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-
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 95
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 97
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 99
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 101
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 103
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 107
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 109
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 111
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 113
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 115
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 117
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.”
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 119
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-
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 121
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 123
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 125
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:
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 127
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-
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 129
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 131
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.”
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 133
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 135
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 137
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 139
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 141
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 143
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 145
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 147
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 149
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 151
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 153
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
157Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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
161Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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!
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 163
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 165
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 167
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 169
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 171
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 173
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 175
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 177
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 179
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 181
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.
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 183
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 185
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).
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 187
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 189
therighteousnessofhisSon,Jesus,creditedtothatman throughGod’sgrace. C. ImportadditionalGospelthroughtheGospelhandleprovided byEcclesiastes2:21(cf.No.8above).
FrancisC.Rossow
book reviews
COncordiaournalJ
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
(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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010
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
Concordia Journal/Spring 2010 203
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