seminary, St. Louis, MO.

Aug. 2-4: Practicing Ambidexterity – Dr. Joel Biermann. Resurrection Lutheran Church, Cary, NC.

Aug. 2-4: Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel – Dr. Reed Lessing. St. James Lutheran Church, Cleveland, OH.

Aug. 2-4: The Practice of Preaching – Dr. David Schmitt. St. John Lutheran Church, Austin, MN.

Aug. 9-11: Help for the Mid-Size Congregations – Dr. David Peter. Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church, West Des Moines, IA.

Aug. 9-11: The Church in the New Testament – Dr. Jeffrey Kloha. Immanuel Lutheran Church, Seymour, IN.

Aug. 9-11: Together with All Creatures: Caring for God’s Living Earth – Dr. Charles Arand.

Redeemer Lutheran Church, Atwood, KS. Aug. 9-11: Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel – Dr. Reed Lessing. St. Andrew

Evangelical Lutheran Church, West Fargo, ND.

Aug. 9-11: Faith and Creative Writing – Rev. Travis Scholl and Peter Mead. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO.

Aug. 16-18: In the Shadow of the Cross: Jesus and the Disciples in Matthew 16-20 – Dr. Jeffrey

Gibbs. Zion Lutheran Church, MN.

To register or to receive further information, contact the Office of Continuing Education and Parish Services, Concordia Seminary, 801 Seminary Pl., St. Louis, MO 63105; 314-505-7486; [email protected].

Continuing Education and Parish Services801 Seminary PlaceSt. Louis, MO [email protected]

Visit the newly redesignedwww.concordiatheology.org

ConcordiaTheology.org is an online theological resource provided by Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. The newly redesigned website features:

The Quad ConcordiaTheology.org’s own blog of faculty contributors commenting on anything and everything. In other words, the kind of talk that happens on the campus quad.

The Commons Where ConcordiaTheology.org gathers posts from other blogs connected with Concordia Seminary. In other words, the kind of talk that happens in the campus commons.

The Library ConcordiaTheology.org’s ever-expanding collection of multimedia resources (text, video, and audio), including but not lim-ited to podcasts, articles, preaching helps, archives of Concordia Journal, and a lot of what would have been at the “old” ConcordiaTheology.org. In other words, what you would find in a campus library.

Follow us on Facebook (Concordia Theology) and Twitter (CSLTheology).

801 Seminary PlaceSt. Louis, MO 63105

Spring 2010C

oncordia Journal volum

e 36 |

number 2

concordia journal | spring 2010

Documents

faculty of concordia

concordia journal volume

concordia theological

concordia journal issn

theological abstracts

new testament abstracts

old testament abstracts

j spring