Concordia Journal | Fall 2010

COncordiaournal volume 36 | number 4J Fall 2010

“Loose Ends and Ragged Edges”

A Poem to Philip Melanchthon

The Sheep and the Voice of the Shepherd: The Ecclesiology of the Lutheran Confessional Writings

Works of Mercy and Church Unity: Does Service Unify and Doctrine Divide?

Fall 2010C

oncordia Journal volum

e 36 |

number 4

COncordiaournalJ

(ISSN 0145-7233)

All correspondence should be sent to:Rev. Travis Scholl

CONCORDIA JOURNAL801 Seminary Place

St. Louis, Missouri 63105cj @csl.edu

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 Joshua LaFeve Matthew Kobs

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

Fall 2010

COncordiaournalJ

CONTENTS

volume 36 | number 4

EDITORIALs

314 Editor’sNote

315 “LooseEndsandRaggedEdges” DaleA.Meyer

317 APoemtoPhilipMelanchthon, byJohannSastrow(1542) KoreyD.Maas C.J.Armstrong

ARTICLES

324 TheSheepandtheVoiceoftheShepherd: TheEcclesiologyoftheLutheran ConfessionalWritings RobertKolb

342 WorksofMercyandChurchUnity: DoesServiceUnifyandDoctrineDivide? AlbertB.Collver,III

354 GRAMMARIAN’SCORNER TheHebrewInfinitive,Part1.2 AndrewBartelt

358 HOMILETICALHELPS

380 BOOKREVIEWS

editoRIALS

COncordiaournalJ

314

Editor’sNote

Concordia Journal/Fall 2010

MuchhaschangedsincethelastissueoftheConcordia Journal.AgroupofLutheransmetinconventioninHouston,TexasandrestructuredTheLutheranChurch—MissouriSynod,whileatthesametimeelectingRev.MatthewHarrisonasthenewpresidentofourchurchbody.Shortlythereafter,anothergroupofLutheransmetinconvocationinColumbus,Ohio,tocreateanewchurchbodyentirely,theNorthAmericanLutheranChurch,breakingofffromtheEvangelicalLutheranChurchofAmerica.AmericanLutheranismseemstobeshiftingsand.PerhapsthesamegoesforAmericanChristianity.

Nevertheless,duringallthistime,groupsofLutheransthroughoutAmericaofallshapesandsizescontinuedtomeetaroundWordandwater,andbreadandwine,tosingpsalms,hymns,andsacredsongs.So,somethingsdidn’tchange,evenifsomeoftheinstrumentsdid.

Alittleoverayearago,somemembersofthisfacultyaskedRobertKolbtowriteanarticleonecclesiologyintheLutheranconfessions.Inmanyrespects,theywereanticipatingexactlythissituation.But,allinall,whattheywerehopingforwastoremindthechurchthatnomatterwhatchangesinstructureandgovernancemightbemade,theecclesiologicalchallengewouldstillbethere.Dr.Kolbwrotethearticleanditappearshere.Notonlywasheuptothechallenge,but,inonlythewaythathecan,hesubtly,butnonethelessradically(asin,“totheroots”),reorientsthewholediscus-sionaboutwhatitmeanstobechurchintheLutherantradition.ButwouldyoureallyexpectanythinglessfromRobertKolb?

Likewise,DaleMeyerprovidesinhisleadeditorialanhonestbreathoffreshairtothemorecontemporaryissuesofourlifetogether.

Andascoincidencewouldhaveit,ataroundthesametimethefacultywasapproachingProfessorKolb,AlCollversubmittedanarticlethatprovideshistoricalbackgroundtotheprincipleofcooperatio in externis.Givenchangingcontexts,heasksnewquestionsthatseeknewinterpretationsoftheprincipleinpractice.Whenhesub-mittedthearticletous,Dr.CollverwasworkinginLCMSWorldReliefandHumanCare.NowheservesinPresidentHarrison’sadministrationasdirectorofchurchrela-tions,whichonlymakeshisanalysismoretimely.

WealsowrapupPhilipMelanchthon’sanniversaryyearwithafinaltribute,thisonethankstothegoodworkofKoreyMaasandC.J.ArmstrongofConcordiaUniversity—Irvine.Inthemidstofchange,history,ofcourse,takesthelongview.

Finally,asyouplanforfall,winter,andspringBiblestudiesandsmallgroups,checkoutConcordiaTheology.org.Weareputtingthefinishingtouchesonafreedownloadablestudyguidetogoalongwiththebook,The American Mind Meets the Mind of Christ.Wewouldberemisstoattempttounderstandthechangeswithinourchurchbodiesifwedidn’tseektounderstandthechangeswithinourculture,whichisexactlywhatThe American Mindseekstodo.Itisstillfides quarens intellectum,afterall.

TravisJ.SchollManagingEditorofTheologicalPublications

“LooseEndsandRaggedEdges”

315

ForsometimenowI’vefoundTheLutheranChurch—MissouriSynodasadplace.Manyfaithfulpastorsandpeopleseechurchattendancedeclining.Manycongre-gationsarestrugglingtokeeptheirdoorsopen,butweregularlyhearofchurchdoorsclosingforever.Manyruralcongregationsaredying,andfewurbancongregationsarethriving.ThestrongwitnessofourLutherangradeschoolsandhighschoolsgrowsweakerbytheyear.Pre-seminaryenrollmentsintheConcordiaUniversitySystemaredrasticallydown,anddecliningresidentialenrollmentsatourseminariesareanominoustrend.Tryaswedo,andpeoplearetryinghardtogetthingsgoing,weareupagainstculturalchangesthelikesofwhichwehaven’tseeninourlifetimes.Ontopofthat,wearepronetokillourwounded.Unofficialprintandblogswithinourfellowshipareoftenill-informedandsometimesslanderous.The“ProgressReportoftheTaskForceonSynodicalHarmony,”distributedintheworkbookleadinguptolastsummer’ssynodicalconventioninHouston,identifiedsevenaspectsofLCMSthatcontributetooursadness:“Inabilitytodealwithdiversity,alackofcivility,apoliticizedculture—primarilyaproblemoftheclergy—poorcommunicationacross‘partylines,’alackofaccountability,anddistrust.”Ihaveagradeschoolclassmate,oneofthesmartestinourclass,whotoldmethatshehadhadenoughandlefttheLCMS.Andthentherearetheuncertaintiescomingfromlastsummer’sHoustonconvention,theuncertaintiesofmassivestructuralchangesandanewadministration.

Nowyouask,“Dale,whysodown?”Answer:TheeditorsoftheConcordia Journalaskedmetowriteabriefeditorialaboutthefutureinthelightofthatconven-tion.Truthis,therearecountlessgoodthings—Godthings—goingonintheLCMS.Despitemylitanyofreasons,andtheyarereal,ofwhythereisapalpablesadnessthroughoutourchurch,Iamactuallyverypositiveaboutthefuture,if…

Wealltrytopeerintothefuture;that’shumannatureandcanbegoodsteward-ship,butthebestguidancefortheuncertainfuturecomesfromthepast.“ThisiswhattheLordsays,‘Standatthecrossroadsandlook;askfortheancientpaths,askwherethegoodwayis,andwalkinit,andyouwillfindrestforyoursouls”(Jer6:16).RobertKolb’sarticle,“TheSheepandtheVoiceoftheShepherd:TheEcclesiologyoftheLutheranConfessions,”teacheshowtheReformers“didchurch.”“Ecclesiology,”hewrites“wasacriticalissueforLutherandhiscolleaguesinWittenberg.”Yettheywrotenolongtomesonit—didnotprepareacomprehensiverestructuringdocument—foratleasttworeasons.First,itwasbecausetheyaddressedindividualecclesiologicalissuesinthespecificcontextoftheirowntimeandplace.Second,talkingaboutthemarksofthechurch,Kolbwrites,“Thepapalpartybelievedthatthestructureofpapalgovernancedefinedthechurch,andthatdefinitionhadthegraceofsimplicity.FortheWittenbergtheologiansthefactsofthematterofthechurch’sapprehendibilityhadmorelooseendsandraggededges.”Amidstallthelooseendsandraggededges,theycentered“theirdefinitiononthecreativepowerofGod’sWord.”


Ofcourse,allthepartisansandnon-partisansinourchurchaffirm“thecreativepowerofGod’sWord.”Itremindsmeofthechairmancallingthevoters’assemblytoorder.Afterthedevotionhesaid,“Nowlet’sgettobusiness.”That’swhyConcordiaSeminary’sTheologicalSymposiumwassotimely:“ScriptureintheChurch:FormativeorFormality?”ThefacultyofConcordiaSeminaryisintentonengagingtoday’sissuestheologically.ThegoaloftheConcordia Journal,ConcordiaTheology.org,iTunesU,andouron-siteconferencepresentationsandcontinuingeducationworkshopsistobringGod’sWordtoilluminatespecificissuesintoday’secclesial,national,andworldcon-texts.Andwhenanoccasionalcriticismcomestomethatwe’vehadaspeakeroncam-pusorawriterforourtheologicalresourceswhodoesn’tshareourchurch’scompleteconfession,myresponseisthattheLCMSneedsaplacewheredifferingvoicesandcontroversialissuescanbeengagedevenasweremainundertheauthorityofGod’sWordandinobediencetoourconfessionalsubscription.Partisanscannotimposeunitynorcanthosewhoseekunityfinditthroughindifferencetodoctrine.“ThecreativepowerofGod’sWord”istheonlyway.That’stheWittenbergway.

Butthenagain,IrememberMartinScharlemannsaying,“Godhasgivenustheterribleabilitytosay,‘No.’tohim.”IamverypositiveaboutthefutureofTheLutheranChurch—MissouriSynodif…ifwehumbleourselvesandseekthewholecounselofGod.It’snotjust“wine,women,andsong”thatshouldoccupyourbiblicalstudyanddiscussions.Inthepastor’sstudy,inthehomesofallthebaptized,insmallgroupBiblestudies,andinourlife’scenterpiece,thedivineservice,studying,hearing,andobeyingthewholecounselofGodshouldbeouroccupation.Adfontes!Tothatend,ConcordiaSeminarywillworkinthenewsynodicalstructureandwiththenewadministrationtoprovidethepastors,deaconesses,andtheologicalresourcesthatthechurchneedsinthisnewday.

Again,Kolb:“LutherandMelanchthonwerenotseekingapurechurchbutratherwereseekingtopurifythechurchinsofaraspossiblewiththeircalltoreturntobiblicalteachingandespeciallythegospelofthefreeforgivenessofsinsinJesusChrist.Theybothrecognized,asLutherobservedinasermontwoweeksbeforehisdeath(amongseveralplaces),‘whereGodbuildsachurch,thedevilerectsachapelnexttoit,’orperhapsmoreaccuratelyreflectingtheWittenbergviewpoint,withinit.”

OSpirit,whodidstoncerestoreThyChurchthatitmightbeagainThebringerofgoodnewstomen,BreatheonThyclovenChurchoncemore,ThatinthesegraceandlatterdaysTheremaybethosewhoselifeispraise,EachlifeahighdoxologyToFather,Son,anduntoThee.(LutheranServiceBook,834)

DaleA.MeyerPresident

316

APoemtoPhilipMelanchthon,byJohannSastrow(1542)1

317

PhilipMelanchthon’sirenicandecumenicaltemperamenthasoccasionedsus-picionandcriticismfromLutheranobserversofthesixteenthcenturyforsometime.AlreadyinhisowndayareputationforcompromiseoccasionallyinvitedthesuspicionofhisfellowLutherans.TherevisionsintroducedtolatereditionsofhisAugsburg ConfessionandLoci Communes,hisqualifiedendorsementoftheSchmalkaldic Articles,andhisstanceduringtheInterimcontroversyweresometimescharacterizedbycontem-porariesasdubiouscompromisesinvainhopesofpeace;andeventodayoneencoun-terssuchjudgmentsbeingmadewithlittlesensitivitytothehistoricalsituationsofsixteenth-centuryLutheranlife.Infact,Melanchthonalsowonpraisefromhiscontem-porariesforhiscourageinthefaceofRomanCatholicthreats.NikolausSelnecker,hisstudentandalaterFormula of Concordauthor,depictedhim,forexample,asstandingatAugsburgamongadenoflions,bears,andwolves.2

Theoriginsofhisreputationasonelackinganappropriatelystiffspineandsharptongueoriginate,indeed,withhiscriticsinthe1550sand1560s,butalsowithhisfriendsattemptstodefendhimbydepictinghimasamild-manneredvictimofthesav-ageattacksofformerfriends,especiallystudents.3However,Melanchthonhadalwaysknownwhentoholdandwhentofold,pursuingtheconfessionofjustificationbygracethroughfaithinChrist’satoningwork,butreadytopermitvarietyinwhathesawasonlypracticesofthechurch.4Especiallyinthefaceofperceivedbetrayal,though,hereactedsharplyatmanypointsinhislife.Oneexamplearisesfromthesuddenbreak-downofLutherannegotiationswithEnglandin1540;thereformer’slessthanirenicreactiondidnotgounnoticedbycontemporaries.

England’sreformationhasoftenbeenportrayedasagreatmight-have-beeninthehistoryofLutheranism.5Especiallyduringthedecadeofthe1530s—fromHenryVIII’ssolicitationofWittenberg’sapprovaloftheannulmentofhismarriagetoCatherineofAragon,tohislaterinquiriesaboutjoiningtheSchmalkaldicLeague—aLutheranEnglandoftenseemedarealpossibility.NotwomenmoreearnestlyhopedforsuchadevelopmentthantheEnglishAugustinian,polemicist,andsometimeroyalchaplainRobertBarnesandMelanchthonhimself,whosehumanistcredentialsandconciliatorydispositionmadehimtheonlyLutheranforwhomHenryeverexpressedgenuineadmiration.6Despitetheirhopes,andMelanchthon’sespeciallybuoyantbeliefthattheseweresharedbytheEnglishKing,neitheraLutheranEnglandnorevenasig-nificantAnglo-Lutheranallianceemerged.Negotiationstowardtheseends—involvingbothMelanchthonandBarnes—limpedalongthroughthesecondhalfofthedecade;7butthroughout,Melanchthon’slessoptimisticcountrymenjudgedHenrydisingenuous,whiletheKing,withequalconsistency,heldthemtobeintransigent.8

Suchsentiments,however,wereexpressedmostloudlyonlyintheaftermathofdramaticeventscommencinginthesummerof1539.TheEnglishpromulgationoftheActofSixArticles,deemedbytheGermansareactionaryconfirmationofpapal


doctrine,finallyconfirmedforthemthatHenryhadactedallalongasa“tempter”witha“hypocriticalpretense,”9thattheKingwasnodifferentthanHerodorAntiochus.10Theever-hopefulMelanchthon,however,couldstillqualifyhiscriticismevenwhilewritingagainsttheAct.Thelegislation,withitscapitalpenaltyforcertainevangeli-caldoctrinesandpractices,wascertainly“perniciousandodious,”yetitscontentsheattributedtoHenry’s“impiousandwicked”advisors,suggestingthattheKinghimselfwasguiltyonlyofbeingmanipulated.11

Allhopesofmaintainingsuchasanguineoutlook,however,weredashedthefollowingsummerwhentheeffectsoftheActbecameevident.InLondonalone,hun-dredsweresuddenlyarrestedonsuspicionofheresy.AmongthemwasRobertBarnes,aswellashismostpowerfulpatronandprotector,Henry’sownchiefministerThomasCromwell.TwoweeksafterCromwell’sarrestonchargesofcollusionwiththeGermanLutherans,theKingalsoexpelledfromhiscourtAnneofCleves,pawnofalast-ditchefforttoestablishanAnglo-Lutheranallianceviamarriage.ThemarriagewithAnnewasofficiallyannulledon9July,Cromwellwasbeheadedonthe28th,andtwodayslaterBarneswasburnedatthestake.

ItwasespeciallytheexecutionofBarnes,whohadnotonlybeenEngland’smostoutspokenandinfluentialdefenderofLutherantheology,butwhohadformanyyearsbeenanintimatefriendoftheWittenbergtheologians,thatfinallybroughtMelanchthonaroundtotheopinionofhiscolleagues.TheeventsofJulylefthimfeel-ingbetrayedbytheKingtowhomhehadsoglowinglydedicatedhis1535Loci.Henry,heconcluded,contrarytohisearlierhopes,wasnoinnocentpawnofeviladvisors;hewasanungodlytyrant.“NomorepleasingvictimcanbesacrificedtoGodthanatyrant,”wrotetheexasperatedireniciston24August;“WouldthatGodmightputthismindintosomebraveman.”12

ThatsuchanotherwiseconciliatoryfigurewouldturnsodramaticallyontheKinginwhomhehadlongplacedsuchhighhopes—beingsoboldevenastoinviteregicide—couldhardlypasswithoutnotice.OnecontemporarywhonotonlynotedthisrarelyseensideofMelanchthon,butmadeapointofpraisingitinprint,wastheyoungpoetJohannSastrow(1515–1545).EldestbrotherofthecelebratedmemoiristBartholomewSastrow,13Johannreceivedbachelor’sandmaster’sdegreesatWittenberg(rankedfirstamongthirteenstudentsgrantedthelatterin1540),andin1544wasnamedPoetLaureatebyEmperorCharlesV.HavingbeenatWittenbergduringtheyearsinwhichBarneswasfrequentlyinthecity,he,likeMelanchthon,wasshockedandsaddenedtoreceivethenewsofhisexecution.In1542hepublishedinLübeckA Dirge for the Martyr of Christ, the Englishman Dr. Robert Barnes,whichexcoriatedHenryVIIIforhisroleinthedeathofBarnes.14AppendedtothesememorialverseswasthefollowingpoemtoMelanchthon,applaudingthereformer’ssimilarlyvigorousdenunciationsoftheKing.ThisrareworkistranslatedhereforthefirsttimebyC.J.Armstrong.

KoreyD.MaasConcordiaUniversity

Irvine,CA

318

319

AD PHILIPPUM MELANTHONEMQuemcumStigeliomeoPhilippe,Ornastieximiistuislibellis,HunccumStigelioPhilippeRegemDebebasitaPublicislibellisNobispingere,sicutemereturNatura,acta,Tyrannis,Ate,15Erinnys,16

Pestismaximagentiumsuarum,Catarma,17etscelerumexecrandaLerna.18

QualegeevehisAngliaeMonarcham,HacimpurumegoperditumNeronem.AutsiquismagisimpiusNerone,Nuncvosconspiceo19queri,dolere,Mirari,etStygiam20vocarePestem,Quantuminrebusinane,quaefefellitSpesatqueirritavestravotafucus.21

Quantumfraudishabetmaliquefucus.Verumvindicequividescaducas ἔχει θεὸς ἔκδικον ὄμμα22

Resnostrasoculo,23piasquerelas,Piasaccipiasprecestuorum,EtmitisreprimasmalosTyrannos.FINIS

A Note on the Text: Themeterofthistwenty-linepoemishendecasyllabic,thePhalaecianlineused

inGreeklyricpoetry(e.g.,Sapphoetal.),madefamousintheLatinpoetryofthefirstcenturyBCbyCatullus,andregularlyemployedinthemiddleagesandtherenaissanceinItaliansonnetsandclassicalItalianpoetry(e.g.,ofDanteandPetrarch).Theclassicalhendecasyllabicaccommodatedawidevarietyofpoeticsubjectsfromlightloveelegytostinginginvective.ThispoemisatonceanencomiumofPhilip,adenunciationofHenry,andaprayerforthepreservationofthefaithful,althoughthebalanceoftop-icsweighsmostheavilyinthemiddlesectioncensuringtheKing.Forallofitsclassicalallusionsbothinthetextandthemargin,thepoemisneverthelessstraightforwardandwritteninasimplestyle.AsonemightexpectfromoneofMelanchthon’sformerstu-dents,especiallyinversewrittenforMelanchthonhimself,theyoungauthorisanxioustodemonstratehishumanistcredentialsbymeansoffacilitywithclassicalreferences,metaphors,andallusions.AcertainobsequiousnessmayfurtherbeevidentnotonlyinSastrow’smentionofMelanchthon’s“mostexcellent”booksandhisflatteringsympa-thywiththereformer’srighteousindignation,butalsoinhispraiseofStigelius(JohannStigel).ThoughthesameageasSastrowhimself,StigelhadalreadyinthepreviousyearbeennamedImperialPoetLaureate.IfpartofSastrow’smotivationforwritingwastocurryfavorwithpotentiallycareer-boostinghumanistswithintheEmpire,thenitappearsthathehadsomesuccess;asimilarlyflatteringpoeminpraiseofEmperorCharlesVearnedhimtheLaureatetitletwoyearslater.

Concordia Journal/Fall 2010 320

TO PHILIP MELANCHTHONTheonethatyoudepictedwithmyStigel,24

Philip,inyourbooksmostexcellent,25

ThisKing,theoneyouneededtodepict,Philip,inyourpublictractsforus,Youpaintedhimjustashisworksdeserve:Hisnature,26deeds,hisTyrannyandCurse,HisFuries,hisownpeople’sgreatDisease,TheScum,thesinners’Lernapestilent.

TheprinciplebywhichyouwouldremoveThekingofEngland,soaccordinglyWouldIthefouldesecratedNero27–Orifanybedeemedmoreimpiousthanhe,Ibearwitnessthatyoucomplain,andgrieve,Andslack-jawed,namehimPestfromRiverStyx,Forasmuchasheinindolence28

Hassoneglectedmatters,justsomuchHashe,thedrone,deceivedyourprayers,vain,andallyourhopes.29Somuchdeceitheowns,SomuchthestainheownsoftheEvilOne.

ButYou,whoseeusthus,anddoomedtofall,WhoseeourpiousplaintsbymeansofYourRetaliatingeye,mayYoureceiveThepiousprayersofYourveryown,AndinYourmercy,evilTyrantscheck.30

THEENDC.J.Armstrong

ConcordiaUniversityIrvine,CA

Endnotes1TheauthorswouldespeciallyliketoacknowledgethegenerousadviceandassistanceofferedbyProfessorRobert

Kolb(ConcordiaSeminary),whichmuchimprovedanearlierdraftofthisshortpiece.2NikolausSelnecker,Historica Oratio. Vom Leben vnd Wandel des Ehrwirdigen Herrn vnd thewren Mannes Gottes, D.

Martini Lutheri. Auch von Einhelliger vnd Bestendiger Eintrechtigkeit Herrn Lutheri vnd Philippi (Lepizig,1576),49a–74b.3Ontheattacksofhiscritics,seeRobertKolb,“Controversiaperpetua.DieFortsetzungdesAdiaphoristischen

StreitsnachdemAugsburgerReligionsfrieden,”inPolitik und Bekenntnis.Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von1548,ed.IreneDingelandGüntherWartenberg(Leipzig:EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt,2006),191–209.Onthedefenseofferedbyhisfriends,seeTimothyJ.Wengert,“‘Withfriendslikethis…’:TheBiographyofPhilippMelanchthonbyJoachimCamerarius,”inThe Rhetorics of Life-Writing in Early Modern Europe: Forms of Biography from Cassandra Fedele to Louis XIV,ed.ThomasF.MayerandD.R.Woolf(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1995),115–31.

4CharlesP.Arand,“TheApologyasaBackdropfortheInterimof1548,”inPolitikundBekenntnis,211–27;andIreneDingel,“MelanchthonundWesteuropa,”inPhilipp Melanchthon als Politiker zwischen Reich, Reichsständen und Konfessionsparteien,eds.GüntherWartenbergandMatthiasZentner(Wittenberg:DreiKastanienVerlag,1998),105–22.

5See,e.g.,BasilHall,“TheEarlyRiseandGradualDeclineofLutheranisminEngland,”inReform and Reformation: England and the Continent,c.1500–c.1750,ed.D.Baker(Oxford:Blackwell,1979):103–31,andAlecRyrie,“TheStrangeDeathofLutheranEngland,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History53(2002):64–92.

6ForBarnesandMelanchthonseeKoreyD.Maas,The Reformation and Robert Barnes: History, Theology and Polemic in Early Modern England(Woodbridge:Boydell,2010),andJohnSchofield,PhilipMelanchthonandtheEnglishReformation(Aldershot:Ashgate,2006).

7Onthesenegotiations,seeDingel,“MelanchthonundWesteuropa,”118–22.8FortherelationshipofHenry and the Lutherans see Neelak Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans: A Study in Anglo-

Lutheran Relations from 1521 to 1547(St.Louis:Concordia,1965),andthemorerecentworkbyRoryMcEntegart,HenryVIII,theLeagueofSchmalkaldenandtheEnglishReformation(Woodbridge:RoyalHistoricalSociety,2002).

9LW50:204–6.10LW50:192–204.11CR3:1868.CitationsfromtheCorpus Reformatorumarereferencedbyvolumeanddocumentnumber.12CR3:1995.ThefirsthalfofMelanchthon’sremarkquotesfromHerculesFurens922–4,atragedywrittenby

thefirst-centuryLatinplaywrightSenecatheYounger.13BartholomewSastrow,Social Germany in Luther’s Time: Being the Memoirs of Bartholomew Sastrow,trans.AlbertD.

Vandam(London:A.Constable,1902),inwhicharefoundthebriefdetailsofJohann’sbiography.14JohannesSastrow,Epicedion Martyris Christi, D. Ruberti Barns Angli(Lübeck,1542).15AtetransliteratestheGreekἄτη,daughterofZeus,apersonificationofruinousdestruction.16ErinnystransliteratestheGreekἘρινύς,theFuriesofclassicalmyth.17CatarmaisaLatintransliterationoftheGreekκάθαρμα,meaning“refuse.”Itisawordinrelativelycommon

useinProtestantcirclesatthetime,particularlyfavoredbyMelanchthon,andperhapsderivedfromtheGreektextof1Corinthians4:13,“δυσφημούμενοι παρακαλοῦμεν· ὡς περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα ἕως ἄρτι”(“Whenslandered,weentreat.Wehavebecome,andarestill,likethescumoftheworld,therefuseofallthings”[ESV]).WearegratefultoProfessorDanaSutton(UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine)andProfessorJohannRamminger(Thesaurus Linguae Latinae)fortheirhelpwiththisneo-Latinism.

18LernaisanArgiveregionofGreece,inwhichwastheswampthathousedthemany-headedHydradefeatedbyHerculesinhissecondlabor.

19Conspicioisreadforconspiceo.20StygiamistheadjectivalformofStyx,theriveroftheunderworldinclassicalmyth,andinsomelaterChristian

literature(e.g.,Dante),locatedinhell.21Fucusisadrone-bee,aclassicaltoposoflaziness(see,e.g.,Lucretius,De rerum natura2.683,Virgil,Georgics

4.244).Thesamewordcanalsodenoteareddish-purpledyeoramixtureofsuchthatisusedtostopupahive.Sastrowpunsintheultimatewordofthisandthenextline.

22TheGreek,amarginalgloss,reads,“Godhasanavengingeye.”ThisisaquotationfromaHomericparody,theΒατραχομαχία(Batrachomachía,orBatrachomyomachia,i.e.,The Battle between the Frogs and Mice),modeledontheAesopicfableofthefrogandthemouse.Thispseudo-Homericpoemwasespeciallypopularasaschooltext,somuchsothatitmaywellhaveconstitutedthefirstprintedGreekbook.SeeH.Wölke,Untersuchungen zur Batrachomyomachie(Meisenheima.G.:Hain,1978),44.

23ThisclausetranslatesthesubstanceoftheGreekquotationinthemarginalgloss.24JohannStigel(1515–1562)matriculatedin1531atWittenberg,wherehebecameaMelanchthonprotégé.Hewas

namedImperialPoetLaureatein1541and,aftertakinghismaster’sdegreethefollowingyear,assumed,uponMelanchthon’srecommendation,aLatinprofessorshipatWittenbergin1544.Aprolificandhighlyregardedneo-Latinpoet,heoccasionallycollaboratedinpublicationswithMelanchthon.Multiplecollectionsofhisversewerepublishedposthumously.

25Melanchthon’slate1539De officio principium, quod mandatum Dei praecipiat eis tollere abusus Ecclesiasticos,thoughnotnamingHenryVIIIexplicitly,wasundoubtedlywritten—andread—withaviewtowardtheKing.ForthetextseeMelanchthons Werke,Bd.1,ed.RobertStupperich(Gütersloh:C.Bertelsmann,1951),387–410.His1November1539lettertoHenry(CR3:1868),inwhichMelanchthonattackedtheSixArticlessuggestingtheyimplicatedHenryin“bloodytyrannyandimpiety,”alsocirculatedwidelyinmanuscriptformandwasreferredtoinGermanyashisexpostulatio.InEngland,alreadyinthemonthafteritscomposition,itwouldprovoketendaysofminorcrisisintheKing’sCouncilwhenmanuscripttranslationstracedbacktotheLondonprinterRichardGraftonwerefoundcirculatinginNorfolk.SeeAlecRyrie,The Gospel and Henry VIII: Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003),114.ItwasfinallyprintedforEnglishconsumptionintheyearofHenry’sdeathasThe epistle of the famous and great Clerke Philip Melancton made unto oure late Sovereyne Lorde Kynge Henry the eight, for the revokinge and abolishing of the six articles (Antwerp,1547).

26ThatHenry’snaturewas“unstable”and“hypocritical”wasacommontropeamongtheGermanLutherans.See,e.g.,LW50:192–206andLW54:361–2.

27NerowasthelastoftheJulio-Claudianemperors,aninfamousexampleoftyranny.Bythetimethispoemwascomposed,“EnglishNero”hadbecomeacommondescriptionofHenry.See,e.g.,Melanchthon’suseofthephraseina17August1540lettertotheabove-mentionedJohannStigel(CR3:1990).

28Thetyrant’sindolence,hisfailuretoperformhisrightduties,isreflectedagaininthesubsequentreferencetothedrone.Therefusaltoperformthedutiespropertoone’sprincelyofficeispreciselythesubjectofMelanchthon’sDe officio principium,notedabove.

29Melanchthon’shopesforanAnglo-Lutheranrapprochementwereconsistentlyexpressedfromthemid-1530suntilthepassageoftheSixArticles(see,e.g.,CR3:1788and1792),andeven,thoughsomewhattempered,untilhefinallyreceivednewsofthe1540executions.

30Theconcludingprayerechoes,morepiouslyandambiguously,Melanchthon’shope(CR3:1995)thatsomeonemightcommitregicide.

321

ARTICLEs

COncordiaournalJ

TheSheepandtheVoiceoftheShepherdTheEcclesiologyoftheLutheranConfessionalWritings

RobertKolb

…atalltimestheremustbeandremainoneholyChristianchurch.Itistheassemblyofallbelieversamongwhomthegospelispreachedandtheholysacramentsareadministeredaccordingtothegospel.ForthisisenoughforthetrueunityoftheChristianchurchthatthegospelbepreachedwithoneaccordaccordingtoapureunderstandingandthesacramentsareadministeredinconformitywiththedivineWord.(AugsburgConfession,ArticleVII)1

The Nature of the Lutheran Confessions and the Brevity of their Teaching on the Church

ArticleVIIoftheAugsburgConfessiondoesnotprovideaverydetaileddefi-nitionofthechurch.ThatcorrespondstothenatureofthisconfessionandoftheotherstatementsoffaithfoundintheBookofConcord.EachdocumentconfessedWittenbergtheologyinaspecificsituation,focusingonthepreciseneedofitsaudienceforclarificationoftheissuesathandatthetimeofitscomposition.Luther’scatechismsconfessedthefaithbeforethechildrenofGermanyandtheirparentsandpastors,whomGodhadcalledtoinstructtheminthatfaith.MelanchthondraftedtheAugsburgConfessionsothattheprincelycourtsandmunicipalcouncilswhichwereintroduc-ingWittenbergreformcouldexplaintoEmperorCharlesVwhattheyweredoingtoimproveecclesiasticallifeandwhy.Luther’sclosestcolleaguecomposedhisApologyoftheConfessiontodefenditsconfessionofthefaithagainsttheRomanConfutationandtoappealtotheemperorforjustice.LutherwrotehisSmalcaldArticlesasanagendafortheLutheranstouseatthepapalcounciland,inalllikelihood,alsotomeethiselector’srequestforanotherdoctrinallastwillandtestament,asupplementtotheearlierconfessionoffaithwhichconcludedhisConcerning Christ’s Supper, Confession (1528).MelanchthonwaschargedwiththecompositionoftheTreatiseonthePowerandPrimacyofthePopetosupplementtheAugsburgConfessionastheactualagendathatLutherangovernmentsweretotaketothepapalcouncilwhentheydecidedtousetheir“missionstatement”of1530,theAugsburgConfession,forthatpurpose.TheFormulaofConcordaroseasasettlementofdisputeswithintheWittenbergcircle

Robert Kolb is mission professor emeritus of systematic theology and former director of the Institute for Mission Studies at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He has published widely in Reformation studies. His most recent volume, Martin Luther: Confessor of the Faith, was published in 2009 by Oxford University Press.

324Concordia Journal/Fall 2010

overcontrovertedpointsintheproperinterpretationofLuther’slegacyandthebibli-calmessageafterthereformer’sdeath.Noneofthesedocumentspurportedtobeacompleteoverviewofallofbiblicalteaching.ForawhilesomeLutheranshadenter-tainedthepossibilityofacceptingseveralofMelanchthon’swritings,assembledintheCorpus Doctrinae Philippicum(1560),asa“ruleoffaith”fortheWittenbergcircle(servingthepurposesfulfilledbytheBookofConcord),anditdidincludesuchanoverviewinMelanchthon’sLoci communes theologici.Butthiscollectionslippedintoobscuritywhen,around1580,amajorityofLutheranchurchesinGermanyfoundthattheFormulaofConcordandtheBookofConcordwouldservethatfunctionbetter.2

Designedfirstofalltomeetparticularneedsofthechurchindistinctsituations,theLutheranConfessionsservedthefunctionofguidingthechurchsoeffectivelyinthosesituationsthattheyweretakennotonlyasprescriptionsforpublicteachingbutalsoasmodelsforthewayinwhichtheWittenbergreformersthoughttheologicalpro-cessingofthebiblicalmessageshouldbeformulatedinother,futuresituations.JustasLutherandMelanchthonneverstoppedexperimentingwiththeirformulationsoftheunchangingteachingofScriptureforchangingcircumstancesandwithchangingexpres-sionsandlanguage,sotheyexpectedthattheirstudentswouldseektheguidanceoftheHolySpiritandcarryouttheircallingsasministersofGod’sWordbyfindingtheproperanswertocurrentproblemsoutofScripture’spages,inthelanguageappropriateforthechallengesofnewtimesastheyarose.Therefore,theirdoctrineofthechurchisleanandcleanintheBookofConcord.Nonetheless,itoffersasufficientbasisforapplyingwhattheWittenbergreformersbelievedaretheessentialsofGod’swillfortheassemblyhegathersthroughhisWordineveryage.Itenablesbelieverstounderstandwhotheyareandwhatheisdoingwithandthroughthemashischurchthroughouthistory.

Lutheranslooktotheirconfessionsoffaithforthebedrockoftheirtheology,itsfoundationformeetingthequestionsandneedsoftheirday—butnotforafinishedandfinaledifice.Therefore,theBookofConcordcontainsrelativelyfewprescriptionsforthedetailsoflivingoutthelifeofthechurch,althoughitsdocumentsdoputinplacethepilingsonwhichsuchdetailsmustbeconstructedfortheindividualcircum-stancesinwhichtheHolySpiritcallshispeopletowork.LutheransbelievethatGodisGod,Lordofhistory,andsotheypresumethatScripturesetsthefoundationuponwhichsucceedinggenerationswillworkoutapplicationsthroughSpirit-guidedwisdom.TheConfessions,liketheruleoffaithineveryformthroughoutthechurch’shistory,arenecessarytoolsforaddressingthisbiblicalmessagetospecificconcernsinspecifichistoricalsituations.

LutheranecclesiologyalwaysproceedsfromLuther’sandMelanchthon’sunder-standingofGod’sWordandwhatitdoesashisinstrumentforcreatinghisuniverseandre-creatinghishumancreatureswhohavefallenintosin.3“TheonlyruleandguidingprincipleaccordingtowhichallteachingsandteachersaretobeevaluatedandjudgedarethepropheticandapostolicwritingsoftheOldandNewTestamentalone,”JakobAndreaewroteintheEpitomeoftheFormulaofConcord.HewassummarizingtheSolidDeclaration,whichhadstated,“WeconfessouradherencetothepropheticandapostolicwritingsoftheOldandNewTestaments,astothepure,clearfountainof

325


Israel,whichaloneistheonetrueguidingprinciple,accordingtowhichallteachersandteachingaretobejudgedandevaluated.”4

ModernattemptstofindauthorityinthesummaryofbiblicalteachingfoundintheApostlesCreed,asN.F.S.Grundtvigdidinnineteenth-centuryDenmark,orsomeotherruleoffaith,havebeenmadeinvain.Suchattemptsusuallystemfromthetheo-logian’sfailuretomastertheproblemswhichthebiblicaltextssometimesseemtopose.Theseattemptsrevealourimpatiencewiththeexegeticalquestionsoverwhichourpowersseeminadequate.TheystemfromafailuretorealizethatGodretainsmasteryofScripture,andthataLutheranviewofitsnatureisthatthisbearerofthe“weakandfoolish”WordfromGodonthecross(1Cor1and2)willalwaysseemtohaveraggededgesandlooseendsthatdefyeventhemostsanctifiedofhumanreasoning.

Sixteenth-centuryLutheransalsoclaimedtoconformtheirteachingtotheancientanalogiafidei,buttheirruleoffaithwasalwaystheanalogia fidei Wittebergensis,theReformationalinsightsthatrevolutionizedWesternChristiantheology’swaysofposingquestionstotheScripture.EveryChristiangroupcaughtupinthemarchofGod’ssweepthroughhistoryhasfacedthesameproblem.Theefforttoassertmasterythroughourownreadingoftradition,throughappealtotheFathers,orthroughchurchofficialsorotherformsofpolityneverfindssuccess.

Tobesure,nosixteenth-centuryChristiansadvocatedindividualinterpretationofScriptureassomepersonalright.UnderstandingtheBiblerequiresavillageandmore.AllLutheranshaveagreedontheHolySpirit’suseofthecommunitywhichGodcreatesbyrenewinghisconversationwithusinthecontinuinginterpretationandappli-cationofScripture.SincethecolloquybetweenWittenbergtheologicalprofessorsandRomanCatholictheologiansatRegensburgin1601,5LutheranshaverecognizedtheroleofthecommunityinthestudyofScripture.Buteveninthisactivitythecommu-nityissimul justus et peccatorandstandsalwaysunderthecalltorepentanceinteachingandinpractice.Thecommunitycannotbesubstitutedasanultimatesourceofauthor-ity,butitstandsasthedisciplinarymeansbywhichindividualinterpretersofScripturearecalledbacktotheconfessionofthechurchtestedbyscripturalscrutinyovertheages.Thecommunityofbelieversaidsindividualhearers’andreaders’ofthetextinlivingtherepentantlife.ButitisclearfromLuther’sandMelanchthon’swritingsonecclesiologythatthebiblicalWordgovernstheentirelifeofthecommunity,thefamily,whichiscalledthechurch.Communitieshaveadifficulttimerepenting,butaspiritofrepentanceisanecessaryaccompanimenttotheconfidencewhichtheHolySpiritcre-atesaswedeliverhismessage.Thepracticalimplicationsofthispositionare,ofcourse,hardertocodifythantoproclaim.TheHolySpiritremainstheLordofthechurch,andhisoperationsescapeeveryattemptathumandomestication.

‘Wittenberg Ecclesiology’ Is Not a Contradiction in TermsThoughMelanchthonwasrestrainedinelaboratinghisdoctrineofthechurch

intheAugsburgConfession,itsessentialsarethere.6ItissometimessaidthatLutherinparticular,butalsohiscolleaguesinWittenbergreform,didnotconcentratemuchattentiononthedoctrineofthechurch,butthatisnottrue.Theyformulatedadiffer-entconceptofthebodyofChristthanhadbeenprevalentintheMiddleAges.The

326

dominationoftheecclesiasticalscenebythepapacy,andwhatthereformersviewedasthepressingneedforradicalchangeincongregationallifeatthelocallevel,dic-tatedthenecessityofpayingattentiontodetailsofboththedoctrineofthechurchandthedetailsofitsteaching,ritual,andpolity.VitorWesthelleiscorrectincallingthisrefocusingofthedefinitionofthechurchbotha“revolution”anda“metanoia”:“Toparaphrase[DietrichBonhoefferinChrist the Center],thecenterofChristexistingaschurch-community,theidentityofthechurch,cannotberepresentedeitherbytheproductofitslabororbythemodesofinteractionofitsmembers.Thisarevolutionarymove(analogoustoCopernicus’s)thatchangesthegravitationalbasisfortheexistenceofthechurch:themarginsbecomethecenter,theperipherytheaxisofthechurch’sownbeing….Theterm(revolution)inthisepistemologicalsense,suggestingaradicalchangeintheorientationofone’sthinking…inbiblicaltermsiscalleda metanoia,aconversion.”7TheLutheranconfessionsallreiteratethisinsistencethatthechurchisaproductofGod’sWord,whichgathershispeopletogetherarounditspresentationinoral,written,andsacramentalforms.MelanchthontookitforgrantedthattheWordactivelycarriedoutGod’swillastheinstrumentoftheHolySpirit:“[T]hechurchis,properlyspeaking,theassemblyofsaintswhotrulybelievethegospelofChristandhavetheHolySpirit.”8ThepeopleofGod“shareincommontheassociationofthesamegospelordoctrineandthesameHolySpirit,whorenews,sanctifies,andgovernstheirhearts.”9Lutheraffirmedthispointwhenhetaughtchildrenthebasicfactaboutthechurch:itiscalledandgatheredbytheHolySpirit.10

EcclesiologywasacriticalissueforLutherandhiscolleaguesinWittenberg.Theymaynothavedevelopedextensivetreatments—Luther’ssingle,longercontribu-tiondevotedspecificallytothetopicwashisOn the Councils and the Churchof1539,hislastsignificantattemptatpreparingforthespecificagendasofthepapally-calledcoun-cil.ThisworkpursuesthehistoryofthecouncilsthroughChalcedonandfindsthattheirchiefpurposewastoproclaimsalvationinChrist.Partonetreatedconciliartheoryintheearliestyearsofthechurch,11parttwotracedthehistoryofsubsequentcouncilsandhowtheydevelopedtheirexpressionsofdoctrinefromNiceatoChalcedon,12andpartthreepresentedthemarksofthechurchandtheirsignificance.13Apartfromthisworkandafewothersfocusedinpartonthedoctrineofthechurch,hedidaddresstheessentialsofthebiblicalteachingonthechurchinexegeticalandpracticalworks,and,aseveryLutheranstudentoftheologyknows,hisdoctrineofthechurchisknowntoanyseven-yearoldchild,sheeplisteningtoshepherd,asthereformerwroteintheSmalcaldArticles.14

AvarietyofspiritshaveinspiredLutherantheologiansovermorethanfourcen-turiestofillingapsinthedefinitionMelanchthon’stextintheAugsburgConfessiongivesus,astheyhaveperceivedthistextonthebasisoftheirownsituationsandtheirownimaginativeapplicationofthetexttothosesituations.Melanchthon’sspare—thoughforhispurposesextremelywell-targetedandeffectivelyformulated—definitionofthechurchservedthecauseforwhichhedraftedtheconfessionfortheconfes-sorswhoputtheirlivesonthelineastheyoffereditsexplanationoftheirreformstoEmperorCharlesV.ThebrevityofthisdefinitionillustratesthegeniusoftheAugsburgConfessionandpartofthereasonsforitscomposition.Thosewhowanttomarshal

327


itsauthorityfortheurgenciesofanothertimeandwhodonotunderstanditshistoricalcontextmayfinditsdefinitionofthechurchinadequate,andsomemaythenforceitswordsintoanachronisticinterpretations.Infact,thisarticle,liketheothers,accuratelyreflectsboththesituationofthosewhoinitiallyconfesseditinpublicandofthecon-victionsofWittenbergcolleaguesofitsdrafter,Melanchthon.

Itsconfessors,ElectorJohannofSaxony,hissonJohannFriedrich,fiveoftheirprincelycolleagues,andtwomunicipalgovernments,wishedtopresenttheConfessionastheircompliancewiththedemandofEmperorCharlesVforanexplanationoftheirreasonsforintroducingWittenberg-stylereformsinthechurchesoftheirlands.TheemperorwishedtoeradicatetheLutheranheresy;thedefendersofLuther’sreformweremaneuveringtosavetheirfaithandtheirpoliticalsituation.MelanchthonandtheotherleadersofWittenbergreformwereusingtheConfessionasonemoreopportu-nitytospreadtheirownideasregardingthebiblicalmessageanditsimplicationforthechurch.Melanchthonhadchosenthetitle“confession”inaninnovative,indeedrevo-lutionary,revisionofhowmedievalChristendomhadgoneaboutdefiningthechurchanditspublicteachingandpractice.HisexplanationofWittenbergreformwasnottitled“explanation,”nordiditretainhisinitialchoiceforatitle,Apologia,ordefense.Instead,itclaimedtobea“confession,”apublicexpressionofbeliefintheteachingofScriptureinthemanneroftheancientcreeds,whichitpresumedwerebeingrepro-ducedandconfessedanewintheConfession’swords.15

ArticleVIIexhibitsMelanchthon’sskillatcombininghisandLuther’stheo-logicalconcernswithlanguagedesignedtomakeadecisivecasetotheemperorthatLuther’sreformprogramdidnotcarrytheWittenbergtheologiansbeyondthepaleofthechurch,astheirRomanCatholicfoeswerecharging.InarticleVIIMelanchthonusedthelanguageofRomanlawfromcodeoftheEmperorTheodosiusII,whointheearlyfifthcenturyhaddefinedChristianitywithwordsquitesimilartoMelanchthon’s.Itwastobe“thereligionwhichthedivinePetertransmittedtotheRomans”andbaseditsfaithupon“apostolicdisciplineandthedoctrineofthegospel.”16TheparaphrasemaintainedthatthechurchesinthelandsandtownsoftheAugsburgConfessorsunderstoodthechurchtobetheassemblyofbelieversamongwhomthegospelispurelypreachedandtheholysacramentsareadministeredaccordingtothegospelandhadtheringoflegalitytoit.AtoneleveltheAugsburgConfessionwasonlyinsistingthatWittenbergreformconformedtothelegaldefinitionofthechurchinthelawcodeCharlesVwaspledgedtouphold.However,hiswordingembracedmuchmoreinfact.

The Church is God’s Mouth HouseMelanchthon’sformulationreflectedaradicalchangeinWesternChristendom’s

understandingoftherealityofGod’swayofworkinginhisworldandofhisdesignfortherelationshipbetweenhumanityandhimself.TheWittenbergreformers,underLuther’sleadership,hadintroducedthischangeinthedecadeprecedingtheAugsburgdietof1530.MedievalChristianityhadlargelybeen,onthepopularlevel,areligionofritual,ofproperlyattainingahearingwithGod,andperhapshisfavor,throughtheproperperformanceofworks,especiallysacredorreligiousworks,aimedatwinninghisapproval.Ontheofficiallevel,ithadbecomeareligioninwhichaquestionofpolity

328

definedthechurch,notasthepeopleofGodbutratherasthestructureoffollowingChristinsubmissiontohisvicar,thebishopofRome.

LutherandMelanchthonbelievedthatthechurchwasinsteadacreationofGod’sWord,hisidentifyinghimselfandhishumancreaturesthroughthemessageoftheprophetsandapostles,asgiveninHolyScripture.There,theybelieved,Godispresentandpowerfulintheactiveproclamationofthebiblicalmessageanditsapplica-tiontothelivesofGod’speople.Luther’sdesignationofthechurchas“ahouseofthemouth”ratherthan“ahouseofthepen”arisesinpartfromhiswritinginalargelyillit-erateandthusinescapablyoralculture,butitalsoreflectshisbeliefthattheHolySpiritusesScripturetoproducetheliving,active,re-creativeWordofthegospel.17There,inthemeetingofSpeakerandhearer,thisWordactstocondemnandrecreatesinners,tokillandmakealive.ItisthatWordthatdefinesandidentifiesthechurchasthepeopleofGod,whomtheHolySpiritgathersbyandaroundthepreachingofGod’sWordandthesacraments,asaspecificformofthatWord,whichalsotakesoralandwrit-tenforms.Ahappycoincidenceoflanguage—ifnotnecessarilyofmeaning—enabledMelanchthontopresentinverysuccinctformthisWittenbergtheologyofGod’sWordinwordingwhichatthesametimemadethepoliticalpointthattheLutheransmettheofficiallegaldefinitionofmembersofChrist’schurch.Thatiswhattheemperorneededtoknow.

TheConfession’streatmentoftheceremoniesorritesofthechurchandrelatedpracticesinArticleXVreaffirmedtheWittenbergmovefromaritual-basedpietytoawayoflifebasedonlisteningtoandrespondingtoGod’sWord.TheintentionandnatureoftheConfessionreflecttheWittenbergconviction,sharedwithallChristians,thatdoctrineexpressesitselfinritual,inliturgy,andinothercustomsandpractices.18

ThecriticaldifferencewithmedievalperceptionslayinLuther’sandMelanchthon’sconvictionthatritualobservancedoesnotcontributetosalvationandthatdoctrinegovernsanddeterminesritual.Thelawofwhatistaughtoughttoproduceandregu-latewhatisprayed,theybelieved.Lex credendi, lex orandi—evenifthenormalreverseformulationofthissloganoftendescribestherealityofthechurch’sstumblingthroughhistory.

ArticlesXXIIthroughXXVIII,discussingpracticesfromthedistributionoftheLord’sbloodintheLord’sSupper,throughclericalmarriageandthemass,tomonasticvowsandthepowerandcallingofbishops,werebasedonArticlesXV’sexpressionoftheprinciple.There,accentuatingthepositive,Melanchthonbeganbyurgingthatallpractices“thatcanbekeptwithoutsinandthatservetomaintainpeaceandgoodorderinthechurch”beretained.Atthesametimeitmustbemadeclearthatritualprac-ticesdonotcontributetosalvation,asthepietyoftheMiddleAgeshadfirmlyheld.Anyecclesiasticalpracticethatpurportstooffergraceandmakesatisfactionforsinis“goodfornothingandcontrarytothegospel.”19“Wemustalsoretaintheteachingthathumantraditionsarepointlessactsofworship[oftenidentifiedinWittenbergwritingsasthe“humancommands”ofMatthew15:9]andthereforethatneithersinnorrigh-teousnessoughttobeconnectedwithfood,drink,clothing,andsimilarmatters.”20

Althoughhedidnotexplicitlyexpresshispassionaterejectionoftheconceptofsacramentalbenefitex opere operatoatthispointinthetext,thepopularbeliefthatout-

329


wardperformanceofritesandexternalconformitytopractices,suchasattendingthemass,providedgraceregardlessofthepresenceorabsenceoffaithinChristcontradict-edtheWittenbergunderstandingthattheChristianfaithinvolvesconversationbetweenGodandhishumancreatures,initiatedbythecreator.ThisconversationstandsattheheartofthecommunitywhichGodalsocreatedsothatheandhishumancreaturesmightenjoyfellowship.InGenesis1itisclearthatGodcreatedallthingsthroughhisWord,asLutherrepeatedlyinsisted,aboveall,inhisGenesislecturesfiveyearslater.InGenesis2:18hecreatedhumancommunityashebroughtEveintoexistence.ThefirstthingGodmissedwhenAdamandEvehidthemselvesfromhimwastheircommunity:“Adam,whereareyou?”Godasked(Gn3:9).21

God’sapproachtohishumancreaturesbeginswithhiscalltothem.Thechurchis,inLuther’swords,“thelittlesheepwhohearthevoiceoftheshepherd”(Jn10:3),asanyseven-yearoldchildknows.”ThisconvictionledMelanchthontoconfessthat“thechiefworshipofGodistopreachthegospel.”Hefurtherdefinedtheverytop-icsofpreachingwhichgiveevidencethattheconversationofGodwithhispeopleisbeingconducted:“Repentance,fearofGod,faithinChrist,therighteousnessoffaith,consolationofconsciencesthroughfaith,theexerciseoffaith,prayer(whatitshouldbelikeandthateveryonemaybecompletelycertainthatitisefficaciousandisheard),thecross,respectforthemagistratesandallcivilorders,thedistinctionbetweenthekingdomofChrist(thespiritualkingdom)andpoliticalaffairs,marriage,theeducationandinstructionofchildren,chastity,andalltheworksoflove.”22TheconversationwhichGodwantstoconductwithhissheepbeginswiththelawthatworksrepentance,continueswiththecultivationoffaiththroughtheproclamationandconsolationofthegospel,andthenproceedstomotivateandguidethehumancreaturesrestoredtothefullnessoftheirhumanityintoaGod-pleasinglifewhichbringshislovetohisworld.

Melanchthon’ssummaryofthepastoraloffice,inhisdescriptionofthecallingofthebishopinArticleXXVIIIoftheAugsburgConfessionanditsApology,alsofocusedonhisroleandfunctioninthechurchasaministerofGod’sWord.AlthoughthesedocumentsdonotdiscusstheWittenbergdistinctionwhichlayattherootofLuther’sandMelanchthon’shermeneuticalenterprise,theproperdistinctionoflawandgospel,theydoimplythatthisartofdistinguishingGod’sbestowalofidentityaschildrenofGodthroughtrustinChrist—specificallyhisworkwhichwontheforgive-nessofsins—fromGod’sexpectationsforhumanperformance,thegospelandthelaw.Thisdistinctionliesattheveryheartandconstitutestheverynatureofproperchurchlife.23Forbishopsarenotonly“topreachthegospel,toforgivesins,tojudgepublicteaching,”butalso“torejectpublicteachingthatiscontrarytothegospelandtoexcludefromtheChristiancommunitytheungodlywhoseungodlylifeismanifest–notwithhumanpowerbutwithGod’sWordalone.”24

The Church is God’s Household and Christ’s BodyGod’sWordresoundsintohumanhistoryfromthepagesofScripturebecause

theHolySpiritcontinuestohaveitspoken.ThorlievAustadsaysitprecisely:“ThechurchisaproductoftheHolySpirit.”25TheLutheransfirmlybelievedthatspeaking

330

God’sWord,inallitsusesinoral,written,andsacramentalforms,servedastheHolySpirit’smethodofre-creatingthehumancommunityhehadfirstimplementedinEden.

Thecalling,speakingshepherdiskeytotheexistenceofthechurch.ForMelanchthonandLutherChrististheonlyheadofthechurch,animplicitpolemicagainstthepapalclaimsthathaddominatedtheecclesiologicaldiscussionsoftheWesternchurchsincetheconciliarperiodacenturyearlier.ThechurchisChrist’s“liv-ingbody,”inwhichhe“bestowsthosegiftsthathepromisedtothechurch:aboveall,therighteousnessoftheheart,”aswellas“forgivenessofsins,answeredprayer,thegiftoftheHolySpirit.”26“OutsidethisChristiancommunity,however,wherethereisnogospel,thereisalsonoforgiveness,andthereforetherealsocanbenoholiness.”27Inhispersonalconfessionoffaithcomposedin1528asanappendixtohisConcerning Christ’s Supper, Confession,Lutherhadwrittenthattheone,holy,Christianchurchis“thecommunityornumberorassemblyofallChristiansinalltheworld,onebrideofChrist,andhisspiritualbodyofwhichheistheonlyhead.”28

ArticlesVIIandVIIIoftheAugsburgConfession,onthechurch,flownaturallyoutofarticlesIIIthroughVI,whichconfessthatGodjustifiessinnersthroughfaithintheworkandthepromiseofChrist,astheHolySpiritconveysthatpromiseandwork,withalltheirbenefits,throughtheWord,anditproducesthenewobedienceoffaith.ThejustifyingactionoftheSaviorJesusChrist,hisworkthroughtheHolySpiritusingGod’sWord,and,inaderivedsense,thenewobedienceofthefaithful,constitutethechurch.IntheSmalcaldArticlesLutherfocusedononeissueasthekeytotheexistenceandlifeofthechurch:that“JesusChrist,ourGodandLord,‘washandedovertodeathforourtrespassesandwasraisedforourjustification…and[allpeople,assinners,]arenowjustifiedwithoutmeritbyhisgrace,throughtheredemptionthatisinChristJesus,byhisblood.’”“Nothinginthisarticlecanbeconcededorgivenup,evenifheavenandearthorwhateveristransitorypassedaway…Onthisarticlestandsallthatweteachandpracticeagainstthepope,thedevil,andtheworld.”29OnthedoctrinesoftheTrinityandChrist’spersonthetwosidesthatweretomeetatthecouncilagreed(SAI).30Butthebattleagainstmedievaltheologyandpietyjoinedatthecentralquestionofthehumanbeing’srelationshiptoGod,theworkofChristandtheworkoftheHolySpiritwhichcreatesfaithinhearts,thatis,trustinJesusChristasLordandSavior.Thatmadethechurchstanduprightorbroughtittoitsknees.

God’speoplerespondtoGod’spromiseinthegospelbytrustinginhim,atrustthatfillstheirlivesandreorientstheirentirebeingtowardbeingincommunitywiththeGodwhomadethemforthatpurpose.IntheSmalcaldArticlesLutherdrewthecontrastbetweenaWord-basedfaithandthepietyofhumanlyinventedvestmentsandceremonies,andconcludedthat“theholinessofthechurchexistsintheWordofGodandtruefaith.”31ForindeedthehumanresponseoftrustinthepromiseofthegospelisnecessaryforthechurchtoconstitutetrulythefamilyorpeopleofGod.AsMelanchthonhadexplainedtotheemperorfiveyearsearlier,in1531,theWittenbergtheologiansinsistedthatforthe“trueunityofthechurch”theremustbepeoplewithfaithintheheartandrighteousnessintheheartbeforeGod.Impliedistherejectionoftheopposite:ex opere operatoperformanceofritualsdoesnotconstituteaproperrela-tionshipwithGod,nordoesithaveaplaceindefiningthenatureofbeingaChristian

331


andofGod’schurch.Thisrighteousnessoftheheartisnota“righteousnessboundtocertaintraditions….Forthisrighteousnessoftheheartisamatterthatmakestheheartalive.Humantraditions,whetheruniversalorparticular,contributenothingtothisgiv-ingoflife.NoraretheycausedbytheHolySpirit,asarechastity,patience,thefearofGod,loveofone’sneighbor,andworksoflove,”inMelanchthon’sviewtheinevitableresultsofGod’sconversationwithhispeople.32

ThescholastictheologianswithwhomLutherwasdebatingandMelanchthonwasnegotiatinginthisperiodcouldpointtothechurchastheyconceivedofit.Itwasvisible,initsprescribedrituals,initspolity,andinthegloryexpressedineverythingfromtheextravagantpompoftheRomancourttothemagicmomentinthevillagewhenthepriestbroughtGod’sverybodyandbloodtothealtarinthemidstofafor-mulanoonepresent,withthepossibleexceptionofthepriest,reallyunderstood.SoitisnowonderthattheiropponentsaccusedtheWittenbergtheologiansofimagin-ingthatthechurchexistedonlyinsomeetherealplaceamongPlato’srealforms.33No,Melanchthonconfessed,thechurchtrulyexistsandisapprehendibleinthe“truebelievingandrighteouspeoplescatteredthroughtheentireworld.”Inaddition,ithasoutwardmarks,signsthatcanbeapprehended,initspureteachingandinthedeliveryofGod’sWordthroughthesacraments.34Luthermadethelistmoreconcretein1539whenhespecificallylistedformsofpureteachingaswellaselementsofthehumanresponse:preachingandotheroralsharingofthegospel,baptism,theLord’sSupper,absolution,allconveyedintheofficeofthepublicministry,towhichGod’speoplerespondinworshipandpraiseastheyliveunderthecrossanddoworksoflove(whichdonotnecessarilydistinguishthemoutwardlyfromthoseoutsidethechurchbutwhichdoindeedbelongtothefundamentalcharacteristicsofGod’speople).35TheGlossa Ordinariahaddistinguishedthechurch“innameandinfact”(nomine et re),36andforLutherandMelanchthon“infact”wasconstitutedbytheproclamationoftheWordandtheproperadministrationofthesacraments.

Preciselywhatformthisapprehendibilitytookwasaquestionofsomeimpor-tancetothechurchoftheearlysixteenthcentury.JohnWycliffeandJanHushadarousedpassionsacenturyandmoreearlierastheyredefinedthechurchfromitscleri-calstructuretotheassemblyofGod’speople.WittenberginsistencethatthechurchistheassemblyofallGod’speople,breakingthepriorityofclergyoverlaityandbishopsoverparishpriests,radicallychallengedfifteenthcenturypositionsthathadbeenwonatnolittleeffortinfightingbackimplicationsoftheconciliartheorythathadarisendur-ingtheGreatSchism.37Thepapalpartybelievedthatthestructureofpapalgovernancedefinedthechurch,andthatdefinitionhadthegraceofsimplicity.FortheWittenbergtheologiansthefactsofthematterconcerningthechurch’sappehendibilityhadmorelooseendsandraggededges.Nonetheless,bycenteringtheirdefinitiononthecreativepowerofGod’sWord,theysharpenedthedefinitionofWycliffeandHus.

ToaffirmthatthechurchcontainssinnersandhypocritesmetonlyinparttheRomanCatholiccriticismthattheLutheransbelievedthatthechurchcouldsomehowbepureonearth.NoLutheranhadeversuggestedthat,butJohannEckhadstriventoassociateWittenbergreformwitheveryimaginableheresyafloatinearlysixteenthcenturyGermany,includingthechargethattheLutheranstaughtthatonlythepredes-

332

tinedareintheinstitutionalchurch.38SomeAnabaptistreformersindeedhadcalledforapurifyingofthechurchonearthandassertedsomethingcloselyakintoancientDonatistandsimilarviews.ForthatreasonMelanchthoninsistedintheAugsburgConfession’seightharticlethattheDonatistpositionbecondemned,explicitlyinregardtotheideathatsacramentsadministeredbyunworthypriestshadnovalidity.“…InthislifemanyfalseChristians,hypocrites,andevenpublicsinnersremainamongtherighteous….”39MelanchthonusedhisandLuther’sdistinctionofthetwokingdomsofGodandSatantoexplainthatintheearthlyrealm,inwhichGodisLordoverlifeinfamily,occupation,society,andchurch,Satanisalwaysontheattack.HebattlesGodnotonlyinthesituationsofthehomebutalsointheworkplaceandthepoliticalsphere.ThechurchisalsooneofthoseearthlyinstitutionsthroughwhichGodworkshiswillbutwhichSatanisalwaystryingtopervert.

InhisdefenseofthepositionintheApology,Melanchthonwrote,“JustasthechurchhasthepromisethatitwillalwayshavetheHolySpirit,soitalsohasthewarn-ingthattherewillbeungodlyteachersandwolves.ButthechurchisstrictlyspeakingthatwhichhastheHolySpirit.Evenifwolvesandungodlyteachersrunrampantinthechurch,theystillarenotthekingdomofChrist,strictlyspeaking….”40AlthoughtheWittenbergtheologianssometimescalledthetruechurch“thekingdomofChrist,”itisclearthatthevisibleinstitutionsofhiskingdomremainthebattlegroundbetweenChrist’skingdomoftruthandSatan’skingdomofdeceptionandthatSatannevercompletelyloseshisbeachheadonthesoilthatbelongstoChrist.Thisviewfoundreaf-firmationinthelastarticleoftheFormulaofConcord,inwhichtheConcordistscon-demnedtheAnabaptistteachingthat“acongregationinwhichsinnersarestillfoundisnotatrueChristiancongregation.”41

TheformoftheAugsburgConfessiondidnotpermitMelanchthontogointodetail,butthisconvictionexpressesmorethansimplytheWittenbergreformers’com-mitmenttocombatancientheresy.Italsoenunciatesimplicitlytheirbeliefthattheentirehistoryofthechurch,likethehistoryofhumankindsincethefall,hasbeenabattlefieldbetweenGod’struthandSatan’slie.42Everymomentofthechurch’shistoryisaneschatologicalmoment,bothbecauseGod’speoplealwaysstandinhispresence,underhisprovidenceandprotection,receivingthepowerofhistransformingWord,andbecauseGod’speoplearealwaysengagedintheconflictwiththethiefandrobber,thedeceiverandaccuser,theliarandmurderer(Jn8:44),whoneverceasesprowling,seekingtodevourGod’schildren(1Pt5:8).

LutherandMelanchthonwerenotseekingapurechurchbutratherwereseek-ingtopurifythechurchinsofaraspossiblewiththeircalltoreturntobiblicalteach-ingandespeciallythegospelofthefreeforgivenessofsinsinJesusChrist.Theybothrecognized,asLutherobservedinasermontwoweeksbeforehisdeath(amongseveralplaces),“whereGodbuildsachurch,thedevilerectsachapelnexttoit.”43OrperhapsmoreaccuratelyreflectingtheWittenbergviewpoint,withinit.Theyputtheirconfi-denceinnohumanagencies,neitherbishopsnorhumantraditions,neitherregulationsofcouncilsnorreformmovements,topreservetheproperteachingofgospelandtheproperconductofecclesiasticallife.TheyplacedtheirconfidenceintheHolySpirit,workingthroughhisWord,toperformthetask.Thisrequiredthattheybecontentto

333


livewiththechurchthatremainedatthesametimebothsinfulinitsownimperfectattemptstoliveasChrist’speopleandrighteousasregardedbyGod.TheyhadnoexpectationsofanewstageofchurchhistoryinwhichallthemistakesandfailuresofthepastwouldvanishsothatGod’speoplewouldlivewithouttheneedforrepentance,individuallyorcollectively.44

Thechurchassertsitspresenceandexistenceinconcreteformsthroughouttheworld,butthatpresencecanbebestapprehendedbythosewhowerelistening.TheconceptofaninvisiblechurchonlyslowlybecameanimportantelementinthesixteenthcenturyWittenbergthoughtonthechurch.ItassumedimportancelargelybecausetheRomanCatholicswerecondemningtheLutheransforholdingthatthetruechurchisnotapprehendible.Tobesure,thedoctrineofthe“invisiblechurch”isnotanillogicaldevelopmentoftheApology’semphasison“faithintheheart,”asMelanchthonexpressedinparagraph31ofhisdefenseofArticlesVIIandVIII.ButhealwaysconcentratedontheconcretemanifestationsofthatonechurchinalltheworldasitheardtheWordproclaimedandgivenalsothroughthesacraments.That“calling,gathering,enlightening,andsanctifying”happens,ofcourse,inthelocalcon-gregationasitfunctionsasacommunityinaplace.AtthesametimeMelanchthonalsoplacedinthemouthsoftheprincesandmunicipalrepresentativesforwhomhedraftedtheConfessionthedesignationof“ourchurches”andtheirteaching,45notforalltheindividualcongregationsundertheirpoliticaljurisdictionbutfortheterritorialchurchwhichtheywereaidinginreformastheyworkedthroughlocalsuperintendents(oneLatintranslationforepiscopus).Theywerenotsettingindividualcongregationsloosetopursuetheirowndefinitionsofpublicteachingandtheirownpractices.MelanchthonalsoreferredtotheRomanchurchandtheGreekchurchasparallelsofasorttotheterritorialchurchesofSaxony,Hesse,orBraunschweig-Lüneburg,orthemunicipalchurchesofNurembergandReutlingen.46InrelationshiptochurchessuchasthatofRomeorConstantinopleMelanchthonfeltanobligationtoecumenicalwitness,andnotinaspiritofarrogancebutinforthrightseekingofthetruth,andhegavehistestimonyinAugsburginthespiritofgentlenessandrespectofwhichPeterwrote(1Pt3:15–16).

LuthersharedMelanchthon’sconvictionsandexpressedtheminhiscatechisms.TheSmallCatechism’sexplanationofthethirdarticleoftheApostlesCreedbeginswithaonelinesummaryofhisworkOn Bound Choice,“Ibelievethatbymyownunder-standingorstrengthIcannotbelieveinJesusChristmyLordorcometohim,buttheHolySpirithascalledme….”47Hedoesthat“justas”hegathers“thewholeChristianchurchonearth.”ThethirdarticleparallelsthefirstforLuther:thereGodcreatedme,buthedidso“togetherwith”(samt)allothercreatures.Here,Lutherbelieved,hewasonlyinterpretingtheApostlesCreed’sconfessionthatthechurchis“thecommunionofsaints.”48Soalsoregardingtheirnewcreationthechildrenlearnedthatthereisnosuchthingasanindividualbeliever.NotonlyarethepeopleofGodalwaysincommu-nityandconversationwithGodhimself;theyarealsoinconversationandcommunitywithothers.

TheLargeCatechismcontainsarathersimpleexpansionofthisdescriptionofthechurchastheplacewheretheHolySpiritisspeakingashisWordcalls,gath-ers,enlightens,andsanctifiesGod’speopleasacommunity.Lutherspentsometime

334

explainingthatthechurchisthecommunitywheretheHolySpirit’sconversationwithhisnewcreationgoeson.Hesummarizes,“Ibelievethatthereisonearthaholylittleflockandcommunityofpuresaintsunderonehead,Christ.ItiscalledtogetherbytheHolySpiritinonefaith,mind,andunderstanding.Itpossessesavarietyofgifts,andyetitisunitedinlovewithoutsectorschism.”LutherconfessedthatasanindividualhehadbeenmadepartofthatcommunitybytheHolySpirit,whorescuedhimfromSatan’scaptivitythroughtheWord.TheWord“createsandincreasesholiness”inthechurchbecauseitis“causingitdailytogrowandbecomestronginthefaithandinitsfruits,whichtheSpiritproduces.”49ThechurchistheplacewheretheHolySpiritfor-givessin,thebasisofChristianlivingandcommunitylife,tocombattheongoingpres-enceofevilinthelivesofbothindividualChristiansandtheentirechurch.Thisfor-givenessmakesthechurchholy,andnothingelse.God’speopleareholyonlybecauseGodhasmadethemholythroughtheforgivenessofsins.TheWittenbergtheologianswereconsistentlyclearonthis.GuntherWenzseesMelanchthon’streatmentofthesaintsinthetwenty-firstarticleoftheAugsburgConfessionas,amongotherthings,aclarificationofthis.50

Therefore,thechurchis“epiphanicspace,”accordingtoWesthelle,theplacewhereGodthroughhisWordrevealshimself.51Godcontinuestoaddresshumanbeings,nowonlyonthebasisofScripture,inhistory,andhistorytakesplaceinplaces.Lutherprotestedagainstthecommondefinitionoftheword“church”asabuilding,52andWesthelle’sobservationiscertainlynotintendedtorestrictthe“place”inwhichthechurchaseventtakesplacetobuildings.ButtheLutheranviewrequiresconcretelocationsforthesoundoftheWordtoresoundinitsoral,written,andsacramentalformsandforthemtodotheirworkandtakeeffect.InthewordsofThorleivAustad,“Thetruechurchistoberecognizednotsimplybyitscorrectteaching,thedecisionsofitsecumenicalcouncils,itsofficialconfessionalwritings,orindeed,itshierarchi-calstructure.ItmustbeexperiencedexistentiallyinthesharedfaithinJesusChrist,inunitywithhim,theonlyheadofits‘body.’”53Furthermore,asFriedrichBrunstädwrote,“Thechurchisthelocationinwhichreconciliationtakesplace,theinstrumentthatproclaimsreconciliation;thechurchistherealityofreconciliationandjustification,therealityofChristinthelifeofhishumancreatures,Christ’skingdom.”Howcanthatbe?Brunstädcontinued,“ReconciliationofourlifeisdeliveredtousinWordandSacrament,inthemeansofgrace.”54

The Formula of Concord and the Church of Word and WorshipNearlyfiftyyearsafterthepublicationofLuther’scatechismshisand

Melanchthon’sstudentswerecomingtotheendofmorethantwodecadesofstrifeovertheproperinterpretationoftheirlegacy.TheybroughtthatstrifelargelytoanendthroughtheFormulaofConcord.SinceittreatedonlythoseissuesthathadcauseddisagreementwithintheWittenbergcircle,andthedoctrineofthechurchhadnot,theFormulacontainednoarticleonecclesiologyingeneral.However,thestrifehadbeeninitiatedinthepublicarenabythecompromisessurroundingtheLeipzigProposalof1548,adraftofelectoralSaxonpolicyforthechurchthatwasintendedtostaveoffan

335


imperialinvasionofSaxonyasEmperorCharlesVtriedtocompletehisvictoryoverLutheranforcesintheSmalcaldWarof1546–1547.55Theelectoralgovernment,withthesupportoftheWittenbergtheologicalfaculty,haddevelopedthispolicytosaveLutheranpulpitsforLutheranpreachers.Butitscompromises,centeredaroundtheimposedreintroductionof“neutralmatters”(“indifferentmatters”isaliteraltransla-tionofἀδιάφοραbut“neutral”betterconveysitstruemeaning),seemedinthecon-textoftheaftermathofthedefeatoftheLeagueofSmalcaldtodenythegospelitself,accordingtocriticsamongMelanchthon’sformerstudentsandcolleagues.Theyfearedthatonthepopularlevelthereceptionofthese“neutralmatters”wouldundermineLutheranproclamationbecausetheyreturnedtomedievalpracticeswhichinmanypartsofSaxonyhadbeenlaidasidewiththeintroductionoftheReformation.Thesecriticsweresensitivetothedynamicofcommunication,recognizingthattheLeipzigProposalwouldhaveanimpactonthecommonpeoplethroughitsappearancesofconcessionnomatterwhatwasbeingpreachedfromthepulpits.InfindingasolutiontothisdisputetheauthorsoftheFormulaofConcordaddressedseveralissues,aboveall,thenecessityofconfessingthefaithpublically,clearly,effectively,andboldlywhenthatconfessionisunderattack.Thataffirmationcarriedwithitanaffirmationoftheimportanceofritualinthelifeofthechurchanditssubserviencetodoctrine,aswellasadefenseofthefreedomof“churches”(withoutdoubtterritorialchurchesaremeantinthiscase)toarrangeceremonies,liturgy,andotherpiouspracticesinChristianfree-dom.IntheAugsburgConfessionMelanchthonhadtaughtmuchofthepositionheheldin1548:itsfifteentharticleexpresseshisconvictionandthatofhiscolleaguesthattheuseofritualelementsofchurchlifeshouldbedisposedoffreelyfortheedificationofthepeopleandthedefenseofweakconsciences,preciselywhathehadshownhim-selfpreparedtodoasheparaphrasedtheAugsburgConfessionfordiplomaticeffortsbyelectoralSaxonyanditsLutheranalliesinthe1530stoinduceKingsFrancisIofFranceandHenryVIIIofEnglandtoacceptandpromulgatethedoctrineofjustifica-tionbyfaithinChristalone.56

ArticleXoftheFormulaofConcordplacesthepublicconfessionclearlyatthecenterofthechurch’slife,andbelieversaretoriskalltomakethatconfessionclear.57

Liturgyandotherpracticesofthechurchmayindeedbechangedinfreedom“asmaybemostusefulandedifyingforthecommunityofGod”solongastheydonotundercutpureteaching.58 Thus,theFormulareaffirmedtwobasicprinciplesenunci-atedintheearlierLutheranconfessions,thevitalcentralityoftheWordofGodanditspublicproclamation,andthenatureofthechurchastheplacewhereGodconversesandenjoyscommunitywithhishumancreatures,notaplacewheretheperformanceofritualsbyhumanbeingselicitsGod’sgraceorfavorinonewayoranother.TheauthorsoftheFormulaofConcordwerenotinagreementthemselvesoverarelatedissuethathadloomedlargeinthedisputesover“adiaphora”and“publicconfession,”therespectiverolesofChristianseculargovernmentsandtheleadershipofthechurchindeterminingchurchteachingandpractice.59Allsidesfirmlybelievedthatgovern-mentshavetheobligationtosupportthechurch,butJakobAndreaehadrepresentedthepositionofhiscolleagueinWürttemberg,JohannesBrenz,thatGodcallsprinces

336

toexerciseastronghandinallmattersofchurchlife,whereasMartinChemnitzandDavidChytraeushadgenerallydefendedtheexclusionofprincelypowerfromdeter-miningdoctrineandpractice.Probablyforthisreason,theissuewonnomentionintheFormula’stext.

The People of the Book of Concord in the Church of the Twenty-first Century

Intheend,searchingtheBookofConcordforspecificproofpassagestoguidethetwenty-firstcenturychurchinsolvingpressingproblemswillleadtofrustrationinmanyinstancesandoccasionallytoanabuseofthehistoricalintentofitsauthors.Justasstudentsofbiblicalnarrativehavenotedthechallengeofthe“gaps”inthetellingofstoriesandthestoryofScripture,soinitsteachingtheNewTestamentaccountsofchurchlifehavealwayschallengedbelieverstofillincertaingaps.Notintheessentials:thechurchlivesasGod’scommunityfromhisWord,intheconversationeveryiniti-atedanewbyhisconversationfromthepagesofScriptureinitsvariousforms.TheWordislivingandactivewiththeresultthatthecommunitycanserveasthefellowshipandfamilywhichbringsGod’slightandsaltintotheworld.Butthechurchalsolivesintheexperienceofwindsoffalseteachingtossingittoandfro(Eph4:14),ofSatan’srepeatedattemptstostrewgrainsofpoisoninoursalt.Inthisstrugglebackandforththewholelifeofchurchseemsfoolishandimpotent.WhatthatfinallymeansisthatthewholelifeofthecommunityofGod’schosenforgivensinnersisalifeofrepentance.

Wemayattemptasolutiontoourdilemmaofthinkingweneedprescriptivedirectivesfromoursecondaryauthorityforcurrentproblems,whichtheHolySpiritapparentlyleavestoourownwisdomandsanctifiedimaginativeaddress.ForthosewhochoosetomakeLutherandMelanchthontertiaryauthoritiesfortheteachingpracticeofthechurch,theWittenbergreformersdoleavecluesastohowtheyimplementedtheideasofthedocumentsthatbecamenormingconfessionsofthechurch.IntheprefacehecomposedfortheVisitationArticlesoftheSaxongovernmentin1528Luthercom-plainedthatthevisitationpracticeofparishesandpastorsofhistime“paidnoattentiontohowoneteaches,believes,loves,howonelivesaChristianlife,howtocareforthepoor,howonecomfortstheweakorpunishestheunruly,andwhateverelsebelongstothisoffice.”60 ThisreflectswhatLutherthoughtpastorsandcongregationsshouldbe.TheArticlesthemselvescallpastorstopreachrepentanceandfaithwithintheframe-workofthedistinctionoflawandgospel.61In1526Lutherhadmadepracticesugges-tionsforcongregationallifeinhisGerman Mass.HewroteinthewakeofthePeasantRevoltsof1524–1526,hardlybeforetheywereconcluded.YethedidnotdespairofcommonChristians’abilitytoministerandadminister.Herecognizedthat,inasocietyinwhichallarebaptized,allwhomustbeaddressedasthoseclaimedbyChristcannotbeexpectedtoliveashisfaithfulfollowers.Hisinitialoptimismregardingtherolelaypeoplecouldplayincongregationallifewanedsomewhatinthewakeofthepracticalexperienceimposedbyhisowntimes.Nonetheless,heneverabandonedhisconfidencethatallChristianscouldbringforgivenessofsinstootherChristiansastheyspokeGod’sWordoflifeandsalvationtoeachother.62

337


In1526hemadeclearhisoppositiontoimposingrigidlawsforchurchpractice,probablybecauseherealizedthatnoprescriptionscaninsureeffectivecommunicationofthegospel,anartthatmustbepracticedtodeliverwhathearersneedintheirownsituations.63Hediscussedthreeformsofpublicworship.ThesereflecthisconfidenceinthepowerofGod’sWordandthepresenceoftheHolySpiritinthemidstofevensmallgroupsoftwoorthreeofhispeople.ThefirstformofworshipofwhichheapprovedretainedthemedievalLatintextofthosepartsoftheliturgythatdidnotunderminethegospel.ButhealsodesiredtohavetheGermansworshipintheirownlanguage,andsoheadvocatedaGermantranslationofthetraditionalliturgy.64Beyondthat,hisconfidenceintheHolySpiritandhisuseoftheWordfoundinScriptureanddeliveredbythesaintsfromitspagesledthereformertoconclusionsaboutfreedominformulatingtheliturgyforregularworshipandtheproprietyofsmallgroupsorganizedforprayerandBiblestudy,whichsomeLutheranshavedisclaimedasunwarrantedcon-fidenceinGod’sactualpresenceandpower.65Thatis,ofcourse,theriskoftryingtocreateauthorityfromhistoricalfigureswhodidnothavethebenefitofcurrentexperi-enceandinsight.Historyneverprovidestotallytrustworthysupporters,andittoooftenturnsustodishonestyinreportingtheinsightsandopinionsofourhistoricalheroes.

Twenty-firstcenturyLutheransmaybemorereluctanttoturntoLuther’spart-nerwhoseconfessions,fromAugsburg,itsApology,anditsextensionintheTreatiseonthePowerandPrimacyofthePope,guideLutheranpublicconfessiontothisday.ButMelanchthonalsooffersthechurchtodaymoreextensivecommentsonthedoctrineofthechurch.HerevisedhisLoci communes theologiciin1535and1543astheneedsofhisstudentsandhischurchchanged.66ThelatereditionsdodemonstratehowMelanchthontooktheelementsofhisdoctrineexpressedintheAugsburgConfessionandtheApologyandappliedthemtospecificchallenges.In1543hewasreactingdirectlytoRomanCatholiccriticismhehadexperiencedintheRegensburgcolloquytwoyearsearlier.Hefound,forexample,thedistinctionofvisibleandinvisiblechurchatthispointhelpfulinassertingtheLutheranadherencetotheuniversaltraditionofthechurch.67Healsochangedtheorderinwhichthesacraments,asformsoftheWordofGod,relatedtothechurch.In1535,thetreatmentofthesacramentshadprecededthetopic“onthechurch;in1543,theyfollowedtreatmentofthechurch.68

NotonlywhatLuther,Melanchthon,andtheConcordistssaidbutalsotheirveryactofconfessingcommandsourattentionaswell.Itleadsustocenterourcon-fessionalwaysontheEvangelofJesusChrist,onhispersonandwork,andtoconfesswithasenseofeschatologicalurgency.Itleadsustoconfessfortheedificationofourowncongregations,fortheecumenicalwitnessthatechoesMelanchthon’seffortsatAugsburg,andforevangelisticconfessionforthoseoutsidethefaith.69

Butneitherthesetextsnorourinterpretationoftheconfessingactionswhichproducedthemhaveanyassignedauthority.Eventheunofficial“tertiary”authoritybestowedbyouradmirationforLutherandourconvictionregardinghisroleinthehistoryofthechurchdarenotgiveuslicenseforthehistoricallyinsensitivetransferofmaximsorpracticesappropriatefortheGermanyofthesixteenthcenturyfromtheircontextintothatofthetwenty-firstcentury.Thatviolatesthebiblicalteachingon

338

God’screationofhumancreaturesascreatureswithinhisever-unfoldinghistory.SowearecalledtoexplainhisunchangingtruthsandScripture’sunchangeableinsightsintotheproperrulesandstructuresforthelifeofhiscommunityasaninstitutionentrustedunderScripture’sdirectiontohumandesignandingenuity.

IntheendweareleftwithGod’sWordandChrist’slordshipastheanchorsofourecclesiology.ThechurchproceedsonthebasisofitsconvictionthattheParacletewillnotleaveusbutwillbewithusforeverandwillremindusofallthatChristsaid(Jn14:15,25).Thechurchmustexpecttoseeitselfasweakandfoolish,bearingaweakandfoolishWordfromthecrossandyetreflectinginitsownexistencethewisdomandpowerofGod,whichismadeperfectnotonlyintheweaknessofitsindividualmembers(2Cor12:9)butalsointheircollectiveweakness.ForChristsavessinners,thechurchdoesnot,althoughitservesastheHolySpirit’sinstrumenttoconveythemessageofsalvation.ThisviewsustainsthechurchandseesitthroughbecauseitletsGod’speopleseeJesus.

Endnotes1Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche(11.ed.;Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1992

[henceforthBSLK]),61,eds.RobertKolbandTimothyJ.Wengert,The Book of Concord,(Minneapolis:Fortress,2000),42–43.SeethebibliographyandanalysisofGunterWenz,Theologie der Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche.Eine historische und Systematische Einführung in das Konkordienbuch,2vols.(Berlin:deGruyter,1998),2:237–464.

2IreneDingel,“MelanchthonunddieNormierungdesBekenntnisses,”inDerTheologeMelanchthon,ed.GünterFrank(Stuttgart:Thorbecke,2000),195–211,translatedas“PhilipMelanchthonandtheEstablishmentofConfessionalNorms,”Lutheran Quarterly20(2006):146–169.

3HolstenFagerberg,Die Theologie der Lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften von 1529 bis 1537(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1965),264.

4BSLK,767,834;Book of Concord,486,527.5SeeKennethJ.Appold,“AbrahamCalovonthe‘Usefulness’ofDoctrine:BlueprintsforaTheological

Mind,”in:Hermeneutica Sacra. Studien zur Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im 16. Und 17. Jahrhundert, Bengt Hägglund zum 90. Geburtstag,ed.TorbjörnJohansson,RobertKolb,andJohannAnselmSteiger(Berlin:deGruyter,2010),andWilhelmHerbst,Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1601, Geschichtlich Dargestellt und Dogmengeschichtlich Beleuchtet(Gütersloh:Mohn,1928).

6Therefore,IfindmisleadingtheconclusionofWilhelmMaurer,Historischer Kommentar zur Confessio Augustana(Gütersloh:Mohn,19.76,1978),2:163,that“themostdecisivedefinitionsofwhatthechurchis”arenotintheAugsburgConfessionbutintheSchwabachArticlesof1528,whichhelabels“Luther’sconfession.”TheAugsburgConfessionsummarizesitsslightlylongerdefinitionaptly,accordingtoMaurer’sowndeterminationofitsthreeconstitutiveelements:theuniversalityofthechurchasthecongregationofGod’ssaints,itsboundnesstoChrist,anditsboundnesstoGod’sWordandthesacraments.Maurer’sentirefirstvolumeelaborateshisconvic-tionthatArticleXXVIIIoftheConfessionformsitsfocalpoint.WithoutdenyingthevalidityofMaurer’sobser-vationofthearticle’spoliticalandecclesiasticalsignificancefortheexistentialsituationoftheEvangelicalestatesin1530,itisclearfromtheApologyoftheAugsburgConfessionthatMelanchthonfounditsdoctrinalfocusinarticlesIV,V,andVI.Theyholdthekeytothechurch’slife.

7VitorWesthelle,The Church Event: Call and Challenge of a Church Protestant(Minneapolis:Fortress,2010),121.

8ApVII/VIII,28,BSLK,240,Book of Concord,178.9ApVII/VIII,8,BSLK,235,Book of Concord,175.10SC,Creed,BSLK,511–512,Book of Concord,355.11D. Martin Luthers Werke(Weimar:Böhlau,1883–1993[henceforthWA]),50:509–547,Luther’s Works

(SaintLouis/Philadelphia:Concordia/Fortress,1958-1986[henceforthLW])41:9–53.12WA50:547–624,LW41:53–142.13WA50:624–653,LW41:143–178.

339


14SAIII,xii:2,BSLK,459–460,Book of Concord,324–325.SeeRobertKolb,Martin Luther, Confessor of the Faith(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009),152–171.

15RobertKolb,“ConfessingtheFaith,theWittenbergWayofLife,”Tidskrift for Teologi og Kirke80(2009),247–265.

16RobertC.Schultz,“AnAnalysisoftheAugsburgConfessionArticleVII2initsHistoricalContext,May&June,1530,”The Sixteenth Century Journal11(1980):29,quotingtheTheodosiancode,XVI,1,2,Corpus Iuris Civilis. II. Codex Iustinianus,ed.PaulKrueger(Berlin:Weidmann,1880),5(I,1,1ff.).

17WartburgPostil,sermononMatthew21:1–9,WA10,1,2:48,1–15.18SeeFriedrichMildenberger,Theologie der Lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften(Stuttgart:Kohlhammer,1983),

99–102.19CAXV,4,BSLK,70,Book of Concord,48–49.20ApXXVIII,7,BSLK,398,Book of Concord,289–290.21WA42:3–176,LW1:3–236.22ApXV,42–43,BSLK,305,Book of Concord,229.23SeeRobertKolb,“‘TheNoblestSkillintheChristianChurch’:Luther’sSermonsontheProper

DistinctionofLawandGospel,”Concordia Theological Quarterly71(2007):301–318.24CAXXVIII,21,BSLK,123–124,Book of Concord,94.25InHorstGeorgPöhlmann,ThorleivAustad,FriedhelmKrüger,Theologie der Lutherischen

Bekenntnisschriften(Gütersloh:Kaiser/GütersloherVerlagshaus,1996),170.Cf.EdmundSchlinck,Theologie der Lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften(Munich:Kaiser,1948),264–266,284–294.

26ApVII/VIII,12,9,13,BSLK,235–236,Book of Concord,175.27LC,Creed,ThirdArticle,55–56,BSLK,658,Book of Concord,438.28WA26:506,30–32,LW37:367.29BSLK,415–416,Book of Concord,301.30BSLK,414–415,Book of Concord,300.31SAIII,xii:2,BSLK,460,Book of Concord,324–325.32ApVII/VIII,31,BSLK,241–242,Book of Concord,179.33SeeLuther’sresponsetoThomasMurner’scharge,inWA7:683,3–11,LW39:218.34ApVII/VIII,20,BSLK,238,Book of Concord,177.35WA50:628,29–643,37,LW41:148–167.36Fagerberg,Theologie,274–275.37MatthewSpinka,John Hus’ Concept of the Church(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1966).38JohannEck,“FourHundredFourArticlesfortheImperialDietinAugsburg,”(1530),translatedin

Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord,ed.RobertKolbandJamesA.Nestingen(Minneapolis:Fortress,2001),53.

39BSLK,62,Book of Concord,42–43.40ApVII/VIII,22,BSLK,238–239,Book of Concord,177.41FCEpXII,9,SDXII,14,BSLK,823,1095,Book of Concord,521,657.SeeRobertKolb,“TheFormula

ofConcordandContemporaryAnabaptists,Spiritualists,andAnti-Trinitarians,”Lutheran Quarterly15(2001):453–482.

42Schlinck,Theologie,264–268,287–294.43WA51175,2–23.44OnLuther,seeJohnM.Headley,Luther’s View of Church History(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,

1963),esp.106–161;onMelanchthon,PeterFraenkel,Testimonia Patrum.The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon(Geneva:Droz,1961),esp.52–109.

45CAI,1(Latin),BSLK,50,Book of Concord,37;conclusiontopartone(German),BSLK,83c–d,Book of Concord,58;introductiontothearticlesonabusesinecclesiasticalpractice,1,BSLK,84,Book of Concord,60–61.

46ApX,2,BSLK,248,Book of Concord,184.47SCCreed6,BSLK,511-512,Book of Concord,355.48Fagerberg,Theologie,266–275.49LC,Creed,ThirdArticle,47–53,BSLK,655–658,Book of Concord,436–438.50Wenz,Theologie,2:277–300.51Westhelle,Church Event,145–153.52LC,Creed,47–48,BSLK,655–656,Book of Concord,436–437.53Pöhlmannetal.,Theologie,172.54FriedrichBrunstäd,Theologie der Lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften(Gütersloh:Bertelsmann,1951),114.

340

341

55Forarecentsummaryofthedevelopmentssurroundingtheadventofthe“adiaphoristiccontroversy,”seeIreneDingel:TheCultureofConflictintheControversiesLeadingtotheFormulaofConcord(1548–1580),in:Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture,1550–1675,ed.RobertKolb(Leiden:Brill,2008),16–39.ThetextisfoundinPolitische Korrespondenz des Herzogs und Kurfürsten Moritz von Sachsen,ed.JohannesHerrmannandGüntherWartenberg,IV(Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1992),254–260,translatedinSources and Contexts,183–196.

56OnCAXV,seeCharlesP.Arand,“TheApologyasaBackdropfortheInterimof1548,”inPolitik und Bekenntnis, Die Reaktionen auf das Interim von 1548,ed.IreneDingelandGüntherWartenberg(Leipzig:EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt,2006),211–227.Ontheformulationofthe“ConsiliumGalliae”of1534andthe“WittenbergArticles”of1536,seeIreneDingel,“MelanchthonundWesteuropa,“in:Philipp Melanchthon als Politiker zwischen Reich, Reichsständen und Konfessionsparteien,edGüntherWartenbergandMatthiasZenter(Wittenberg:DreiKastanienVerlag,1998),105–122.

57FC,Ep,X:6,BSLK,815,Book of Concord,516.58FC,Ep,X:4,BSLK,814,Book of Concord,515.Cf.FC,SD,X:9–17,BSLK,1056–1057,Book of Concord,

637–638.59HansChristophvonHase,Die Gestalt der Kirche Luthers: Der Casus Confessionis im Kampf des Matthias

Flacius gegen das Interim von 1548(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1940),passim,andOliverK.Olson,Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther’s Reform(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,2002),112–144.

60WA26:196,26–28,LW40:270.61WA26:202,16-203,4,LW40:275.62OnLuther’scontinuingaffirmationofakindofmutualconsolationwhichincludedpronouncement

offorgivenessofsins,seeRobertKolbandCharlesP.Arand,The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church(GrandRapids:Baker,2008),185–188.

63WA19:72,3–20,LW53:61.64WA19:73,32–75,2,LW53:62–63.65WA19:75,3–30,LW53:63–64.66Actually,thesetwoeditionsareassociatedinnameonlyandnotinformandfunctionwiththatof

1521.67ThetextsarecomparedinMelanchthons Werke in Auswahl,ed.RobertStupperich,2,2(Gütersloh:Mohn,

1980):510–533.68SeeRobertKolb,“TheOrderingoftheLoci Communes Theologici:TheStructuringoftheMelanchthonian

DogmaticTradition,”Concordia Journal23(1997)317–337,esp.324.69Kolb,Tidskrift;cf.idem,Confessing the Faith, Reformers Define the Church, 1530–1580(SaintLouis:

Concordia,1991),132–140.

WorksofMercyandChurchUnityDoesServiceUnifyandDoctrineDivide?

AlbertB.Collver,III

BackgroundWhileitissomewhatprevalenttoblamedivisionsinthechurchonthe

Reformation1inthesixteenthcenturyortheriseofdenominationalism2inthenine-teenthandtwentiethcenturies,thefactispeoplehavebeendividedoverJesuseversinceheministeredonearth.3ThisdivisionoverJesusevenhasenteredintothechurch.SaintPaulwarnedtheCorinthians,theGalatians,andtheRomansaboutdivi-sions.4JudesaysthatthosewhocausedivisionsareworldlypeopleanddevoidoftheSpirit.5FromthetimeoftheApostles,thechurchfacedbothheresyandschisms.“Thechurchhasalwaysfromitsbeginningsufferedsuchdivisions.”6Knowingthathischurchwouldfaceheresyanddivision,Jesusprayedthathischurchmightbe“one.”7IntheNiceneCreed,thechurchconfesses,“AndwebelieveinoneholyChristianandapostolicchurch.”YetthisoneholyChristianchurchisnotseenwiththeeye,butisbelievedbyfaith.TheeyeseestheChristianchurchdividedintoseveralmajorcon-fessionalfamiliesand9,000denominations8withsomeestimatesreaching20,000to30,000.Herein,liestheproblem.Thechurchthatcanbeseenisfracturedandthatfrac-turecausesoffensebothtotheworldandtothoseinthechurch.

“ThequestionoftheonechurchofGod,”wroteHermannSasse,“aroseonthemissionfieldasanecessaryquestioninlightofthedivisionofchurches.Itwasapracti-calnecessitybornofthemultiplicityofdenominationscarryingonmissionwork,andanecessityofthefaithwhichhadarisenasaresultofthework.”9ThedivisionsoftheChristianchurchhinderedmissionaryactivity.“Non-Christiansoftenreactedtomis-sionaryeffortswiththefeelingthat,beforeaskingthemtoconvert,themissionariesoughttoagreeamongthemselveswhatChristianityis.”10NotonlydidthedivisionsintheChristianchurchcausescandalbutalsoitseemedtobeawasteofresources.Whatsensediditmaketohavethreeorfour,letalonetendifferentdenominationssendmis-sionariestoagivencountry?MoreoftenthannotitwasthemissionariesthemselvesaskingthesequestionsandnotthechurchbodiesinEuropeorAmerica.11InthecaseofAfrica,majormissionaryactivitytookplaceintheeighteenthandthenineteenthcenturiesandduringthetwentiethcentury,thereweremanydifferentdenominationsin

Albert B. Collver, III, is director of church relations—assistant to the presi-dent of The Lutheran Church —Missouri Synod. Previously he served as execu-tive pastoral assistant in LCMS World Relief and Human Care. He received the Ph.D. from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in 2001. This article was previously presented at the 2009 Lutheran Theological Conference in South Africa.


Africa.12ItisfromthemissionfieldwherethequestionofChristianunitywasaskedinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.13

In1910,theWorldMissionaryConferenceofEdinburghwasheldtoaddresshowthegospelcouldbeproclaimedtothewholeworld.14Forallintentsandpurposes,theecumenicalmovementwasbornfromthisgatheringofmissionarysocieties,althoughbeforethisthereweresomeeffortstocooperateacrossdenominationallinesintheareaofChristianeducation,particularlyforSundayschool.15Fromthemove-mentcametheWorldConferenceonFaithandOrderinthe1920sandeventuallytheWorldCouncilofChurchesinthelate1940s.Oneoftheoutcomesofthe1910EdinburghmeetingwasthatProtestantswouldnotproselytizeRomanCatholicsandtheOrthodox;16theywereconsidered“Christian”andnotinneedofmissionarywork.ItshouldbenotedthatmanyofthedenominationsthatparticipatedintheEdinburghconferencewerespiritualdescendentsandoffshootsoftheAnglicanChurchsuchastheEpiscopalians,Presbyterians,Baptists,Methodists,etc.ManyofthesegroupshadasimilartheologicalheritageandfoundationintheReformedtradition.Fromacertainperspective,thesegroupswerenotsomuchdividedbyfundamentaldoctrinaldifferencesastheywerebypracticeandchurchgovernment.Thisrecognitionmayhelptoexplainsomeoftheinitialgrowthoftheecumenicalmovement.ManyofthedenominationaldevelopmentsfromtheOldWorldandAmericadidnotseemappli-cableonthemissionfield.Thetimewasalsoripeforsuchadevelopmentastheecu-menicalmovementwasachildwhosemotherwasPietismandwhosefatherwastheEnlightenment.17

Doctrine Divides but Service UnitesOutoftheecumenicalmovementcamethephrase,“Doctrinedivides,butser-

viceunites.”18Ithasbeenarallyingcryinecumenicalcirclesatleastsince1925.19Whentheattempttopoolmissionaryresourcesforthepreachingofthegospelwashinderedbytheconfessionalstancesofsomechurches,theecumenicalmovementturnedtodia-koniaasameansofunity.Ifdoctrineortheologymightpreventtwodifferentdenomi-nationsfromsharingamissionaryorpreacher,whattheologicalordoctrinalobjectioncouldberaisedtodifferentdenominationssharingresourcesinordertodigawellortoestablishamedicalclinic?Iftheunityofthechurchcouldnotbeseeninpreachingandteaching,perhapsitcouldbeseenindiakonia—inworksofserviceandmercy.20Theworldwouldseethechurchworkingtogetheronprojectsinvolvinghumancareratherthanbeingdivided.Thecooperatingtogetherinmattersexternaltodoctrinemadeagoodandpositivewitness.

Severalfactorscontributedtothephase“doctrinedividesbutserviceunites”arisinginthemid-1920s.Pietismfromtheeighteenthcenturycontributedtoit.TheEnlightenmentandtheeventsofthenineteenthcenturymadecontributionstoit.Bothofthesemovementsfedintotheecumenicalmovementwiththeeffectofde-empha-sizingorthodoxy,thatis,doctrine,whileemphasizingorthopraxis,thisis,deeds.21TheendofWorldWarIalsocreatedadesireforchurchestoworkbeyondtheirtraditionalconfessionallines.OthereventsinthetwentiethcenturysuchasWorldWarII,thecivilrightsmovement,socialism,churchdenominationunions,etc.,affectedhow“doctrine

343


dividesbutserviceunites”developed.Anexaminationoftheassertionthat“doctrinedividesbutserviceunites”isameresnapshotofagivenperiodofitsdevelopmentoverthepastcentury.Nevertheless,therearecertaincommonthemesthatremainthrough-outitsdevelopment.

Inthelate1950sandearly1960s,animportantdevelopmentwasthedivisionofevangelismintothreecomponents:kerygma,koinonia,anddiakonia.Sometimesker-gyma—theproclamationofagospelforthewholeworld,koinonia—thewelcomingofallintothenewcovenant,anddiakonia—Christianservicearedescribedas“formsofcommunication.”22Thethreetogetherarethechurch’smissiontotheworld.Thiswayofspeakingaboutthemissionofthechurchanddiakoniaemergedassocialismandsecularandgovernmenthumanitarianeffortswereontherise.Thosewhopromotedthenotionthat“doctrinedividesbutserviceunites,”ponderedthequestionofthewayinehichhumanitarianaidgivenbychurchdiffersfromthatofgovernmentandsecu-laragencies?Inacertainsense,ifchurchesarecooperatingwitheachotherinmattersapartfromdoctrineandexternaltothesacredthings,thehumanitarianeffortsofthechurcharenotclearlydistinguishablefromthatofsecularandgovernmentagencies.Thisrecognitionledtotherecognitionthat“Christianityhasnomonopolyofhumani-tarianservicetomankind”andthat“secularloyalties”mightbeastrongermotivetoservethanthe“Christianconscience.”23

Humanitarianwork,oncethedomainprimarilyofthechurch,becamethedomainofthesecularworldandgovernment.Someevenimaginedthedaywhensecu-larentitiesandgovernments,inspiredinpartbysocialism,woulddomostifnotallofthehumanitarianworkintheworld.TheodoreWedelwrote,“Christiandiakoniawill,accordingly,havetoaccustomitselftothepresenceinourmodernworldofthisrivalreligionofbrotherhoodwithoutGod.”24Increasingly,astheworldbecameconcernedwithissuessuchasracism,justice,andliberationoftheoppressed,sodidthechurchasbothpursuedsimilarhumanitarianaidandservice.Duringthe1960sand1970stheseconcerns,whicharoseinthesecularworld,were“theologized,”creatinga“theologi-cal”rationalfordiakoniaworkandserviceinthechurch.Intheabsenceofabiblical,creedal,andconfessionaltheology,ahumanistictheology,thatis,anthropology,wouldfillthevacuum.

Somethoughtthattheincreasingpresenceofgovernmentalandsecularagenciesinhumanitarianworkwouldonlyincrease koinonia(fellowship)betweenchurchbodiesinworksofdiakonia(service).Asdenominationalspecificagenciesweresubsumedbythestate,asChristianhospitalsandorphanagesgavewaytostatesupportedandorrunhospitalsandorphanages,theroleofthelaychurchmemberwasseenasevenmoreimportant.AChristiandoctorworkinginastaterunhospitalwillseekthecompanion-shipandfellowshipofotherChristians,eventhosewhoarenotapartofhisconfes-sionalordenominationalheritage,ashecarriesouthisChristianwitness.Inthisway,itwasthoughtthatlaypeople,ratherthanclergy,wouldpromotethekoinoniabetweenchurchbodies.25

Thethoughtthatthelaitywouldplayagreaterroleorperhapseventhegreat-estroleinchurchunitywasnotentirelynewintheecumenicalmovement.Sincetheearliestdaysoftheecumenicalmovement,acontingencythoughtthatchurchunity

344

hadbeenhinderedsincethetimeoftheReformationbytheclergywhounnecessarilydividedthechurchbyrigidlyholdingtonon-essentialanddivisivedoctrines.Itisnotsurprisingthatalaymovementwentthroughtheentirechurchduringthistime.Asserviceandhumanitarianaidincreasinglybecameassociatedwiththemissionofthechurch,theroleofthelaityasmissionariesbecomemoreprominent.Inthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcentury,inmanychurchbodies,laymissionariesvastlyoutnum-beredprofessionalmissionariesorclergymissionaries.Thereseemstobenoreductioninthistrend.

Forourpurposes,thetheologicalrationalefortheincreasedroleofthelaitygivenbyanyparticularchurchbodyisnotofprimaryimportance.Theologicalprin-ciplesoranewbiblicalunderstandingofthelaitywasnottheprimaryimpetusinthismovement.Thefocusinthismovementisonorthopraxisnotorthodoxy.Thefocusisongettingwhatisnecessarydoneanddevelopingtherationalafterthefact.Insomeways,itseemsasiftheecumenicalmovementwasseekinghowtoaddressissuesraisedfromthedoctrineofthetwokingdomsandChristianvocation—touseLutherancat-egories.Inthissense,perhaps,thechurchesoftheAugsburgConfession,ratherthanignoringtheecumenicalmovementorbeingdrawnintoitspresuppositions,mighthavedonebettertospeakclearlyonthedoctrinesofthetwokingdomsandvocation.

Duringthe1960sand1970s,theunderstandingthatdoctrinedividedwhileserviceunitedshiftedonceagain.Worksofservicewereseenasatheologyinandofthemselves.Thelackofcooperationinworksofservicewasseenasthesourceorori-ginofheresies,schisms,anddivisionswithinthechurch.26NikosNissiotiswrote,“ThegreatestsinofthepeopleofGodisthattheyhaveneglectedtoperceivethetheologi-cal,verticaldimensionofdiakoniaintheecclesiological,horizontalone.”27Inotherwords,thefailureofthechurchtocooperateinworksofserviceindicatesatheologi-calprobleminkoinonia(fellowship).Therearereallyonlytwoalternatives:either1)diakonia(worksofservice)isnotdoctrinal,inwhichcasethereislittletodistinguishthehumanitarianworkofchurchesfromthatofgovernmentandsecularagencies,or2)diakoniahasadoctrinalcomponentrelatedtoecclesiologyandchurchfellowship.Manyinthechurchwerenotwillingtogivediakoniawholesaletothesecularrealm.Diakoniamustberedefinednotasagoodmoralactorastheexpressionofcompassionbutasthe“overflowingofthegracewhichbindsandmovestheirinnerlifeasatotalfellowship.”28Thus,diakoniaattachedtoadoctrineofecclesiologyandkoinoniawouldbecomeoneoftheprimaryvehiclesbywhichtoobtainvisibleunityofthechurchonearth.29Thislineofthoughtleadstotheconclusion,“Thisgreatestsinhasbeeninthepast,andstillis,tohastentoofferservicetotheworldwithoutpracticingdiakoniabetweentheseparatechurches.Itisourcallingnowtorestorechurchunitythroughapractical,existential,livingprocessofsharingeachother’slifebeyondanyconfessionalbarriers.”30

Bythelate1970s,theecumenicalmovementhadcomefullcircle.Initially,itwassaidthatdoctrinedividedbutserviceunited.JürgenMoltmannwrotein“FiftyYearsofFaithandOrder,”“...fiftyyearsagointheearlydaysoftheecumenicalrapproche-mentitwassaid‘Doctrinedivides—serviceunites’...Todaythesituationisalmostcompletelyreversed.Now,aftermanyyearsofpatient,painstakingworkitwouldbe

345


truetosay‘Theologyunites—praxisdivides.’Controversyintheecumenicalmove-mentnolongercentersonthefilioque,butconcernsinsteadtheProgrammetoCombatRacism.Theproblemnowisnotthetheologicalunderstandingoftheeucharistandofministry,butthepracticalrecognitionofministriesandcommoncelebration.AfterfiftyyearsofconcertedtheologicaleffortwenowhavetosayquiteopenlytoChristiansandchurchauthoritiesthattherearenolongeranydoctrinaldifferenceswhichjustifythedivisionsofourchurches...”31Astheecumenicalmovementseeminglyovercamedoctrinaldifferences,32thevisibleunitystilldidnotappear.Asthefocusintensifiedondiakonia,controversyactuallyincreasedamongsomechurches33inpartbecausechurch-esfearedcooperationwouldendangertheirowninstitutionalinterests.34Inthecourseoftheecumenicalmovement,diakoniawentfromaunitingforcedevoidofdoctrinetoadivisiveforcelinkedtoakoinoniadoctrine.Therefore,worksofservice(diakonia),infact,aredoctrinal.Worksofservicebothuniteanddivide.

WithMoltmann’sstatementthat“doctrineunites—praxisdivides”andthefail-ureofchurchestouniteonthebasisofservice,theecumenicalmovementinthelate1970sinsomewayswasinaperiodofcrisis.Despitetheecumenicalmovement’srec-oncileddiversityandconvergence-statementsoncreeds,sacraments,andjustification,churchesremaineddivided.CarterLindbergaskedthequestionwhether,“therearefun-damentaldifferencesbetweenthechurchesthathavetodowithethics.”35SomeintheOrthodoxChurchidentifiedthecauseofthecrisisintheWCCasafalseassumption,“thatallitsmemberchurcheswereabletoagreetogetheringivingauniversalChristiananswerstothequestionsarisingatanygiventime.”36Inordertopromote“solidarityindiakonia,”someintheOrthodoxChurchproposedthattheanswerbesoughtintheliturgy.37OrthodoxandRomanCatholicauthorssuggestedtheeucharistcouldbethebridgebetweentheliturgyanddiakoniabysuggesting“aninterpersonalrelationship,notonlybetweenthecommunityandGodbutalsobetweenthecommunityandallpresentorabsentmembersofthechurch.”38

Inessence,thelinkingoftheliturgytodiakoniaviatheeuchariststatedthatcom-munionwithGodproducescommunionbetweenhumanbeings.Fromthisapproach,theWCCconcluded,“Service,diakoniaandtheeucharistbelongtogether;bysharingthroughbreadandwineChrist’sbody,webecomehisbody,wearemadeintoshare-people,areempoweredtosharewithothersourownlives,ourgifts.”39Whateverinspirationtheliturgyandeucharistprovideddiakoniaservicewithinachurchbody,theeucharisticvisionwasanemptyformulaforproducingaunitythroughdiakonicservice“aslongasthechurchesthemselveshavenorealeucharisticcommunitywitheachother.”40Inotherwords,theeucharistpromotesdiakonicservicebutchurchesneedtohavecommunionfellowshipwitheachother.Onceagain,thelackofcommonpartici-pationintheeucharistpreventschurchunityandcommondiakoniaservice.41

Ultimately,thelessontheecumenicalmovementlearnedfromtheOrthodoxandRomanCatholicchurchesabouttheconnectionbetweentheeucharistanddiakoniaisthatof“sharing.”“Thelanguageofsharingisevenmorebasicthananyofourtheo-logicalorecclesiologicalconcepts,foritisthepeople’slanguageinanelementarysense.Allpeopleknowwhatsharingmeans,whetherfromexperienceorlonginghope,andtheyknowthatfullnessoflifeisonlyfoundinsharinglifewithoneanother.‘Sharing’

346

isthusafundamentalsymboloflife.”42Thus,God’ssharingofhimselfinJesusChristallowsthechurchtosharewitheachotherandwiththeworld.ThelanguageofsharingisremarkablysimilartothatusedinecumenicalstatementsabouttheLord’sSupperinthatthegiftofthesupperisChristsharinghimself.

A Preliminary Excursus on Cooperatio in Externis (cooperation in externals)Theprinciplecooperatio in externisismostcommonlydefinedascooperation

betweenortheworkingtogetherofachurchwithanotherchurchthatdonothavedoctrinalagreementorfellowshipinmattersnotrelatedtothepreachingandteach-ingofthefaithortheadministrationofthesacraments.43Thisprincipleseemstohavedevelopedfromtheinteractionbetweentheecumenicalmovement’sfocusondiako-niadisconnectedfromdoctrineandtheeffortstounitevariousLutherangroupsinAmerica.Whiletheremaynotbeadirectcauseandeffectlinkorproofofdirectinflu-encebetweentheeffortsoftheecumenicalmovementtopracticediakoniaapartfromdoctrineandtheuniondiscussionsbetweenvariousLutherangroupsinAmerica,thereisasimilarityofthoughtbetweenthetwoefforts.Italsoseemstheecumenicalmove-ment’sconversationabout“doctrinedivides,butserviceunites”influencedthefurtherdevelopmentofthecooperationinexternalsprinciple.Itseemsappropriatetodiscussbrieflycooperationinexternalsinlightofthediscussiononserviceunitingthechurch.

Althoughsomehavereporteddiscoveringcooperatio in externisintheLutherandogmaticatians,ourpreliminaryresearchwasunabletolocatethetermusingtheindextoBaier’sCompendium.NorhavewelocatedthetermintheFrancisPieper’sChristian Dogmatics.Althoughourresearchintotheoriginoftheterm,cooperatio in externishasnotbeenexhaustive,theterm,atleastasatechnicalterm,(anddarewesuggesttheconcept)didnotcomeuntilwidespreadusageuntiltheendofthenineteenthcenturyandthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Theearliestreferencewefoundtothetermcooperatio in externiswaslocatedinaRomanCatholicworkonmoraltheology.44Inthiswork,thetermcooperatio in externisisusedtodistinguishthecooperationofindividualsinamoraltransgressionfromamoraltransgressioncommittedbyasoleindividual.45ThecontextofthisusageisdifferentfromwhathasbecomemorecommonplaceamongsomeLutherans,butitdoesindicationthatcooperationoccursbetweenindi-vidualsinworksexternaltoanindividual.Peoplearenotabletocooperateinaworkoccurringwithinthemindofanindividual.Byextension,onecanunderstandhowthetermcooperatio in externiscouldbeusedtodescribeworksexternaltothecommunio in sac-ris(communioninsacredthings).OurpreliminaryresearchhasnotuncoveredevidencethatLutheranswerereadingthisRomanCatholicworkonmoraltheologybutitiscer-tainlyapossibility.

Anearlyappearanceoftheconceptandwordsbutnottheexactphrase“coopera-tioninexternals”amongAmericanLutheransisfoundinthe“DeclarationofPrinciplesConcerningtheChurchandItsExternalRelationships,”adoptedattheSecondConventionoftheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmerica46 atWashingtonDC,October26,1920.47Thepurposeofthisdocumentwasto“definetheattitudeofTheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmericatowardcooperativemovements,bothwithinandwithouttheLutheranChurch,towardorganizations,tendencies,andmovement,someofthem

347


withinandsomeofthemwithouttheorganizedchurch.”48Thedocumentstatesthattherecanbe“completecooperationandorganicunion”withchurchbodiescallingthemselvesEvangelicalLutheranandwhosubscribetotheConfessions.49WhilethismaynotbethesamedoctrinalstandardusedbysomeconfessionalLutheranchurchesforpulpitandaltarfellowship,itisimportanttonotethatthisdocumentdistinguishesthosewhocallthemselvesLutheranfromgeneralProtestantchurchesandfromnon-churchgroups.SinceProtestantchurchgroupsarenotLutheranseparateministers,pul-pits,fonts,andaltarsmustbekeptandnotshared.50Thus,TheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmericacouldnothave communio in sacriswiththeProtestantchurch.

“InviewofthemanyproposalsforcooperationoftheProtestantchurchesinvariousdepartmentsofpracticalactivityandinviewofthemanyorganizationsalreadyformed,”thedocument,offerssomeguidelinesforcarryingoutcooperativework.51Aslongascooperationin“worksofservinglove”betweenTheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmericaandvariousProtestantchurchesorserviceorganizationsdidnot“involvethesurrenderofourinterpretationoftheGospel,thedenialofconviction,orthesup-pressionofourtestimonytowhatweholdtobethetruth,”suchcooperationwaspos-sible.52However,TheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmericarejectedthepossibilityofcooperationinexternalmattersifthebasictenetsoftheChristianfaithwererejected,suchasarejectionoftheHolyScriptures,theTrinity,theuniversalityofsin,etc.Norwascooperationinexternalmatterspossibleifthechurch’sconfessionofthetruthwaslimitedinanyway.Norcouldcooperationbepossiblewithmovementsororganiza-tionswhosepurposeslieoutsidethepropersphereofchurchactivity.Anexamplegivenofanactivityoutsideofthepropersphereofthechurchwasthatoflawenforce-ment.53Forourdiscussionhere,therearetwocrucialpoints:1)cooperationinexternalmattersinthisdocumentisdefinedmorenarrowlythanitisbymanywhospeakofcooperationinexternalstoday,2)theseminaryjournal,Concordia Theological Monthly,oftheMissouriSynodreprintedwithoutcommentthisdeclarationofTheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmericain1935“inviewofrecentdevelopmentsintheAmericanLutheranChurch.”54

SixyearsaftertheConcordia Theological MonthlypublishedTheUnitedLutheranChurch’sDeclaration,PresidentBehnkenoftheMissouriSynodissuedastatement,“Yourealize,ofcourse,thatMissourihasbeencooperatinginexternalsinmatterswhichdonotinvolvepulpit,altar,andprayerfellowship.SuchcooperationmustnotbeinterpretedasasteptowardsfellowshiporamethodofbringingaboutfellowshipamongLutherans.”55PresidentBehnkendidstatethatsuchcooperationinexternalsdidnotinclude,“jointworkinmissions,inChristianeducation,instudentwelfarework,orinjointservicescelebratinggreatevents.”56PresidentBehnken’sstatementrepresentsthefirstofficialstatementbytheMissouriSynodoncooperationinexternalsandwasonecomponentofWisconsinSynod’sbreakingoffellowshipwiththeMissouriSynodsomeyearslater.

TwoyearsafterPresidentBehnken’sstatementon“cooperationinexternals,”TheodoreGraebnerwrote,“Wearelivinginanagewhichcallsforare-thinking,anewthinking-throughofallourprinciplesofchurchwork,notinordertorevisethem,butinordertoobtainaclearunderstandingoftheirapplicationtonewissuesandnew

348

conditions.”57Graebnerhelpedbringacceptancetotheconceptof“cooperationinexternals”withintheMissouriSynod.Thefruitofhisworkwasseenin1965,whentheMissouriSynodinconventionadoptedtheconceptof“cooperationinexternals.”58AccordingtooneauthoronsocialministryintheLutherantradition,theMissouriSynodchurchleadersinvented“cooperationinexternals”togetaroundthedenomi-nation’sconservativetheologyonchurchfellowshipwhichprohibitedcooperationininter-Lutheranefforts,inmilitarychaplaincy,andprayingwithotherChristians.59ThisviewmayrepresentthepositionsomehadintheMissouriSynod.ManyintheMissouriSynodsimplyaccepted“cooperationinexternals”uncritically.Theprincipleofcoop-erationinexternalsledtothecreationoftheDepartmentofSocialWelfareintheMissouriSynod.60

Ontheonehand,theMissouriSynod’spositiononcooperationinexternalspro-videdthechurchwithafreedominhowitinteractswiththeworld.Ontheotherhand,italsoallowedsometodefine“externals”sobroadlyand“fellowshipsonarrowly”thatnearlyanycooperationthatdidnotinvolvepreaching,worship,orprayerwaspermissible.Iftheextremeofnocooperationinexternalmatterswithoutfulldoctrinalagreementwasnothelpfultothechurch,neitheristheotherextremethatallso-called“externalmatters”arepermissible.Amorenuancedandcriticallythoughtfulapproachisrequiredlestthesacredthingsareviolated.

Conclusion“Thevenerableecumenicalslogan‘doctrinedivides,butserviceunites’nolonger

seemsvalid.”61Eventhosewithintheecumenicalmovementrecognizethatdiakonia withoutagreementindoctrine,acommonphilosophyorworldview,oracommonethicisincapableofproducingvisibleunityofthechurchonearth.Withoutacommonfoundationandagreementindoctrine,diakonia(worksofserviceandmercy)becomenearlyindistinguishablefromhumanitarianaidprovidedbygovernmentorothersecularandnon-religiousorganizations.Withoutagreementon“ethics”or“Christianethos”(tospeakinLutherancategories),variouschurchbodiesareincapableofagreeingoncommonworksofservice.Forinstance,ifonechurchbodyholdsthathomosexualunionsormarriageareethicallyacceptableandanotherchurchbodydoesnot,howcanthesetwochurchbodiescooperateinplacingchildrenthroughanadoptionagency?Ultimately,acommonethicorChristianethoscomesfromtheologyanddoctrine.Inacertainsense,theecumenicalmovementhasdonethechurchafavorbydisprovingitsownmantrathat“doctrinedividesandserviceunites”overthepastcentury.Whetherornottheecumenicalmovementwishestorecognizethefact,ithasdemonstratedthatservicewithoutagreementindoctrinewillnotultimatelyprovideunitytothechurch.

ItisnoaccidentofhistoryorcoincidencethatLutheranchurchesinAmericacoinedthephrase“cooperationinexternals”aroundthesametimethattheecumeni-calmovementproclaimed,“doctrinedivides,butserviceunites.”62Aschurchesofdif-ferentconfessionsanddenominationsbegantocooperateinsocialandhumanitarianprojectsaroundtheworld,Lutheransdidnotwanttobeleftbehind.Atthesametime,Lutherans,especiallyConfessionalLutherans,recognizedthatthelackofdoctrinalagreementandfellowshippreventedcertaintypesofcooperation.Theformulation

349


of“cooperationinexternals”wasanattempttodelineatearealmwhereLutheranchurchescouldcooperatewithotherChristiansandevenwithnon-religioushumanitar-ianorganizations.Inacertainsense,“cooperationinexternals”isanattempttoaddresswhatitmeansforthechurchtoexistintworealmsortwokingdomsandtodefinetheroleofChristianvocationintheworld.63“Externals”aremattersnotconnectedtothesacred,thatis,thepulpit,thealtar,andthefont.Intheory,suchadefinitionof“exter-nals”isratherbroadandallencompassing.However,thefurtherremovedthepartieswhowishtocooperatearefromacommonethicalandphilosophicalframework,themorelikelythattheso-called“externals”willtouchuponthesacred.64

Are-examinationoftheprincipleof“cooperationinexternals”isinorderfortheinter-LutherancommunitybecausemanyLutheranchurchbodieshaveinheritedtheprinciplefromtheLutheranChurch—MissouriSynodwithoutcriticalorthoughtfulevaluation.Inthecurrentpluralisticage,itisperhapsmoreimportantnowthanprevi-ouslytoconsiderwhat“externals”canbecooperatedinwithoutcompromisingconfes-sion.AsmorechurchbodieswithintheLutheranWorldFederationordainorconsidertheordinationofwomenandhomosexuals,confessionalLutheranchurchbodiesneedtoconsideriftheycancooperateinso-calledexternals.Ordoessuchcooperationendupcompromisingtheirconfession,orevenworse,openthedoorforsuchpracticestoentertheirchurch?

Asmanyintheecumenicalmovementrecognized,largeamountsofmoneyareinvolvedinhumanitarianwork.65Confessionalchurchbodiesneedtoquestionthem-selveswhetherthetithesanddonationsoftheirchurchmembersgiventoservetheneighboroutofloveforChrist,canbegiventochurchbodiesandorganizationsthatpromotewomen’sordination,homosexualunionsandmarriages,homosexualadoption,abortion,euthanasia,andsoon.Manyinter-Lutheranandinter-denominationalorgani-zationsintentionallylimitorforbidtheproclamationofthegospelinproximitytothegivingoutofhumanitarianaid.Carefulthoughtneedstobegiventowhethercoopera-tionwithchurchbodies,groups,andorganizationsthatpromotean“ethos”differentfromthatofhistoricChristianitycanbedonewithoutcompromisingconfession.Itseemsthatsuchcooperationwithoutcompromisewillbecomeincreasinglydifficult.Suchareconsiderationofcooperationinexternalsalsomayaltersomearrangementsinthemissionfield.Workingaloneforthesakeoftheconfessionoffaithisnotsome-thingtobecriticizedandinfactmaybeverycommendable.

Ultimately,Christianworksofmercy(diakonia)flowoutofthegiftsthatChristhasgivenhischurch.Christ’sloveforhumankindexpressedinhissuffering,death,andresurrectionalongwithhisforgivinggiftsofabsolution,baptism,communion,andpreachinggivetheChristianahearttolovehisneighbor,whoeverthatmaybe.Ultimately,itisthecommonconfessionoffaithandtherecognitionthatwearepartofChrist’sbodybecausehehasputhisholynameuponusinbaptismandhasmadeusapartofhisbodybygivingushisbodyandbloodinHolyCommunion.Doctrineandserviceareconnected.ServicedisconnectedfromthesacredthingsdoesnotremainChristianforlong.Doctrinewithoutworksofservicetotheneighborisadeadfaith.66Weneedtoreclaimtheconnectionbetweendoctrineandservice,faithandworks,andtheconnectionofdiakoniaincloseproximitytotheLord’saltar.AsHermann

350

Sassewrote,“ThereisnounityofChristianitywithoutdeepandseriouswrestlingoverthetruth,withouttheseriousnesswhich,indialogueofconfessionwithconfession,glossesovernodifficulty.”67Withoutdoctrineandtruth,worksofserviceceasetobeChristian.IfsuchserviceisnotChristian,thechurchneedstoaskwhyithasengagedinsuchactivity.

Endnotes1WernerElert,Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries,trans.NormanE.Nagel(SaintLouis:

ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1966),43.“HansAsmussen,speakingformany,seestheirorigininthe‘confessionalchurch-es’whicharosefromtheReformation.‘ThedivisionattheLord’sTableaswehaveittodayhasahistoryoffourhundredyears.’Accordingtothecontextofthisstatementitisclearthatinhisviewsuchdivisionsfirstarose400yearsago.”

2RonaldE.Osborn,“RoleoftheDenomination:AnEssayinEcclesiology,”Encounter22,no.2(1961):160.“Paralleldenominationalstructures,theirtruenaturehiddenaswellasrevealedbytheirdesignationaschurches,emergedwiththegrantofreligioustolerationinthegenerousworld-viewoftheEnlightenment.Sincethendenominationalismhasincreasedandmultiplied,notonlyintheUnitedStates,whereitisseeninextremeform,butthroughouttheChristianworldwhereverfreedomprevails.”

3John7:43,“Sotherewasadivisionamongthepeopleoverhim.”(ESV)4Romans16:17;1Corinthians11:18;Galatians5:20.5Jude19.6Elert,Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries,44.7John17:22.8“WorldChristianDatabase,”Christian Denominations,August8,2009,http://www.worldchristiandatabase.org/

wcd/about/denominations.asp.9HermannSasse,“TheQuestionoftheChurch’sUnityontheMissionField,”inThe Lonely Way,vol.2(Saint

Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,2002),182.10AveryRobertDulles,“SavingEcumenismfromItself,”First Things,no.178(2007):24.11JamesGood,“Kikuyu1913:ACradleofEcumenism,”AFER25,no.2(1983):86–89.“Thebeginningsof

ecumenisminthiscenturywere,ofcourse,motivatedbysomethingotherthantheunselfishdesireforChristianreunion.Themissionariesofthecolonialerasimplyfoundthemselveswithmoreterritorythantheycouldhandle,andtheonlyviablearrangementwastoparcelitoutamongthemselves.”

12SetriNyomi,“ChristianWorldCommunionsinAfrica:TheirImpactinOvercomingDenominationalism,”Ecumenical Review53,no.3(2001):333.

13Sasse,“TheQuestionoftheChurch’sUnityontheMissionField,”180.“Itisnoaccidentthatinourcenturythemissionfieldwastheplacefromwhichthequestionoftheunityofthechurchwasraised,andindeedthefirstintheformofthecalltounifyChristianity.Sincethedaysoftheapostles,themissionfieldhasalwaysbeentheplacewherethechurchandthatwhichisnotchurch,divinetruthanddemoniclies,encountereachotherandseparate.ItisalsotheplacewherethedeepestquestionsoftheChristianfaithfirstariseandwherethelastjudgmentsinthehistoryofthechurcharerendered.”

14 BrianStanley,“DefiningtheBoundariesofChristendom:TheTwoWorldsoftheWorldMissionaryConference,1910,”International Bulletin of Missionary Research30,no.4(2006):181.

15ForrestL.Knapp,Church Cooperation: Dead-End Street or Highway to Unity(GardenCity,NewYork:Doubleday&Company,Inc.,1966),169.“InChristianeducationwehaveoneoftheoldestfieldsofcooperationacrossdenominationallines.”Ibid.,170.“TheinsistentneedofallSundayschoolsforlessonmaterialsledtoadecisioninthe1872InternationalSundaySchoolConvention(UnitedStatesandCanada)toappointacommitteetoprepareuniformlessons.Afterastrugglewiththedifficulttask,thecommitteeproducedresults,andthecooperativepreparationofUniformLessonOutlinescon-tinuestothisday,nowundertheDivisionofChristianEducationoftheNationalCouncilofChurches.”

16Stanley,“DefiningtheBoundariesofChristendom,”176.“Edinburgh1910implicitlydeclaredProtestantpros-elytismofRomanCatholicsand,ratherlessclearly,ofOrthodoxandOrientalChristianstobenovalidpartofChristianmission.”

17CarterLindberg,“Luther’sCritiqueoftheEcumenicalAssumptionThatDoctrineDividesbutServiceUnites,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies27,no.4(1990):694.“TheseendeavorsarerootedinpietismandtheEnlightenment,nottheReformation.”SeealsoSasse,“TheQuestionoftheChurch’sUnityontheMissionField,”188.“ThemodernProtestantworldmissioneffortisachildofPietism,anditcannotdenyitsorigin.ButPietismhasneverhadanyunder-standingofdogmaticquestions,andthusneitheranyunderstandingfortheuniquesignificanceofpuredoctrine.”

18ThephraseisattributedtoDr.HermannKapler(1867–1941),presidentoftheFederationofGermanEvangelicalChurches(1925–1933).

19RuthRouseandStephenCharlesNeill,eds.,A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948,vol.1,2ndedwithrevisedbibliography.(Philadelphia:TheWestministerPress,1968),540.“AtHälsingborg,theInternationalCommitteehadbeforeitthesuggestion,madebytheGeneralSecretaryofFaithandOrder,thatLifeandWorkmightbeinterestedinholdingitsconferenceinWashingtonin1925,justafterthefirstWorldConferencewhichFaithandOrderwasplanningtoholdinthatcityinMayofthatyear.Afterthoroughconsideration,theInternationalCommitteearrivedattheconclusionthatitwouldbebettertokeepthetwoconferencesseparate.ThegoaloftheFaithandOrdermovement

351


wasrelativelydistant,whereastheChristianchurchesshouldbeable‘withoutdifficulty’touniteatonceinanefforttoapplyChristianprinciplestoburningsocialandinternationalproblems.TheansweroftheCommitteequotedDr.Kapler:‘Doctrinedivides,butserviceunites.’TheLifeandWorkmovement,itsaid,wasaimingatcommonservice;suchcommonserviceinthefieldofpracticalproblemsmightwellhelptobreakdownwallsandprejudicesbetweenchurchbodies,andcreateaspiritofbrotherhoodwhichwouldmakeiteasiertorealizealsotheaimsoftheFaithandOrdermovement.”

20StephenCranford,“AidandtheUnityoftheChurch,”Mid-StreamXVIII,no.2(1979):157.“Toooftentheworldseesonlyadividedchurch;inter-churchaidisoneway,however,ofdemonstratingvisiblytheessentialunitywhichisGod’sgifttohischurch.”

21Lindberg,“Luther’scritique,”680.“Theideathatecclesialunityisrootedinethicsaroseinpietism.ItwasGottfriedArnold(1666–1714)whoforcefullyadvancedtheclaimthatthemarkoftrueChristianityispiety(orthopraxis),notdoctrine(orthodoxy).”

22 TheodoreWedel,“Evangelism’sThreefoldWitness:Kerygma,Koinonia,Diakonia,”Ecumenical Review 9,no.3(1957):239.“Thekerygmaproclaimingagospelforthewholeworld,thekoinoniawelcomingallintothenew-covenant-life,andthenademonstrationofthepoweroftheSpiritindiakonia(Christianservice)—onlywhenthe“peopleofthemission”utilizethefullorbofthesethreeformsofcommunicationasaninseparabletriadcanthechurchwitnessrightlytoitselfandtoitsLord.Thistriadhasneverbeendisruptedbyinternalrivalryexceptwhenthechurchhaslostitssenseofmissiontotheworld.”

23Ibid.,235.“Christianityhasnomonopolyofhumanitarianservicetomankind.Indeed,puzzlingparadoxthoughitmaybe,iftheconceptof‘welfare’isequatedwiththatof‘salvation,’theChurch’sdiakoniamaysoonfinditselfoutdistancedbyitssecularrivals.Eventhemotiveforservicetotheneedymay,whenjudgedbyexternalstandardsofsac-rificialdevotiontoacause,appearstrongerundersecularloyaltiesthanthatwhichanimatestheChristianconscience.”

24Ibid.,236.25Ibid.,237.“TheChristiandoctorinastate-supportedhospital,ortheChristianteacherinasecularschool,is

calledupontobealayevangelistinamoredifficultenvironmentthanthatwhichlayspecialistsencounteredintheeraofprotecteddiakonia.Hewillescapetheprisonoflonelinessonlyashefindsstrengthforhismin-istryinthefellowshipofhisbrethreninChrist.Thusunderthethreatoffailuretowitnessatalltheconnectionbetweendiakoniaandkoinoniawillberediscovered.”

26NikosA.Nissiotis,“TheEcclesiologicalSignificanceofInter-ChurchDiakonia,”Ecumenical Review 13,no.2(1961):195.“Amongthemainreasonsforthechurchheresies,schismsanddivisionsisthelackofthisinnerpowerofmutualservice,ofmutualinter-dependentexistence.”

27Ibid.28Ibid.,191.“ThisdiakoniaisneitheragoodmoralactspringingfromthegoodwillofaregeneratedChristian

noranexpressionofcompassionforthemiseryofmanoutsidethechurch.Thecareofthechurchesfortheworldisnotavehicleforshowingcompassionforthesufferingortheweakortheuneducatedman.Thehelpofthechurchesofferedtotheworldisnotofahumanisticnature.Thechurchesarenotprimarilyphilanthropicinstitutions.Theactofthedia-koniaofthechurchesisecclésialenamelyitistheoverflowingofthegracewhichbindsandmovestheirinnerlifeasatotalfellowship.”

29RichardDickinson,“DiakoniaintheEcumenicalMovement,”InHistory of The Ecumenical Movement vol. 3, 1968–2000(Geneva:WCCPublications),413.“Thisconsciouslinkingofdiakoniaandkoinoniasignalsasignificantevo-lutioninecumenicalthinking.”

30 Nissiotis,“TheEcclesiologicalSignificance”197.31MichaelKinnamonandBrianCope,eds.,The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices(Grand

Rapids:Eerdmans,1997),210.32RaymondHickey,“EcumenismBeneaththeCrossinAfrica,”AFER26,no.3(1984):155.“Therigidbarriers

whichhadbeenerected—andfrequentlyreinforced!—betweenChristiansforoverfourhundredyearswerenowseentobetumblinginaplannedandorderlymanner.”

33Dickinson,“Diakoniaintheecumenicalmovement,”419.“LeslieCooke’swrywarningin1966couldnothavebeenmoreapt.Heobservedthatthemoreinvolvedinrealdevelopment—asdistinguishedfromrelief—thechurcheswere,themorecontroversialandsometimesunpopulartheirdiaconalwitnesswouldbecome.”

34Knapp,Church Cooperation,174–175.“Toooftenlocalchurchesanddenominationshavediscoveredreasonsforonlylimitedcooperation.Whentheirowninstitutionalinterestshavebeenendangered,theyhavetendedtodrawback.Thestrengthandcontinuedexistenceofdenominationallifehasbeenallowedtohaveprimaryplace.”

35Lindberg,680.36AlexandrosK.Papaderos,“Liturgicaldiakonia:BiblicalandTheologicalViewofDiakonia,”Mid-Stream18,no.

2(1979):137.37Ibid.,138.“ButIbelievewecanusethisterm‘liturgical’toshowwhyandinwhatsenseeveryChristiandiako-

niatotheworld,toculture,topolitics,tohumanbeingsmustbealiturgicaldiakonia.”38CesareGiraudo,“TheEucharistasDiakonia:FromtheServiceofCulttotheServiceofCharity,”InLiturgy in

A Postmodern World,ed.KeithPecklers(NewYork:Continuum),119.39MartinRobra,“TheologicalandBiblicalReflectiononDiakonia:ASurveyofDiscussionwithintheWorld

CouncilofChurches,” Ecumenical Review46,no.3(1994):282.40Ibid.,283.41Good,“Kikuyu1913,”88.“Butthereisonemajorexception,anditremainsastumbling-block:commonpar-

ticipationintheeucharististoday,formanyChristians,asbigacrimeasitwasinKikuyuin1913.”42Robra,“TheologicalandBiblicalReflection”285.

352

353

43KurtE.Marquart,“TheIssueofChurchFellowshipandUnionismintheMissouriSynodandItsAssociatedChurches,”LogiaXII,no.1(2003):20.“Churchfellowshiphasalwaysbeenunderstoodascommunio in sacris (communioninsacredthings)asdistinctfrommerecooperatioinexternis(cooperationinexternals).”

44IosephoD’Annibale,Summula Theologiae Moralis(Rome:ExTypographiaPolyglotta,1896).45Ibid.,161.“Cooperatio in externis dumtaxat transgressionibus locum habet; externa autem legis transgressio constat intentione

et opere externo: qui est particeps utriusque, correus seu cooperator formalis; qui operis tantum, cooperator materialis dici solet.”“Cooperationonlytakesplaceinexternaltransgressions.Anexternaltransgressionofthelawconsistsinintentionandexternalwork.Whoever[orwhatever]isaparticipantinboth[isusuallycalled]co-guiltyoraformalcooperator.Whoever[orwhatever][isaparticipantin]theworkaloneisusuallycalledamaterialcooperator.”(TranslationbyRev.BenjaminMayes,Ph.D.)

46ErwinL.Lueker,ed.,Christian Cyclopedia (SaintLouis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1975).“TheUnitedLutheranChurchinAmerica.OrganizedinaconventionNovember14–18,1918,NewYorkCity,bymergerofGeneralCounciloftheEv.LutheranChurchinNorthAmerica,TheGeneralSynodoftheEv.LutheranChurchintheUSA,andTheUnitedSynodoftheEv.LutheranChurchintheSouth;ceasedtoexist1962withtheformationoftheLutheranChurchinAmerica.”

47“DeclarationofPrinciplesConcerningtheChurchandItsExternalRelationships,”Concordia Theological MonthlyVI,no.1(1935):46–53.

48Ibid.,46.49Ibid.,49.50Ibid.,50.“Thatuntilamorecompleteunityofconfessionsisattainedthannowexists,TheUnitedLutheran

ChurchinAmericaisboundindutyandinconsciencetomaintainitsseparateidentityasawitnesstothetruthwhichitknows;anditsmembers,itsministers,itspulpits,itsfonts,anditsaltarsmusttestifyonlytothattruth.”

51Ibid.52Ibid.53Ibid.,52.54Ibid.,53.55JohnBehnken,“FellowshipAmongLutherans:AddresstotheAmericanLutheranConference,”Quartalschrift

44,no.1(1941):68.PresidentBehnken’sentirestatement:“Todayeffortsarebeingputforthtowardfellowshipviacoop-eration.CooperativeeffortshavebeenproclaimedandheraldedasharbingersofLutheranfellowshipandLutheranunion.Letmespeakveryfrankly.Ifsuchcooperationinvolvesjointworkinmissions,inChristianeducation,instudentwelfarework,injointservicescelebratinggreatevents,thencooperationisjustanothernameforpulpit,altarandprayerfellow-ship.Withoutdoctrinalagreementthisspellscompromise.Itmeansyieldingindoctrinalpositions.SuchfellowshipwillnotstandinthelightofScripture.Yourealize,ofcourse,thatMissourihasbeencooperatinginexternalsinmatterswhichdonotinvolvepulpit,altarandprayerfellowship.SuchcooperationmustnotbeinterpretedasasteptowardsfellowshiporamethodofbringingaboutfellowshipamongLutherans.FellowshipamongLutheransispossibleandbiblicalonlywherethereisagreementinbiblicaldoctrineandscripturalpractice.Wheresuchagreementhasbeenreached,pulpit,altarandprayerfellowshipwillnecessarilyfollow.”

56Ibid.57TheodoreGraebnerandPaulE.Kretzmann,Toward Lutheran Union: A Scriptural and Historical Approach(Saint

Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1943),231.58 CommissiononTheologyandChurchRelations,“TheologyofFellowship,”1965.SeePartIII.C.4,pg28.59FosterR.McCurley,ed.,Social Ministry in the Lutheran Tradition(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2008),101–102.

“Inter-Lutheraneffortsforsocialministryworkandmilitarychaplaincieswerecharacterizedas‘cooperationinexternals’bytheLutheranChurch—MissouriSynodleadersasawayofgettingaroundthedenomination’sconservativetheologyandrefusaleventopraywithotherLutherans.JohnW.Behnken,thesynod’spresident,wroteapolicystatementin1941declaringthathischurchcouldnotcooperate‘inanyforminthedisseminationofthegospel.’Anycooperationhadtobeconfinedto‘externals,’suchasrelieftoorphanedmissionariesandworkamongsoldiersandsailors.StillotherscontendedthatthetermsuggestedthatsocialministrywasanexternalmattertoChristianfaithandthelifeofthechurch.Notso,MissouriSynodwelfareleaderHenryF.Windinsistedin1943.SocialministryisasignofthepresenceofthegraceofGodandanecessaryfruitthatgrowsoutoffaith.”

60Lueker,Christian Cyclopedia.“H.F.WindwasappointedExecutiveSecretaryoftheDepartmentofSocialWelfarein1953.‘Cooperationinexternals’ledtoestablishmentofLutheranwelfarecouncils,federations,andassociationsinNewYorkCity,Chicago,Ohio,Washingtonstate,andelsewhere.TheArmedServicesCommission(calledArmedForcesCommissionbeginningin1965)cooperatedwiththeNationalLutheranCouncilinmaintainingservicecentersformilitarypersonnel.”TheDepartmentofSocialWelfareintheMissouriSynodwastheforerunnertothe“HumanCare”componentinLCMSWorldReliefandHumanCare.

61Lindberg,680.62Sasse,“TheQuestionoftheChurch’sUnity,”180.“Itbelongstotheunfathomablemysteriesofthehistoryof

thechurchthatitexperiencesmightymovements,independentfromallnationalandconfessionalboundaries,whichpassthroughallofChristianityandtransformitbothinwardlyandoutwardly.”

63 WemighthavedonemuchbettertoaddressthesequestionsintermsofthedoctrineofthetwokingdomsandthedoctrineofChristianvocationratherthanintermsof“cooperationinexternals.”

64Forexample,ifagroupofdifferentdenominationsbandtogetherforalegalbriefinordertopromotereli-giousfreedom,thecommonethicorphilosophicalframeworkisnotaunionofreligiousbeliefbutratherthelegalprin-ciplethatreligionshavetherighttopracticeunencumberedbytheStateorotherhindrances.

65Cranford,“AidandtheUnityoftheChurch,”156.“Itissimplythatthemajorobstacletochurchunityinmanyplacesintheworldisnottheologicalordoctrinal—it’smoney.”

66James2:1767Sasse,“TheQuestionoftheChurch’sUnity,”194.

GRAMMARIAN’SCORNERTheHebrewInfinitive,Part1.2


StillverymindfulofmycommitmenttodevotelessinstallmentstotheHebrewinfinitivethantowhathasbecometheserialdramaoftheGreekparticiple,nowinto“partIX,”(Concordia Journal,Spring2010,p157,cf.myprevious“Corner”inWinter2010),Iwillmakeafewadditionalcommentstowhatwasonlyjustintroducedlasttime(thusthisisreallyonlypart1,continued).Therewereviewedverybrieflytheuseoftheinfinitiveabsoluteprimarilyasanintensifyingadverb,literallyaddedtoaverbofthesameroot,forasenseofdoubleforce,itmightseem.Thisisanodduseofaninfini-tiveinanylanguageandseemsalmostunrelatedtotheinfinitiveconstructexceptfortheformalconsiderationsthat,mostobviouslyintheQal,theformofקטול(“qatol”)relatestoטל .formconstructitstostateabsolutetheinnounaofthatas(”qtol“)ק

Tothesimplesummarythattheinfinitiveabsolutecanintensifyaverbalactionletmeaddonefurtherlevelofunderstandingconcerningthepositionoftheinfinitivebefore(prepositive)orafter(postpositive)themainverb.Itissometimesasserted(eveninteachinggrammars)orassumed(inEnglishtranslations)thatthiscanmarkthenuanceoftheadverbialforceaseither“intensity”(“surely,truly,certainly”)whenusedbeforethemainverbor“duration”(“keepon…”)whenusedafter.

TheclassicGeseniusKautschgrammarnotesthatthepostpositivepositionisused(apparentlyunliketheprepositive)“sometimestoexpressthelongcontinuanceofanaction”(GK113r).ButbothJoüon(§123d)and,morerecently,Waltke/OConnor(WO,§35.3.1.d)arguethatthisdistinctionisartificial.Joüonsuggestsa“strongernuance”whenplacedbeforetheverbbutgoesontonotethatthepostpositiveuseis(a)generallylesscommon(forwhateverreason,otherthanstatistical)and(b)“alwaysplacedafteranimperativeandaparticiple.”WOcitepositivelytheconclusionofJ.P.K.Riekertinhis1979studyoftheinfinitivesinGenesisthat“wehaveanartificialdistinc-tionbetweentheprepositiveandpostpositiveinfinitiveandthatthelatterisincorrectlycreditedwiththeaspectofexpressingduration.”BothJoüonandWOconcludethat“itisonlyfromthecontextthatthenuanceaddedbytheinfinitivecanbededucedineachcase”(Joüon,cfthesimilarstatementinWOat35.3.1.e).

AsnotedinFundamental Biblical Hebrew,thoughonlyinpassing(p138,atEG4),thepositionoftheinfinitivehastodowiththeformofthemainverb,therewithrefer-encetoimperatives.Idoconcedethat“thismayimplyongoingaction,”but,frankly,eventhoughit“may,”Iwouldnotevensaythatmuchinafuturerevision.Thesta-tisticaldominanceoftheprepositivepositionislikelyduetotheusewithperfectandimperfectforms,whileWOstateclearlythattheuse“almostalwaysoccurspostposi-tivelywithwayyqtl(“impfwawconsecutive”),theimperative,andtheparticiple.

Asanexample,myownrecentworkonIsaiah6:9,whichisdifficultenoughforinterpretation,hasnotedthatmosttranslationsseemtoassumethedurativeforceoftheinfinitiveabsolute,presumablybecauseitfollowsthemainverb(asthoughthekeydistinctionisbeforeorafterandnotbecauseitfollowsanimperative form).Isaiah6:9reads,

שמעו שמוע ואל־תבינו וראו ראו ואל־תדעו

Aroughtranslation,withtheinfinitiveabsoluteitalicizedwithoutnuance,wouldbe“Hearhearbutdonotunderstand!Seesee,butdonotknow.”Inbothcases,theinfinitivefollowstheimperative.ThefollowingtranslationsrepresentaspectrumofEnglishrenderingsofthetwocommands:

NIV“Beeverhearing…beeverseeing…”ESV“Keeponhearing…keeponlooking…”RSV“Hearandhear…seeandsee…”NRSV“Keeplistening…keeplooking…”NASB“Keeponlistening…keeponlooking…”KJV“Hearyeindeed…Seeyeindeed…”NKJV“Keeponhearing…keeponseeing…”AAT“Youmaygoonhearing…andgoonseeing…”GWN“Nomatterhowcloselyyoulisten…nomatterhowcloselyyoulook…”Themostcommonnuanceis,indeed,thedurativesense,whichdominatesthe

morecontemporarytranslations.GeseniusKautsch,asreferencedabove,citesIsaiah6:9asanexampleofthedurativesense“hearyecontinually.”Interestingly,thesameconstructionappearsinIsaiah55:2,whereNRSV,NASB,andESVtranslate,“listencarefully”(ESV,“diligently”)andNIVsimplyrepeatstheimpv,“listen,listen.”

Inmyownview,themoregeneralsenseofintensificationshouldbetheplacetostart,regardlessofthepositionoftheinfinitive.Furthernuancecanbeprovidedbycomparisonwithotherusesofthesameverbalroot.Forexample,theidiomwithrootשמעintheimperfectisfairlycommonintheexhortationsinExodusandDeuteronomy(Ex15:26,19:5,23:22;Dt11:13,15:5,28:1),usuallytranslatedwith“lis-tencarefully.”InthecaseofIsaiah6,thewholeversemustalsobeconsideredinlightofthelargercontext,bothasimperativeswithintheimmediatecommissioningoftheprophetto“goandsaytothis people”andwithinthelargerhistoricalcontextoftheoverallministryandmessageofIsaiah.

Inlightofthecontext(andalreadyengagingthetheologicalinterpretiveproblemofthisseeminglystrangesortofmissionimperative,especiallyascontinuedintoverse10)Iwouldsuggestapossiblesenseofsarcasmwithintheintensifyingforceoftheinfinitive,“reallylisten,”asthoughthepeoplehavenot—andarenotaboutto—listenwith“earstohear.”Theoverallimplicationisthattheywillnotreallyhearwithunder-standingorcomprehensionnomatterhowhardtheytry,soaparaphraserenderingsuchas,“trytolistenashardasyoucan,butdon’tthinkyouwillunderstand”mightconveythesenseevenbetter.

Ifthisiscorrect,thentheRSVandoldKJV(despiteitsarchaiclanguage)aremoreontrack,andtheGWN“naturalequivalent”translationisthemosthelpfulofthosecitedabove.OnecouldarguethatthedurativeforcecouldbeunderstoodinasimilarwayandmaygainsupportfromIsaiah’sown“durative”question,“howlong?”inverse11.Butthesimpletranslationof“keeponlistening”wouldneedfurtherinterpreta-tiontoexplicatethenuancemoreclearly(asdoalltranslations!).Inanycase,thegram-maticalpointatissueinthisshortessayisthatthedurativesense,whileapossibleoption,isnotdeterminedordictatedbythepostpositivepositionoftheinfinitiveabsolute.

AndrewBartelt

355

Homiletical Helps

COncordiaournalJ

Concordia Journal/Fall 2010 358

HomileticalHelpsonLSBSeriesC—FirstLessontoSeriesA—Gospels

Proper 28 • Malachi 4:1–6 • November 14, 2010

Thoughts from the TextTheendisinsight.Anotheryearisdrawingtoaclose—thechurchyear

anticipatingthecalendaryearbyagoodmonth.Fittingly,thelastwordsoftheOldTestamentpointtothelast“greatandterribledayoftheLord”thatmarkstheendoftimeandtheworldasweknowit.Inthisbrieftext,Malachiprovidesaremark-ableseriesofdualities,somecontrastingpositiveversusnegativeitems,otherspairingtogethercomplementarythoughts.Ononehand,wehavetheconsuminginfernoofthefurnacethatsetsablazeallthearrogantandevildoers;andontheother,therisingsunofrighteousnesssheddingitswarmhealingonthosewhofearGod.Thus,judgmentandblessing,deathandnewlife,areagainbroughtintosharpjuxtaposition.Thenwehavethetwofoldinstruction:rememberMoses’slawandwatchforElijah’srestoration.Interspersedthroughthesethemesaremorepairs:arrogantandevildoers,rootandbranch,statutesandordinances,greatandterrible,fathersandchildren.Lutheranread-ersshouldimmediatelyresonatetoatextflushwithdualities.Yetthesamereadersareperilouslypronetofallpreytoyetanothersetofdualitiesimplicitintheinterpretivemovestypicallymadeonsuchatext.Thereis,ononeside,thetemptationtodismissthisas“justanOldTestamenttext”fullyaccomplishedintheworkofthebaptizer—John(Elijah)andJohn’sgreatercousin—andthus,otherthanitssignificanceasacom-pletedmessianicprophecy,ithaslittlemeaningbesides,“Johnfulfilledit,andisn’titgreatthatwegetJesusinsteadofMoses!”Buttheotherinterpretivemoveresultsinasimilarmarginalizationofthetext:withitsstrong“end-times”flavor,itiseasytolabelthetext,“eschatological,”andpushitsimportanceintoa“pie-in-the-sky,inthesweetbyeandbye”irrelevancefortoday.

Onewaytofightthetugtowardpredictable(andpainfullyboring)interpreta-tionsthatguttheimpactofthetextistotakeholdofthe“arrogantandevildoers”duality.Itisfascinating—andmorethanabitdisconcerting—thatMalachiwouldlumpthetwotogether.Whilenoonereadilyacceptsthearrogantmoniker,theself-reliance,self-absorption,self-promotion,andgeneralself-centerednessthatlieattheheartofhumanityhavenobetterdescriptionthanarrogance.Arrogantismaninrebel-lionagainstGod.Arrogantismanmakinghisownway.ArrogantismandeterminingthathecanforceGodintohisowncherishedviewsofwhatGodshouldbeanddo.Arrogantistheantithesisoffaithandgospel.Weareallarrogant—whichmeansweareallevildoers;weareallchaff;weareallfuelforthefurnace;wearenothing…butashes.Thedualityisnotbetweenothersandus.Itisadualitythatcleaveseachbeliever.Andasarrogantevildoerswefomentdivisioninourhomesanddiscordinourrela-tionships.TherestorativeworkofElijahseemstohavebeenineffective.WelookatourlivesandthelivesofthosearoundusandwonderwhateverhappenedtoElijah.Yet,fromtheashes—allvestigesofarrogancethoroughlypurged—weseetheSunofRighteousnessriseandwedelightthattheultimatefather/sonrelationshipwasrestored

359

inhiswork,andsowealsoarerestored.Phoenix-like,weareraisedfromtheashesandrestoredwiththeFatherandhiscreation—arealitythatbeginsnowandwaitswithcertainconfidenceforthefullandfinalconsummationwhenthedancethatanimatescreation(andsoisknowninstinctivelybythecalfnewlysprungfromthestall)climaxesaccordingtothecreator’schoreographyandisjoinedinearnestbyeverycreature.

Suggested Outline“Dancing in the Ashes”I. Thefurnace. A. Wearethearrogantandevildoers. B. We(andourrelationships)endinashes.II. Thedance. A. Christrestoreswhatwedestroy—allrelationshipsarehealed. B. Wedance(liveinharmony)now,withthecreatorandwith creatures.

JoelD.Biermann

Proper 29 • Malachi 3:13–18 • November 21, 2010

Thereisfamine,poverty,oppression,andunfaithfulness.PeoplelivetheirlivescontrarytoGod’sWord,andhedoesn’tevenseemtocare.DoesitreallypaytofollowGod?Thisisthestateoftheworldtoday.ButthiswasalsothecontextofMalachi’sministry.ThepeoplewerewaitingforGod’sglorytoreturn,butnothingseemedtobehappening.Thepeoplegrewlaxspirituallyandmorally.Malachi’sministrywastocallGod’speopletorepentanceandtoreassurethemofhisloveforthem.God’sglorywouldreturninhisowntime.

ThisisthelastSundayofthechurchyear,andtheChristian’seyesarefocusedonourLord’sreturn.Thechurchwaitsinhope.Wewaittoseehisgloryinallitsmaj-estyandfullarray.Yet,aswewaitwecanbecomediscouragedwithwhat’sgoingonaroundus.God’swordofrepentance,promise,encouragement,andcontinuedloveisjustasvalidforustodayasitwasinMalachi’sday.

Liturgical context:TheGospelfortodayisLuke23:27–43,thecrucifixion.HerewefindtheworldmockingJesus.HeclaimedtobetheSonofGod,theMessiah,butlookwherethatgothim.Hereceivednothingbutadatewiththecross,filledwithhumili-ation,mockery,andshame.Nevertheless,thisiswhattheSonwassentbytheFathertodo.TheFathersparednothisSonsothatoursinswouldbeforgivenandparadise’sgateswouldbeopentoanyandallwhorepentoftheirways.Suchistheexampleoftherepentantthiefonthecross.

Homiletical helps:Invv.13–15thepeoplearemurmuringagainstYHWHbecauseintheirowneyestheydon’tseewhyitpaystoservehim.ThewickedandtheproudseemtotauntYHWHwhodoesn’tseemtoevencareaboutwhat’shappening.Why,


then,shouldhispeopleservehim?Inotherwords,itseemedvainanduselesstoserveGod.Theydidn’tfeelliketheywere“gettinganythingoutofit”andinfact,thewickedseemedtobedoingratherwellbynotservingYHWH.“Whatgives,God?”

TheHebrewverbawvmeans“vain,empty”andisfoundinExodus20:7—thesecondcommandment.ManyChristiansinthepewmaysimplythinkthatcussing,swearing,orusingGod’snameflippantlyistheonlywayonebreaksthesecondcom-mandment.Andyetit’smorethanthat,aswehearthroughMalachi.Webreakthesec-ondcommandmentbymurmuringagainstYHWHandbywondering“what’sinitforme”tobeaChristian,especiallywhenthewickedaren’tlivingrightandGoddoesn’tseemeventocare.ThiskindofthinkingandcomparisonwithworldlywaysiswhatleadsChristiansintospirituallaxness,livinglivesofindifference,skepticismandper-missiveness.Inotherwords,thisdemonstratesourunfaithfulnesstoYHWH.

Invv.16–18,MalachiassurestheGod-fearersthatGodstilllovesthemandthatGodisdoingsomethingaboutthesituation“behindthescenes”eventhoughtheydon’trealizeitatthetime.Thewickedandtheproudwerenotreally“gettingawaywithit”becauseonthedayofYHWH’schoosingallpeoplewillseethatthereisadifference.ThedaywillcomewhenallwillseewhoareapartofGod’sspecialposses-sion(“jewel”intheKJV—thepreachermightbeabletousethisasaGospelhandle)andwhoarenot.ThosewholivetheirlivesinrepentantfaithtotheendarewritteninYHWH’sbookofremembrance.

YHWH’swordofgraceisalsofoundinv.17:wtadb[hwnbl[vyalmxyrvak—“asamanspareshissonwhoserveshim.”Thephrase,“serveshim,”isnote-worthy.Thiscanbeusedasabridgetothegospelreadingforthedaytobringthehearertothecross.ItistheSonwhoservestheFather.ThegospeltwististhattheFatherdidnotsparehisSonsothatwewhoareunfaithfularespared.

Homiletical direction:Themaladyofthesermonseemsratherobvious.OurculturetodayisthesameasthatinMalachi’sday.WelookaroundsocietyandquestionwhyunbelieverslivelivesagainstGod’sWordandnothinghappenstothem.“Theyseemtobedoingallright,andinfact,manyofthemareprospering.TheLorddoesn’tstrikethemdead.Infact,heevenseemstobeblessingthemmorethanhe’sblessingme!MaybeGoddoesn’treallycareaboutwhethersomeoneisfaithfultohimornot.MaybeI,asaChristian,shouldsimplylivealifeofmoralindifference.Afterall,everyoneelseisdoingit.Sowhycan’tIhavemycakeandeatittoo?IbelieveinJesus,andthat’sallthatmatters.Right?”

Thepreachercanworkthismaladyaccordingtohiscongregationalcontext.Thecarefuldistinctionshouldbemadebetweensanctificationandjustification.Ofcourse,faithinJesusaloneiswhatsaves.Butsavingfaithisneveralone.Itproducesworksofrighteousness—liveslivedinrepentantfaithandhopeaswewaitforourLord’sreturn,whichistheemphasisofthelastSundayofthechurchyear.

Verse17canserveastheconnectionpointbetweentheOldTestamentread-ingandtheGospel.Asthepreacherpreparesthesermon,hecankeyinon“asamanspareshissonwhoserveshim.”The“sonwhoserveshim”pointstoJesus’sserviceonthecross.There,inthetheologyofthecross,iswhereGod’sgloryisrevealed.ThereiswhereGodmakesthedistinctionbetweentherighteousandwickedasthegreat

360

exchangetakesplace.Inthemidstoftheworldthatmocks,humiliates,andcrucifieshim,theSonservestheFather.TheFathersparesnothisonlySoninorderthatwewhoareunfaithfulwillbespared.ThosewhomurmurrebelliouswordsagainstChrist,shakingtheirheadsandpointingtheirfingershearourLord’swordsfromthecross,“Father,forgivethem,fortheyknownotwhattheydo”(Lk23:34).

Christ’swordsofforgivenessareofferedtoall.Buttheonewhohearsandrepentsreceivesthebenefitsofthecrossjustastherepentantthiefdid.Therepentantonehears,“Todayyouwillbewithmeinparadise.Youaremine.Youaremyspecialpossession.Yournameiswritteninthebookofremembrance.”

OnthislastSundayofthechurchyearoureyesareonceagainfixedonJesusaswewaitforthedayofhisgloriousreturn.Onthatdayhewillraiseupallpeopleandtakehisspecialpossessiontolivewithhimforever.ReassurethehearersofGod’scov-enantloveforthemsealedinbaptism,andofhispromiseofeternallifewithhim.Untilthatdayweliveourlivesinrepentantfaithandhope.

God’sblessingsonyoursermonpreparation.MichaelJ.Redeker

Advent 1 • Matthew 24:36–44 • November 28, 2010

Socratessummedupthefirstprincipleofphilosopherseverywhere:toknowthatwedon’tknow.Andperhapsthe“notknowing”iswhatmakesthefuturesomadden-ing.Everythingaboutitisunknown.

Exceptforthis:“…yourLordiscoming”(v.42).Yet,eventhen,despitetheprognosticationsofathousand,thousandTVevangelists(andbeforethem,athousand,thousandstreetpreachers),thequestionsabound:How?When?Where?Weareleftinthefogofunknowing,anddon’tweknowit.

ForSocrates,atleastasPlatogavehimtous,theself-awareunknowingisanironicsourceofcomfortandhopebecauseitisthebeginningofdiscovery.FortheChristian,itisevenmore.Itisthebeginningoftrust.“Butaboutthatdayandhournooneknows,neithertheangelsofheaven,northeSon,butonlytheFather”(v.36).IfeventheSonofManhasbeenleftinthedark,thenwhatislefttodobutclingtothepromiseGodgives?OurfuturebelongstoGod.TimeisinGod’shands.AndGod’sfutureispushingallthingsintohisreignofjustice,mercy,andpeace.AllwereallyneedtoknowisthatweareonedayclosertotheLastDaythanwewereyesterday.“Forsal-vationisnearertousnowthanwhenwebecamebelievers”(Rom13:11).

Andperhapsournot-knowledgeofeverythingelseisdivinelyintendedtodriveus,againandagain,tosimplythatpoint:totrustGod’spromisethattimeisinhishands.“Keepawaketherefore,foryoudonotknowonwhatdayyourLordiscoming”(v.42).Keepawake notsothatyoumayknowtheday.KeepawakesothatyourwholelifemaybepreparedforallthewaysGodwillkeephispromisesinyourmidstnow.“Thereforeyoualsomustbeready,fortheSonofManiscomingatanunexpected

361


hour”(v.44).Bereadynotsothatwecanexpecttheexacthour,butsothatourlivesmaybeattunedtotheimaginationofGodatworkinordinaryroutines.

Andthatisthebottomline:Christ’seschatologicalteaching—particularlyinMatthew—directsusnottowardpredictingthefuture,buttowardhowweoughttoliveourlivesintheholinessofadventexpectation(thinkofthelastjudgmentofthesheepandthegoatsinchapter25).Astoday’sepistlereadingexemplifies,wearemadereadysothatwemight“loveoneanother.”

Iwonderwhatitwouldbelikeif,somehow,Christmascouldcomeatadiffer-enttimeeveryyear.Wewouldstillplanforit,stilltakethedayoff,stillhavethesamecelebrations,itjustwouldn’tnecessarilyhappenonDecember25.AllwewouldknowisthatitwouldhappensometimeinDecember.AndonemorningwewouldwakeupandtheTVorradiowouldannounce:“Today’stheday!MerryChristmas!”Howwouldweplandifferently?Howwouldourgift-givingandourholidayroutineschange?Howwouldwereceivetheday?ThecomingofChristiseverandalwaysasurprise.AndtothosewhotrustthepromiseofGod,itisfilledwiththethrillofjoy.

TravisJ.Scholl

Advent 2 • Matthew 3:1–12 • December 5, 2010

Historically Specific TheologyMatthewbeginsbywriting,“andinthosedays.”Recallingthatchapterdivi-

sionsarelateradditionsand(sometimes)unhelpful,Iwouldencouragethefollowingunderstanding:thereisno“break”betweenchapters2and3.Eventhoughweknowthatthereisagapofseveraldecades,Matthew’snarrativeflowsseamlessly.The“days”ofJohntheBaptizer’sministryarethesameas“thosedays”ofchapter2.Andtobespecific,thosearethedaysoffulfillmentwhentheOTpromisestoIsraelarefinallyhap-pening—inJesus.John’sministryisalsopartandparceloftheuniquemomentinhis-torywhenGod’spromisestoandthroughIsraelonbehalfoftheworldbegintocometrue.ThefulfillmentthemeismadeexplicitthroughtheIsaiah40:3quotation,anditisimplicitinthedescriptionofJohnthatshowsthathelookslikethelong-promisedElijah(2Kgs1:8;Mal3:1,23;Mt11:7–15).

ThefigureofJohnisintroduced,andhisbasicmessageissummarized:“Repent,forthereignofheavenhascomenear”(3:2).Thereignofheavenisnotaplace(thedefaultmeaningoftheEnglish“kingdom”),anditiscertainlynotaninternalexperi-ence.Rather,itisthekinglydeedsofGodlongforetoldandlongawaited;the“reignofheaven”(=reignofGod)isGod’sintervention,his“reigning.”GodhasbrokenintohumanhistorythroughtheonewhomJohnisannouncing.Evenmorethanthis,itisthebeginningoftheendofallthings,ashistory’sconsummationalreadyintrudesintothepresenttime.

John’scalltorepentancerefersinthefirstplacetowhatwemightcall“beingconverted.”AsJesus’steachingwillmakeclear,thepeopleinJudeaandGalileecanbe

362

generallydescribedasthe“lostsheepwhicharethehouseofIsrael”(10:6;15:24).ThusJohn’spreaching(andJesus’safterhim)isbothunexpectedandradical.Johnisno“covenantalnomist,”whobelievesthatmost,ifnotall,Jewswereinasavingcovenant-alrelationshipwiththeirGod.No,aradicalturningmusthappen,andthatbecause Godhasnow,inJesus,beguntodohiskinglydeedsofrestoringallthings.God’spowerisatwork,forthereisagreatresponsetoJohn’spreachingandJohn’sbaptism.Manycome,acknowledgingtheirneedforconversionandconfessingtheirsins—theverysinsfromwhichJesushascometosamethem(Mt1:21).

Religiousleadersalsocome,however,andintheformofanunlikelyalliance.PhariseesandSadduceescometogether—butonlytogetherbecausetheyhavecometoexamineJohn’sbaptism.John,however,denouncestheminthefiercestterms,forheperceivesnotruerepentance.DescentfromAbrahammeansnothing.God’sjudg-mentissurelycoming,andthosewithoutfruit-fullrepentancewillbecutdownanddestroyed.Indeed,JohnannouncesthecomingoftheagentofGod’sjudgment,bothforsalvationandfordestruction.AspowerfulasJohn’sministryandbaptismare,heknowsofonewhowill,ontheLastDay,baptizewiththeHolySpirit(forfinalsalva-tion)andwithfire(forfinalcondemnation).Thetimeisurgent;Godhasbeguntoact.Humanresponsecanonlybetoconfesssins,turntoGodandlookforwhatheisgoingtodothroughhisagent.

Contemporary/Homiletical ApplicationThereadingdoesnotreveal“timelesstheologicaltruths.”Itproclaimsthetime

whenGodbeganawork,anewworkthatisstillgoingon.ProperproclamationmustsomehowinvitethecongregationtoembracetheunderstandingthatGodistheLordofhistoryandthatthecongregation’slife,andthemembers’lives,aremerely(butnotunimportantly!)locatedintheflowofwhatGodisdoingfortheworld.

Longago(tous),JohnannouncedthatGodhadbegunanewthing.ThecalltorepentancerevealsthatitwasintoabrokenandrebelliousworldthatGod’snewdeedsinJesushadpenetrated.TheultimategoalofGod’sreigninJesusistheLastDay,whenseparationofrepentantfromrebelliouswilltakeplace.

Christiancongregationsmusthave(orregain)asenseoftheirtemporalloca-tionintheplanofGodfortheworld.GodinJesus,throughtheSpiritandhismeans,isstillatworkintheworldevenasthatworldcontinuesinrebellion.WhereJesusispresent—inthegospelandthesacraments—Godisreigningtocallapeopletogetherasacommunitytobesaltandlightfortheworld(5:13–16).TheLastDayiscomingnear,whenallwillfinallybeputright—God’srepentantpeoplewillbeknownandhisstubbornenemieswillbeturnedawayintothehellofjudgment.NothingmattersbutaresponsetoJohn’smessage;nothingmattersbuttorepentandtoembraceJesusinfaith.

ChristianswillacknowledgeagaintheneedforGodtoreignoverandrepairtheworld;andtoreignoverandrepairtheirlives.ChristianswillalsomarvelandrejoiceoverGod’sunexpectedreigninJesus.AsMatthew(andthewholeNT)proclaim,God’smightyagentofjudgmenthascomeinastonishingandunexpectedways—tobebaptizedintheplaceofsinners(3:13–17)andultimatelytosufferanddiefortheirsins.

363


GodvindicatedhisSon,andnowtheSon’sworkcontinuesintheworld—inthecon-gregation—asGod’speoplewaitfortheday.

JeffreyA.Gibbs


Textual NotesTwophrasesareproblematicinthistext.First,JesusseemstodiminishJohnin

verse11.Sowhoisthe“greatest?”Greatnessinthekingdomistheoppositeofwhatisconsideredgreatnessoutsideofit.Thegreatestarethosewhoserve(Mt20:26;23:11)butaboveall—directlyansweringthequestion“whoisthegreatest”—isthelittlechild(Mt18:1–4).A“child”doesnotrepresentcuteness,innocence,purity,oranysuchmodernwesternideasofachild.Rather,innear-easterncultureachildisonewhocan-notofferanything,needsconstantcareandsupervision,andisaburdenuntilhecandosomethingusefultosupportthefamily(seetherecentConcordia CommentaryonMatthewbyDr.JeffreyGibbs).Sointhekingdomthe“greatest”arethosewhomostneedcareandaremostaburden—exactlythepeopleJesuswasservingbyopeningeyesandearsandmakingthelamewalk.Thosetowhomhonorandattentionaretobegivenaretheweakestintheworld.Johnwasamightypreacher,indeedaprophet,butthepowerfulpreacherisnottheoneinthekingdomofheavenwhoshouldbereceivingtheatten-tion.InsteadofquestioningJesus,Johnshouldbeservinghimandothers;insteadofworryingaboutJohn,thecrowdsshouldbeworryingaboutthesufferingonesintheirmidst,forinservingthemthekingdomofheavenisevident.

Second,thiskingdomofheaven“undergoesviolence,andviolentpeopletrytosnatchitaway”(11:12).TheimmediatesubjectofthiscommentisJohnhimself,whoannouncedthekingdomandsufferedviolenceandultimatelydeathfromviolentpeoplewhotrytodestroy(aconativepresent)thekingdom.SoitiswithJesus,whosepreach-ingandserviceisquestionedandrejected,andultimatelywhowillbeputdeath—buthiskingdomwillnotbeconquered.Thisisnotacondemnationofthosewhotrytobattletheirwayintothekingdom(thoughofcoursethatisnotthenatureofthisking-dom,whichcannotbetakenforoneself),butanexplanationofwhathashappenedtoJohnandwillhappentoJesus(andultimatelyhisfollowers;Mt5:11;23:34).

“Unfiltered Jesus”Pasteurized,homogenized,standardized,lowestcommondenominator.ABig

MactastesthesameinPekingorPeoria.ABudweisertastesthesameinFargoorFlorida.Lowes,Applebee’s,andTargetcanbefoundclusteredtogetherinbigboxesalongthehighwaysthatheadoutofeverycityinAmerica.Nothingisunique,distinc-tive.JesusChristisoftenthrownintoourhomogenizationprocess.Heismadetolooklikeotherreligiousfigures;histeachingisreducedtoOprah-esquespiritualityandDr.Phil-ishadvice.Hebecomescomfortable,undemanding.

364

WhatwasJohnthinkinginhisquestionsenttoJesus?Washedisillusionedbecausethepromisedkingdomdidn’tcomeintimetokeephimoutofprison?Didhewantaflashier,fire-and-brimstoneMessiah?Thewinnowingforkisinhishand(Mt3:11–12),butthechaffisnotbeingburntupsoonenough?Whateverthereason,Jesusdidn’tmatchhispreconceivedideas.Forhim,Jesuswasexpectedtodowhatallothermessiahs—past,present,andfuture—wouldbeexpectedtodo:Destroyourenemiesandmakeusprosper.Jesus,ofcourse,didnotcometodowhatallothermessiahswereexpectedtodo.Ratherthangotothetopandtakehisfaithfulwithhimasthenewrul-ers,authorities,andpowerful,hegoestothelowest—theblind,lame,deaf,poor(eventhedead!),andliftsthemup.YouwanttoknowwhatthisreignofGodisallabout?Theleastwillbeserved.Look!Itisalreadyhappening!(Mt11:2–6).

Jesusthenturnsonthecrowds(11:7),forneitherweretheirexpectationsbeingmet.Johnwaspopular.Crowdswentouttohim(Mt3:5–6).Butwhatdidtheygoouttosee?Acelebrity?Afad?Hadthepreachingofrepentanceaccomplisheditsgoal?Thecrowds,liketheirpreacherJohn,werenotrespondingtoJesus’sministryanybet-terthanJohn.Thecrowds’adulationofJohnwasnotenough.Hewastheforerunner,THEprophetpromisedatthecomingofthegreatandterribleDayoftheLord.Andindeed,thewinnowingforkisinJesus’shand(Mt11:9–14).Butitisnotintendedforothers.Itisintendedforyou:hewhohasears,lethimhear!Judgmentisathand!(Mt13:9,16).YoufilteredoutwhatyouwantedfromJohnandhismessage.AndsoyoufilteredoutwhatyouwantedfromtheMessiahheannounced.

YetJohnwasindeedaprophet.Hecametoannouncethein-breakingofthekingdomofheaven,andwiththatannouncementacalltorepent.Thiskingdomdoesnotmatchexpectations;neitherourexpectationsofvictoryandglory,northeexpecta-tionsofthosewhowishtoestablishthemselvesaskingandsoseektodestroytheking-domofheaven.Butthiskingdomwillnotbeconquered(Mt16:18).Thekingdomoursremaineth.

Towhatarewecalledinthistext?Tohearagainthemessagetorepent,toturntothiskingandreceivehisforgiveness.And,asheirsofhiskingdom,tohavethefilterstakenoffourlensesandseetheleastasthosewhomwearecalledtoserveinanticipa-tionofthefullrevealingofthatkingdomontheLastDay(Mt25:31–46).Andatthatfeasttherewillbenothingfilteredorhomogenized,onlyfull-bodiedJesus.

JeffreyA.Kloha


WeweredrivinghomefromaWednesdayeveningAdventservicewhenmythree-year-olddaughterannouncedfromhercarseat,“I’mafraidofangels.”HermotherandI,inmildshockthatourdaughtershouldexpresssuchasentiment,asked,“Whyareyouafraidofangels?”“I’mafraidthey’lltalktome,”sheanswered.ThenwerealizedthatalltheSundayschoolstoriesleadinguptoChristmasinvolvedangels.Theangelstalkedtopeople,andmydaughterwasafraidangelswouldtalktoher.

365


Andinonesense,shewasrighttobeafraid.Weshouldbeafraidthatangelswillspeaktous.WhentheyspeakintheChristmasstory,whetheritisheretoJoseph,inchapter2totheMagi,ortoMaryinLuke2,livesareturnedupsidedownandinsideoutandnothingiseverthesameagain.Weshouldbeafraidthatangelswillspeaktousifwevalueworldlysuccessandsecurityorthehonorandacclaimofsociety.

JosephcertainlyhadhisownhonorandgoodstandinginmindwhenhedecidedtobreakhisengagementtoMaryprivately.Buthewasprimarily,wearetold,concernedforherhonorandperhapsforherverylife.WhatJosephlearnedfromtheangelinadreamwasthathispromisetowedMarymattered,andhadtobefulfilled,butonlybecauseitwaspartofGod’splantofulfillhisfargreaterpromisetobringintotheworldasaviorfromsinanddeath.ThisconceptionwaslikenootherconceptioninallofhumanhistorybecausethechildofMarywastheImmanuelthatIsaiahpromised.

Wedon’tknowexactlywhathappenedafterthedream—howorifJosephtriedtoexplainthemiracletorelativesorfriends—butfromahumanpointofviewthiswasfarfromthesolutiontohisproblems.Hisproblems,whichwouldincludeaflightforthebaby’slife,wereonlybeginning.

That’swhyLuthertalksaboutthistextasexpressingtheturbulentsideoftheChristmasstory.MatthewintroducesthecrosstothenarrativeofJesus’sbirth,Luthersays.“‘WhenhismotherMaryhadbeenbetrothedtoJoseph,beforetheycametogeth-ershewasfoundtobewithchildfromtheHolySpirit.’HerewehavethetextoftheCreed:ConceivedbytheHolySpirit.Matthewthenintroducesthecross,namely,theconfusionofJoseph,intotheconceptionofChrist.ForassoonastheChristianlifeisbegunoranythingelseofChrist,therenextthingthecrossisathand.”(ContioinVigiliaNativitatisChristi,WA27:475–76)

Thecrossisathandinourlives,too.LikeJosephwehavethewordofGodinthemidstoftroubleandturbulence.ThepromisespokenbyIsaiahandrepeatedbytheangeltoJosephisnotforhimalonebutisgoodnewsforallpeople:“Behold,thevirginshallconceiveandbearason,andtheyshallcallhisnameEmmanuel”(1:23).ThepromisestandssureevenwhentheChristmasseasoncomesamidstsufferingandloss.Indeed,thestoryofJosephastoldinMatthewservesasanantidotetoanoverlysentimentalChristmas.Yetwhatwehaveinthistextisnotabucketofcoldwaterthatdousesourcelebration.Rather,wehavethelivingwaterofGod’spromisesfulfilled—therealreasonwecelebrate.

PaulRobinson

Christmas 1 • Matthew 2:13–23 •December 26, 2010

Talkaboutgoodnews,badnews.ThedayafterChristmas(“OntheseconddayofChristmas,mytruelovegavetome…”),andalreadytheevangelisthassweptuptheholyfamilytoEgypt,andHerodismassacringtheinnocentsofBethlehem.

366

Ofcourse,asmuchasthenewsmightwakeusoutofourtwo-turtle-dovestupor,thenewswasworseforMaryandJosephandevenworseforthemothersofBethlehem.Notthattheyprobablyexpecteddifferent;theywereusedtolifeunderthethumbofaparanoidkingandaruthlessempire.Itiswewhoexperiencethecultureshockofexpectingthoseinauthoritytoprotectthelittlestandtheleastamongusbutthenhearingotherwise.ThankGodthattheydo.Ordothey?Perhapsthat’sanotherquestionforanothertime.

Backtothetext.Thereistremendousupheavalandmovementinthesetenvers-esofMatthew—fromBethlehemtoEgypt,backtoJudea,beforeweendupinGalileeinthebackwatertownofNazareth.Andallthesemovements,aswellasthemassacreenvelopedwithinthem,carrypropheticweight.Thisshouldn’tsurpriseus,giventhatthisisMatthew’stellingoftheGospelstory.Nevertheless,thesepropheticreverbera-tionsremindusthatthesearenotisolatedeventsandtheircause-and-effectarenotrandom.

Indeed,despitethegenocidalhorror,historyisonthesideofthelittlefam-ilymakingtheirwaytoEgypt.Egypt:thelandofexodusandtheBible’sdeepsymbolofotherness.NewTestamentscholarMarkAllanPowellnotestheironicparallelsinMatthew’saccountoftheflightinto(notout of)Egypt:“Matthewtellsthestoryoftheholyfamily’sflighttoEgyptwithincredibleirony.Intheexodusstory,babieswereslaughteredinEgyptbythewickedpharaoh.Butnow,righteousJewsmustfleetoEgypttoescapeamassacreofinfantsintheirownland(Mt2:16–18).Itisnot,ofcourse,adetourwithoutprecedent:anotherJoseph,whowasalsoguidedbyGodthroughdreams,oncebroughthisfamilyhere(Gn37–50).And,asitturnsout,Jesus’ssojournhereisabriefone.”1

Matthew’sJesuswillrisefromEgypt,justlikeMosesandthewilderness-wander-ersbeforehim,andwillsettleinGalilee,almostoutsidetheboundariesofthe“true”Israelofhisday,sothattherewillbenostrangerorlittleoneleftbehindbyhismes-sianicmission.He’dseetothat.Ofcourse,whentheangeltellsJoseph,“Getup,takethechildandhismother,andgotothelandofIsrael,forthosewhowereseekingthechild’slifearedead”(v.20),that’snotwithoutironyeither.It’sexactlythatmessianicmissionthatwillgethimkilled30yearslater.

AndIwonder,too,justhowforeign—howshocking—thistextwouldsoundifourearsweren’tNorthAmerican.Forcedmigrationandmassviolencearenotancientproblems;theyareproblemsthattheChristianchurchinAfrica,Asia,andtheMiddleEastisconfrontingaswepreach.HowcomfortingitmustsoundtotheirearstoknowthatJesusstartedhislifeasbothanimmigrantandarefugee.Andthistextringsintheirearswithanurgencythatis,shallwesay,prophetic.

Indeed,ifMatthewandtheprophetshaveanythingtotellusabouttheChristchild—andaboutwhatlifeislikefollowinghim—itisthatourliveswillneverbe“settled.”

TravisJ.SchollEndnote

1MarkAllanPowell,http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?lect_date=12/30/2007&tab=4.

367


Christmas 2 • Luke 2:40–52 • January 2, 2011

SosoonafterthesometimessentimentalscenesoftheinfantJesuswecherishatChristmas,thisuniqueaccountofJesusasatwelve-year-oldboyacceleratesustowardthematureministryoftheSavior.ThesenseofleavinginfancybehindandjumpingaheadtowardJesus’smissionisintegraltothetext(ratherthananartifactofthelec-tionary);theso-called“infancynarrative”ofLuke’sgospel(1:5–2:52)doesnotpaintusaHallmarkportraitofJesusbutratherpreparesustowitnessandbelievehislife,minis-try,suffering,death,andresurrectionforoursalvation.

Verse40actuallyconcludestheprecedingsectionoftheinfancynarrative,butthelectionaryreadingincludesittohelpusconnectthisstoryofJesusasagrow-ingchildwiththeprecedingpassageinwhichhewasfirstbroughttothetempleinJerusalem.BoththatearlierpassageandthispresentoneconcludewithJesusreturningtoNazarethwithMaryandJosephandgrowingphysicallyandspiritually(vv51–52,comparevv39–40).

WhileArthurJust(inhisConcordia CommentaryonLuke)andLukeTimothyJohnson(andothers)findeschatologicalsignificanceinthephrasing“afterthreedays”inverse46andseehereanallusiontoJesus’sresurrection,thewordinginGreekseemstobeamoreordinarydesignationoftimeanddoesnotnecessarilycarrythatfullertheologicalweight.

WhatdoesstandouttheologicallyistheanswerJesusgiveswhenhismotherchideshimfortheworryhehascausedhishumanparents.Theyshouldhaveknown,hesays,“thatImustbeinmyFather’shouse”(49).Afewpointscanbenotedbriefly.First,asJosephFitzmyerpointsout,thisisthefirsttimeLukeusestheimpersonaldei(“itisnecessary”)inhisgospel.ForLukethisusagehasaspecialconnotationwhichconnectsthisnecessitytoGodtheFather’splanofsalvation,whichistheimpulsebehindeverythingJesussaysanddoes.WemayalsonotethattheGreekplacestheper-sonalpronounmeinfinal(emphatic)position,whichaccentsthatthissavingplanoftheFathercentersuniquelyandemphaticallyinJesus.

Thephraseusuallytranslated“inmyFather’shouse”(en tois tou patros mou)ismoreliterally“amongthose[things/people]ofmyFather,”andissometimesrenderedsomethinglike“aboutmyFather’sbusiness.”Whileeithertranslationispossible,thecontextstressesthelocation(i.e.,thetemple)whereMaryandJosephfoundJesus,soitisbesttotranslateitastheESVdoes.

ThesefirstrecordedwordsofJesusareanunmistakableclaimtobeingtheSonofGod,aclaimwhichechoesandconfirms1:32and35.MaryandJosephdonotunderstand(v.50)whatJesushastoldtheminspiteofthoseearlierpredictionsandpromises,butLukeexpectsusasreadersofhisgospeltounderstandbyfaithwhattheywereunabletofathomatthetime.For,astheclosingversesshow,JesusdoesleavethetempleandgotoNazarethwithhishumanparents.Inotherwords,theunveilingofJesusasaboyintemplewasneithercompletenorpermanent;hereturnedtoa“nor-mal”lifeofatwelve-year-oldIsraeliteboyinfirst-centuryGalilee.

368

ThisepisodefromJesus’schildhoodisaglimpse(butnotacompleterevelation)intothedeeptruthaboutthepersonandworkofJesus,God’sSon.HerewehavewhatI.HowardMarshallcalleda“secretepiphany,”abrushwiththingswhicharenotyetfullyrevealedintheseevents,butwhichGod’sinsistentmercydrivesforwardtotheirfulfillmentinthepassionofGod’sSonforthesalvationoftheworld.

God’sself-revelationinChristisagloriousmysteryandnowapublicproclama-tioninalltheworld.Butitisnotself-evident,notevenforthosewhosawthesethingswiththeirowneyes,andinwhoseearsGod’spromiseshadrung.Thereismoreherethanmeetstheeye,andwearestillunpackingtheinexhaustibleChristmasgiftfromourFather.

WilliamW.Schumacher

Baptism of Our Lord • Matthew 3:13–17 • January 9, 2011

Still Waters Run DeepIntroduction:Overtimeyougettoknowsomepeoplewellenoughtoknowhow

they’llreact.Youhaveagoodideahowfriends,family,andco-workerswillreactincertainsituations.Somepeopleyouknowkeepacalmcomposureontheoutsidebutinsidearedeeplyintense.“Stillwatersrundeep,”wesayofsuchpeople.Today’sgospellesson,thestoryofJesus’sbaptism,showsusthat“stillwatersrundeep”describesourSavior.AsyoulearnfromthisgospelofthequietresolveofJesustobeyourSavior,hisSpiritwillgiveyouacalmcomposuretofacelife.

The text in context:JohntheBaptizerhadaverygoodunderstandingofJesus’smission.Johnknewthathewaspropheticallypreparingtheway(3:3,11).HepreachedthecomingDayoftheLord(3:7,10),urgedrepentanceandamendedlives(3:8),knewtheMessiahwouldbestowtheSpirit(3:11),and,inJohn’sGospel,identifiedJesusastheLambofGodwhotakesawaythesinoftheworld”(Jn1:29).KnowingsomuchaboutJesus,JohnwassurprisedbyJesus’srequestforbaptism.“Johntriedtopreventhim,saying,‘Ineedtobebaptizedbyyoubutdoyoucometome?’”ButJohnwasabouttolearnthat“stillwatersrundeep.”ThiswasthebeginningofJesus’spublicministry,andhewantedJohnandusalltoputthespecificsofourreligiousknowledgeintoclearfocusofhissavingmission.“Letitbesonow,”Jesussaid.“Itisproperforustodothistofulfillallrighteousness.”SotheywentdownintotherunningwatersoftheJordanforbaptism.

The teaching:ofallthepeopleinyourlife,Jesusistheoneyouneedtoknowthebest,butthat’snoteasysincewedon’tseehim.WhatdowelearnfromJesus’sdesiretobebaptized?Jesuswantedtobebaptizedto“fulfillallrighteousness.”NowJohnhadbeenpreachingaboutthepeople’slackofrighteousness,“Whowarnedyoutofleefromthewraththatistocome?”YouknowyoursinsandIknowmine.TheBiblepromisesjudgmentuponoursins(Rom6:23a;2Cor5:10;Ps143:2).SoJohnhaddrawnthecorrectconclusion:Jesusdidn’tneedbaptismfortherepentanceofhissins

369


becauseJesusdoesn’thaveanysins.Ordoeshe?Didn’thecometocarryyoursinsandmine?Bybeingbaptized,Jesusbeganhispublicministry,showingthathestepsintoourunrighteousnessinordertobringusGod’srighteousness.Insteadofusheringinan“apocalypsenow,”JesusgivesusanadvancelookathowGod’srighteousnesscomestous:bycarryingoursinsallthewaytothecross,hisworkofforgivenessandlifevali-datedbytheresurrection,andthebenefitsgivenusbytheSpirit.“Godmadehimwhohadnosintobesinforus,sothatinhimwemightbecometherighteousnessofGod”(2Cor5:21).

Application:“Stillwatersrundeep.”That’strueofJesus,anditcanbetrueofyouthemoreyougettoknowyourSavior.AsaChristianyoumaythinkyouknowJesusprettywell.Youknowthebasicsofhislife,notunlikeJohnknowingtruethingsaboutJesus.ButJesusisdeeperthananyofusknow.Troublescomeourwayinthissinfulworld.Sometimestheyaretroublesthatourownsinshavebroughtuponus.Othertimesourtroublescomefromtheunrighteousnessofotherpeople.Tucktoday’sgospelintoyourmind.Jesus’sministrystepsintoourunrighteousworldtogiveusGod’srigh-teousness.Don’tconfuseJesus’ssilenceforlackofcaring.Don’tconcludethatyourprayerforhelpisnotbeinganswered.Jesuswasbaptizedtoassureyouthatheisstand-ingwithyou.Trustthepromise!Hiscareforyourunsdeep.Inalltheunrighteousnessofourlives,JesusbringsusGod’srighteousness.Hebroughtthattoyouinthewatersofyourbaptism.Jesus’spresencegivesyoucalmcomposuretofacedailylife,andonedayhewillbringyoutothestillwatersoftheLord’seternalhouse.Untilthen,yourspiritualwaterscanrundeepbecausethemostimportantpersonofallstandswithyou.

DaleA.Meyer

Epiphany 2 • John 1:29–42a • January 16, 2011

Because They Have Seen?Seeingisbelieving.Orsothesayinggoes.InthegospelofJohn,however,there

ismuchtobesaidforthesuggestionthatwhatthegospelismeaningtoextolishear-ingnotseeing.Ifoneistoseewhatonlythemindandtheheart—whatonlythe“eyesoffaith”—canseeaboutJesus;ifoneistoknowwhoJesusreallyisandwhatitisthattheLambofGodhasdonetotakeawaythesinsoftheworld(1:29),onemusthaveearsthatarereadytohearwhateyescaninnowaysee.“Haveyoubelieved,becauseyouhaveseen?”asksJesus(20:29).Orhassomethingelsehappened?Somethingmore?Frombeginningtoend,St.John’sgospelconsistentlyandcompellinglyindicatesthatsomethingelsemustindeedhappenifanyaretoknowJesusofNazareth(1:45–46)asGodandLord(20:28).

The TestifierSoearlyon,onthedaythatJesusfirstappearsinSt.John’sgospel(1:29–34;cf.

1:19–28),heappearstotheonewhosepurposeinlifewastodonomoreandnoless

370

thantotestifytothecomingone—thegreaterone—sothatallmightbelievethroughJesus(1:6–8).Sowhenthetestifier“sawJesuscomingtowardhim,andsaid,‘Behold,thelambofGod,whotakesawaythesinoftheworld!ThisisheofwhomIsaid,‘Aftermecomesamanwhoranksbeforeme’”(1:29–30),thetestifiersaidthisbecauseheknewthatJesuswasnotjustgreaterbutwas,infact,thelong-awaited,much-antici-patedgreatest-of-allone(o[ti prw/to,j mou h=n,1:30;cf.o` prw/tojinRv2:8;22:13).Hesaidthis—heknewthis—aboutJesusnotbecausehehadseenitinJesus.Hesaidthisbecausesomeonehadalreadytoldittohim,becausehehadalreadyhearditfromGodhimself.Atfirst,declaresthetestifier,“I did not know him,butforthispurposeIcamebaptizingwithwater,sothathe(thegreaterone)mightberevealedtoIsrael”(1:31).“IsawtheSpiritdescendfromheavenlikeadove,anditremainedonhim”(1:32).Buteventhen“I did not know him,buthewhosentmetobaptizewithwatersaid tome,‘HeonwhomyouseetheSpiritdescendandremain,thisishewhobaptizeswiththeHolySpirit’”(1:33).Then,andonlythen,didheknowhim.Then,andonlythen,didheproclaim,“thisistheSonofGod”(1:34).FromtheFathertothetestifierawordisspoken,awordisheard,sothatitmightbetakentoheartandbelieved,sothatitmightinturnberepeated,sothatitmightbeheardagainandagainandagain.

The First Followers of JesusSothenextday,“Johnwasagainstandingwithtwoofhisdisciples,andhe

lookedatJesusasJesuswaswalkingbyandsaid(again),‘Behold,thelambofGod!’Thetwodisciplesheardhimsaythis,andtheyfollowedJesus.Jesusturnedandsawthemfol-lowingandsaidtothem,‘Whatareyouseeking?’Andtheysaidtohim,‘Rabbi’(whichmeansTeacher),‘whereareyoustaying?’”(1:35–38).For,atthebehestoftheirfor-merteacher,John,athisword(cf.3:29–30),theirwishwastogo—tostay—withthisgreaterone;theirwishwastoallythemselveswithhim,tobehisdisciples.AndsoJesus“saidtothem,‘Comeandyouwillsee.’Sotheycameandsawwherehewasstaying,andtheystayedwithhim”(1:39).FromJohntohisowndisciples(thefirstofJesus’sdisciples)awordisagainspoken,awordisheard,sothatfromthesetoothersitmightberepeated,itmightbeheard,againandagainandagain.

The Subsequent Followers of JesusSo,“OneofthetwowhoheardJohnspeakandfollowedJesuswasAndrew,

SimonPeter’sbrother.HefirstfoundhisownbrotherSimonandsaidtohim,‘WehavefoundtheMessiah’(whichmeansChrist).(And)HebroughthimtoJesus”(1:40–42).Inotherwords,hecontinuedthepatternofrepeatingwhathehimselfhadheardtootherssothattheytoomighthear,sothattheytoomightbebrought—mightcome—toJesus.For“theblessed”arethosewhobelievenotonaccountofwhattheyhaveseen(20:29),whichcanonlytakeapersonsofar,butonaccountofwhattheyhaveheard,“onaccountoftheword”(17:20)thatisgivensothatitmightbepassedfromgenerationtogenerationuntilthedaythatfinallyallwillbeblessedto“see him just as he is”(1Jn3:2).Fornow,however,itsuffices—fornowitiseverything—that“Jesusdidmanyothersignsinthepresenceofthedisciples,whicharenotwritteninthisbook;

371


butthesethingsarewrittensothat(hearingthem!)youmaybelievethatJesusistheChrist,theSonofGod,andthat,believing,youmayhavelifeinhisname”(20:30–31).

BruceSchuchard

Epiphany 3 • Matthew 4:12–25 • January 23, 2011

Howrichcanatextbe?Howmanyoptionscanonetextgiveapreacher?TherichnessofoptionsisalmostoverwhelmingasGodspeakstousaspreachersandtohispeople.

Followinghistemptation,JesusbeginshisGalileanministry.Insummaryandrapid-fireform,MatthewushersinJesus’swork.Inthissummary,weseewhatJesusdidinhisministryandwhatwecandoashisfollowers.

Whataresomeoftheoptionsforthepreacher?

1. JesusfulfillsthepropheciesfoundintheHebrewscriptures(4:12–16).2. Jesuspreachesrepentanceandtheadventofthekingdomofheaven (4:17).3. Jesuscallshisdisciplesaspeoplewhowillbe“fishersofmen,” evangelistswhofollowJesus(4:18–22).4. Jesusteaches,proclaimingthegospelofthekingdom(4:23).5. Jesusheals“everydiseaseandillnessamongthepeople”(4:23–24).6. Jesusdrewgreatcrowdsofpeoplewhofollowedhim(4:4–25).

Anyoftheseoptionscanbecomethematicforthesermonoftheday.Anoft-usedandimportantthemeisdiscipleship.

JeffGibbshighlightssomeofthesethemesintheConcordia Journal,Volume21,Number4,October1995,pp.439–442.Gibbs’sfocusontherevelationofJesusastheMessiahSonofGod(4:12–16),hisemphasison“thereignofheaven(whichis)thelong-awaitedeschatologicalinterventionofGod,thekingofkings,wherebyhewilldefeatthepowersofsatanandevilandbringabouthislong-promisedreign”(pp.439–440)(4:17–23),andthecallingofdisciples(4:18–22)becomecentraltohissuggestionsforhomileticalwork.Highlightingdiscipleship,Gibbswrites:“ThefirstthingthatJesusdoesiswhathedesirestodountiltheendoftheage:tomakedisciples….Evenasheproclaimedthegospelmessage(4:23)thatinhimselfliesGod’spowertosavebothnowandontheLastDay,sodoeshestillearnestlydesirethatgospeltobeproclaimedtotheendsoftheearth”(p.441).

QuentinWesselschmidt,saintedcolleague,underscoresthecallofthedisciples(4:8–22)inworkingwiththistextintheConcordia Journal,Volume30,Number4,October2004,pp.398–399.“Thistextprovidesthepastorwithanexcellentopportu-nitytoreflectonwhatitmeanstobeafollowerofJesusChrist,toweighthedemands,andcountthecostofdiscipleship.ThepastorcanalsocallattentiontothejoysofbeingafollowerofJesusChrist.AnexcellentresourceforfurthermaterialisMartin

372

Franzmann’sFollow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew(St.Louis:Concordia,1961)”(p.399).

Discipleshipisawonderfultheme.ItpointsoutthatJesusbringstogetherpeopletobewitnessestohim.Hisworkiswhathedoesalone,buthisworkincludesgatheringotherswhocarrytheworkon.Itis,thus,ourtaskashiscalleddisciplestofollowhimandusehisministryasourexample.

Butwhatworkdowecarryon?Preachingrepentance?Certainly!Callingandequippingotherdisciples?Yes!TeachingGod’sWord?Absolutely!Healingdiseases?

Moredifficultintwenty-firstcenturyAmericamightbepreachingorteachingonMatthew’switnesstoJesus’shealingministry.Inwhatways,asfollowersofJesus,dowefollowhiminhishealingofdisease?

TryoutGarthLudwig’sOrder Restored: A Biblical Interpretation of Health, Medicine, and Healing,(St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1999).CPHsays,“Thisbookurgesareturntothehealingministrybyministers,congregations,andChristians,throughprayer,faithandworship….Theauthordescribesdiseaseasdisorder,soheal-ingrequirestherestorationoforderinone’slife.Heseparatesdiseaseandillnessandnotesthatapersoncanbecuredoftheirillnessbyrestoringorderthroughfaithandbeliefwhilestillhavingthedisease”(www.cph.org).

Or,althoughoutofprint,seeMartinScharleman’s Healing and Redemption(St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingHouse,1968)foranotherexcellentresource.

Anothereasy-to-readsourceisW.DanielHaleandHaroldKoenig,Healing Bodies and Souls: A Practical Guide for Congregations(Minneapolis:FortressPress,2003).

Suggested OutlineI. Jesus’shealingministryintheBibleII. IllnessanddiseasetodayIII. Thechurch’shealingtasksinthehereandnowIV. OurultimatehealinginChrist.Sincethehealingministryissoeasilymisunderstood,acarefulstudybefore

preachingandteachingaboutitisquiteimportant.Butthatitiseasilymisunderstoodisnottherationaleorexcusetorunfromaddressingthequestionofhealth,healing,andsalvation.AswewalkthroughthelifeandministryofJesus,healingofthewholeper-sonisacentralfeature.

BruceM.Hartung

Epiphany 4 • Matthew 5:1–12 • January 30, 2011

Inthispericope,Jesusisproclaimingtheblessingsofhisreigntothosegatheredaroundhimonthemountain.Hiswordsaddressarepentant,lowlypeoplewiththeassuranceofGod’spresenceandreignoverthem(inJesus:Immanuel)andthepromiseofeschatologicalblessings.Theseblessingswhichare yet to comearesorich,

373


profound,andcompletethattheyinviteJesus’slowlyhearersintopresentjoy,hope,andtransformationoflife.

Forhelpfulexegesisofandtheologicalreflectionuponthesebeatitudes,seeJeffreyA.Gibbs,Matthew 1:1–11:1(ConcordiaCommentary;SaintLouis:Concordia,2006).ScripturaltextswhichofferimportantbackgroundorsharedthemesincludePsalms24and37;1John3;Revelation21–22;andMatthew1–4,especiallythetempta-tionnarrativein4:1–11.

ThistextisappointedduringEpiphanybecauseitrevealsthenatureofthedivinereignwhichisbreakingintohumanhistoryinthepersonofJesus.InMatthew’sGospel,Jesus’skingshiphasbeenaprominentthemethroughthefirstfourchapters.Inchapter1,Jesusiscalledthe“sonofDavid”(1:1)whoisthendescribedasto.n Daui.d to.n basile,a.Inchapter2,themagicomeasking“Herodtheking”(2:1)thequestion,“WhereishewhohasbeenbornkingoftheJews?”Inchapter3,JohntheBaptistpro-claims,“Repent,forthekingdomofheavenhasdrawnnear”(3:2).Johnfurtherspeci-fiesthenatureofthisheavenlyreignbytyingittothe“onewhowillcomeafterme”(3:11).InChapter4,thedeviltemptsJesusonahighmountainbyshowinghimpa,saj ta.j basilei,aj tou/ ko,smou kai. th.n do,xan auvtw/n (4:8)—akindofparodyofthetruekingandthekingdomwhichhewillproclaimonthemountin5:1–12.

Finally,intheversesimmediatelyprecedingthispericope,Jesusgoesaboutpro-claiming,“Repent,forthekingdomofheavenhasdrawnnear”(4:17)andpreachingto. euvagge,lion th/j basilei,aj(4:23).“If‘thereignofheaven/God’standsnear,thentheGodofheavenhascomedowntoreign,toperformhiskinglydeeds.Thus,thereignofGodisnotprimarilyaplace.Rather,itisadivine actionthatoccurswhereJesusis,throughhiswordsanddeeds”(Gibbs48–49).

SpaceprohibitsadetaileddiscussionofeachofthenineBeatitudes,astimewilllikelyprohibitthisinasermon,butafewoverallobservationsmaybeuseful:

Present and Future.Matthew5:3band5:10bbrackettheotherblessingswitharepeated,present tenseassurance:“…fortheirsis(evstin)thekingdom/reignofheaven.”Jesus’sotherdeclarationsherearegenerallyfuture passive,implyingGod’sactionforthepeopleonthelastday.(“Theywillinherittheearth”in5:5,whilegrammaticallyfutureactive(klhronomh,sousin),isconceptuallypassive.“TheywillseeGod”in5:8likewiseseemsanexception,butmightbeunderstoodas“…willbepermitted/enabledtoseeGod.”)Jesus’swords,then,standasatwo-foldproclamationtothosewhoarespiritual-lypoorandlowly:“First,youshouldknowthatJesus,God’sappointedking,hascomeforyouandisalreadynowwithyouandreigningoveryou.Second,inspiteofpresentweaknessandstruggles,youcantrustthatthedayoftheLordiscomingandthathewillactdecisivelyforyouonthatday.Hewillcomfortyou(v.4)andgiveyouashareintheeternally-renewedearth(v.5).Hewillgiveyouthesatisfactionofjustice,thingsbeing“maderight”foryouandothers(dikaiosu,nh,v.6).Hewillshowyouhismercyinthefinaljudgment(v.7).Hewillgiveyoutheprivilegeofseeinghiminhisgloryandbeauty(v.8).Hewillownyouashisownchild(v.9).

Faith, endurance, and joy.ThesearethechiefresponseswhichtherhetoricoftheBeatitudessolicits.Jesus’sdeclarationsheredonotsummonhishearerstostrivefor

374

povertyofspirit,lowliness,etc.Instead,headdressesthosewho,inpartbyhisearlierpreachingofrepentance,findthemselvestobespirituallyhelpless,withoutstatusandwithoutexcusebeforeGod.Jesusproclaimsthegoodnewsthathehascometobeagraciouskingpreciselyforsuchhelpless,empty-handedsinners.

From“they”to“you.”Thefirsteightblessingsarespokeninthethirdperson,buttheninthchangestosecondpersonaddress:“Blessedareyou(plural)whentheyrevile/insultyou…becauseofme.”Whilethischangemayrepresentonlyanoralcuethatalistiscomingtoanend,itmayalsofunctiontoinvite“outsiders”toseethepromisesofJesusandhisreignastheirown.Forthehearer,“forthem”hassuddenlybecome“forme.”Thischangeinaddress,then,mayaddrhetoricalemphasistothislastblessing(5:11–12),whichwouldalsoservetohighlightthedesiredresponsetothisblessingandtheBeatitudesasawhole:Cai,rete—Rejoice!

Suggested Outline: “The Blessings of Our King”I. Introduction:Jesushascometoreignasking. A. NotHerod(Mt2). B. NotSatan(Mt4). C. ButJesus,theSonofDavid,theking(Mt1). D. HehascometobringnearthereignofGod(Mt4:17,23). E. Hiskinglyblessingsarewonforusthroughhisdeathand resurrection—heisthecrucifiedking(Mt27:37,42)andthe risenking(28:18–20).II. TowhomdoesJesusbringhisblessings? A. Thepoorinspirit. B. Themourning. C. Themeek/lowly. D. Thoselefthungryforjusticeintheworld.III. Whatblessingswillthiskingbring?(Focusontwoorthreeofthe futurepromises.)IV. Whenwilltheblessingsbegiven? A. Hehascomenearandreignsoverusalreadynow. B. Thefocusandfullnessofhiskingdompromisesisthelastday. C. Andsowewatch,weendure,werejoice—showingmercyand makingpeace.

TomEgger

Epiphany 5 • Matthew 5:13–20 • February 6, 2011

The Text’s Limits: A Strong SuggestionAlthoughthelectionaryhasputtogether5:13–16and5:17–20,Iwouldstrongly

suggestseparatingthem.Averysolidcasecanbemadefortheviewthat5:13–16

375


adherecloselytotheBeatitudes(5:3–12).Ontheotherhand,5:17–20introduceanewandsignificanttopicintheSermonontheMountandmarkatransitionandintro-ductiontothesixso-called“antitheses”foundin5:21–48.Toattempttopreachoneunifiedsermonon5:13–20wouldbe,Iamconvinced,practicallyimpossible,andIrecommendagainstit.Inthebriefcommentsthatnowfollow,Iwillfocusmyattentionentirelyon5:13–16,the“saltandlight”sayingsthatapplytoJesus’sdiscipleswhohavejustheardtheBeatitudes(5:3–12).

Jesus’s Teaching: The Identity and Purpose of His DisciplesThedoubly-metaphoricalproclamationthat“you,plural”arethesaltoftheearth

andthelightoftheworldaddressesthosewhohavejustheardthenine-folddeclara-tionof“blessed”intheBeatitudes.Itwouldbefollytotrytobelieveandliveouttheidentityandpurposegivenin5:13–16withoutthepowerofblessingfoundin5:3–12!TwocommentsontheBeatitudeswillhavetosuffice;moreextensivecommentsontheBeatitudescanbefoundinJeffreyA.Gibbs,Matthew 1:1—11:1,pages234–256.First,Beatitudes1–4(Mt5:3–6)proclaimthathumancreatureswhohavenothinginthemselvestoofferGodneverthelessreceiveallthegiftsthathavecomethroughJesus.Tosumup,alltheblessingsofGod’sreigninJesusaregiventothespirituallybank-rupt,andthatiswhytheyarenowprofoundlyandeternallyblessed.Second,Beatitudes5–8(Mt5:7–12)pronouncefurtherblessinguponJesus’sdiscipleswho,byvirtueoftheirrelationshipwithhim,havebeguntobemerciful,havereceivedpurehearts,nowworkforGospelpeace,andmayevensufferpersecution.Frombeginningtoend,theBeatitudespresupposethe“preachingoftheLaw”;onlythosewhohavebeguntorepent(3:2;4:17!)canhear5:3–12aright.Forsuch,Jesusspeakspowerful,strengthening,reorientinggospel,bothtoJesus’soriginaldisciplesandtoallwhowillbelievetheirmessagetoday.

Inlightofthatblessedness,Jesus’swordsin5:13–16tohisdisciples—allbeliev-ers—canbeunderstoodtobeasummarydescriptionandapplicationofthedoctrineofvocation;thewordsapplywhereveryoulive.Bothmetaphors(sincetheyareparallel,andthetextshowsnosignsofintendingacontrast)arepositiveones.Bothmetaphorsexpressan“objective”genitive.“Yousalttheearth;youenlightentheworld.”Themetaphoricaluseof“salt”inthescripturesandintheancientworldpreventsanyinter-pretationthatistoospecific:“flavoring,”“preserving,”etc.Thepicture,however,isjustaspositiveasthesecondone.Lightshinesindarknessandshowstheway;italertsonetothepresenceofdanger.Ultimately,thelightofgoodworksinthelivesofJesus’sdisciplesrevealsthecharacterofGodtheFather.

Jesus’swordsdocontainawarningandapossiblerebuke.Althoughaliteralimpossibility,theLordspeaksofsaltthathaslostitsflavor;heholdsouttheabsurdarrangementofalampthatislit,onlytobehiddenunderabasket.Thereisadangerthathisdiscipleswouldforgetormisunderstandthecallingthattheyhavereceivedasthosewhohavebeenblessed,forgiven,saved,andcalled.Lestdisciplesbegintofor-get,Jesus’swordsaredirectandclear:“Letyourlightshineinthepresenceofpeople”(5:16a).Thenatureofthelightisalsoclear:“yourgoodworks”(5:16b).Thepurposeof

376

shiningofsuchlight?ThatpeoplewillseethegoodworkandrecognizeitastestimonytotheheavenlyFather.ThispurposeistomotivatewhatChristiansdo,individuallyandcorporately.WhetherornotthepurposecomestopassisuptoGod.

Thisreadingthusinvitesthecongregationtograspbyfaithitsidentityasacommunityandtolivenotforthemselves,butforothersandfortheworld.IntheLutherantradition(whenitisbadlymisunderstood),“goodworks”canalmostcometohavea“badname.”NotsowithJesus.Havingfilledhisemptydiscipleswithblessing(5:3–12),henamesthemsaltandlightandsendsthemouttotheirvocationsandtheircommunitiesasthosewhoblessotherswiththegoalofrevealingwhatGod,theFatheroftheLordJesus,islike.Justassurelyassaltisablessingandlightbringshopeandclarity,soJesus’sdisciples,bytheirgooddeeds,showotherswhotheirFatheris.

JeffreyA.Gibbs

377

book reviewS

COncordiaournalJ


MARTIN LUTHER: A Life Reformed. ByPaulW.Robinson.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation/LongmanPress,2010.105pages.Paperback.$20.00.

MartinLutherremainsoneofthemostpopularsubjectsforbiographers,besidesJesusChrist.Whyanotherbiog-raphy?Whysuchashortoverviewofoneofthemostinfluentialindividualsintheworld?Theanswerisfoundinthebookitself.PaulRobinsonhasprovidedaconcise,yetinsightfulreviewofLuther’slifeandworkforthegeneralreaderaswellasfortheinterestedstudent.AsapartoftheLibraryofWorldBiographyseries,RobinsonhasculledtheimportantfeaturesofLuther’slifewithahistoricalperspectivethatengagesthescholaraswellasthenon-professional.

ArrangedintofivechaptersaroundcentralchronologicalthemesofLuther’slife—monk(1483–1511),professor(1512–1519),reformer(twochapters:1520–1521and1522–1529),andpreacher(1530–1546)—thisworkfollowsthepat-ternofearlierbiographers,yetofferscreativeinterpretativelensesforfurtherstudybyselectivelyplacingLuther’sideasintotheirbroaderhistoricalcon-texts.Eachchapter(exceptforchapter4,whichisprobablysubsumedunder3)beginswithabriefintroductiontothaterainLuther’slifetimeandconcludeswithaquotationfromLutherhimself(againexceptforchapter4)underthesubtitle,“LutherinHisOwnWords.”Uniqueinthisbookletisasectionenti-tled“WritingHistory,”whichgivesahis-torian’sviewofthecontextofLuther’slifeoramannerofhistoricalreportinginthattimeorwhichreflectshistoricalissuesraisedbyscholarsregardingthatparticularperiod.

SelectingimportanteventsinthelifeofsuchanactivechurchmanandprofoundtheologianasMartinLutherisobviouslyonerous,yetPaulRobinsonhasdoneayeoman’sjobincarryingoutthetaskinawinsomemanner.Chapters1and2flownicelyastheyexploretheyearsuptoandincludingtheindulgencecontroversyanditsconsequentpapalresponses.Puttingthebestinterpreta-tiononthemotivationsofLuther’sopponents,Robinsonunderscorestheprofoundlypersonal,yetrichlynuancedrationalethatledtoLuther’sbreakwiththechurchasevidencedintheLeipzigDisputation.

Chapters3and4providemuchmeat,yetcarefullyminced,asRobinsondealswith“TheReformer(1520–1521)”and“TheReformer(1522–1529).”ThatdistinctivebreakinthechronologyofLuther’slifeenablesRobinsontopres-entanoverviewofthecrucialissuesthatledtotheDietofWormsanditscon-sequences.ThelatterchapterdealswithformativepoliticalandtheologicalissueswhichengagedLutherafterWorms.Afinalchapter,misleadinglyentitled“ThePreacher(1530–1546),”dealswithLuther’sactivitiesmorebroadlyasachurchman—theDietofAugsburg,PeaceofNuremberg,familyanduniver-sityactivities,andseveralcontroversiesandconflictswhichengagedLuther’slateryears.Throughouttheselatterchap-ters,RobinsonhaskepthisfocusbyneatlyhighlightingthevariouscontextsofLuther’sactivitiesandhisoverallfocusonGod’sgrace.

Helpfulforthenovicescholararethebackmaterialsaftereachchapteraswellasafterthefinalchapter.Anindexofsourceswithanexplanationoftheirsignificanceisprovidedalongwith

380

historicalinformationonLuther’slifeinEnglishunless“noEnglishequivalentisavailable”(92).TheseincludeeditionsofLuther’sworks,biographies,backgroundtothesixteenthcentury—specifically,printing,art,people—“Lutherand…”,andhistorywritingoftheReformationera.Afairlythoroughchronologyisfol-lowedbyabeneficialglossaryofkeytermsforthenon-expert.Theindex,thoughonlythreepages,iswelldoneforsuchabriefwork.

Knowingthelimitsofthisbiographyseries,Ihaveoneminorcriticismofthisbook:thelackofreferencestoprimarysourcesforfurtherfollowup.Thehelpfulbibliographydoesnotprovidethesuf-ficientlyspecificsourcereferencesfromwhichparticularideasarederived;thisiseventruefortheactualquotesfromLuther’sworks.Somekindofbriefnota-tionofsources(eitherfromtheAmericanEditionortheWeimarerAusgabe)wouldhaveprovenadvantageousforstudentswhoshouldbeinterestedinpursuingLuther’sideasmorefully.

EditionsofLutherbiographieswillcontinuetobeproduced,especiallyinthecomingdecadeasweapproachthefive-hundredthanniversaryoftheReformation.Robinson’sbookprovidesanevenhandedandsuccinct,yetreadableresourceforindividualsinterestedinabrief,butdetailedoverviewofLuther’slifeandthehistoricalimpacthehadontheearlymodernworld.Luther’slifecertainlywasonewhichformedandre-formedtheworldashesoughttorestoretheresound-inggoodnewsofGod’sloveinChrist.

TimothyMaschkeConcordiaUniversity

Mequon,WI

PHILIP MELANCHTHON AND THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. ByJohnSchofield.(St.AndrewsStudiesinReformationHistory)Aldershot:Ashgate,2006.xv+229pages.Hardcover.$110.00.

ArevisedversionofhisNewcastlePh.D.dissertation,Schofield’sisnotabadbook;itiseven,inparts,averywel-comecontributiontoscholarshiponthequestionofLutheraninfluenceontheEnglishReformation.Thatbeingsaid,anumberofshortcomingsmightcauseoneseriouslytoconsiderwhetherthebenefitsoutweighthecostofthisslimbutexpen-sivevolume.

Onthepositiveside,SchofieldistobecommendedforclearlyoutliningMelanchthon’sunsoughtroleasateacherofthechurchandhissubsequentimpactontheReformationinEngland.HeisunquestionablycorrectinarguingthattheecumenicallymindedMelanchthon,morethananyotherGermantheologian,mighthavemadepossibleanAnglo-Lutheranrapprochement.HealsoconvincinglymakesthecasethatHenryVIII’sspo-radicflirtationwiththeGermantheolo-gianswasdrivennotsolelybydiplomacy,butbyaserious—ifconfused—inter-estintheology.HissuggestionthatLutheranism’sfailureinEnglandwas,ironically,duelesstoitsrejectionbyHenrythantoitslatermarginalizationbyevangelicalssuchasArchbishopCranmer,isalsopersuasive.

EvenmoreconvincingistheconcludingchapteronthereligionofElizabethIinwhichSchofieldhighlightstheQueen’schildhoodeducationinMelanchthon’sLociaswellasherGreekandLatintuitionunderMelanchthon’sformerpupilJohnSpithovius,whowould

381


laterserveasElizabeth’semissarytoLutheranDenmark.ItisinthepersonofElizabeththatSchofieldfinallyfindsarealcommitmenttotheAugsburgConfession;acommitmentimpossiblebythistimetoimplementnationallyonaccountoftheReformedleaningsofherclergyandfurtherweakenedbythedeathofMelanchthonhimselfonlyeighteenmonthsaftertheQueen’scoronation.Nevertheless,SchofieldconcludeshisworkwiththeproposalthatElizabethbedeemeda“Melanchthonian”inreligion.

FurtherkudosaredeservedforSchofield’sconvincingcaseforThomasCromwell’sauthorshipoftheTenArticles,hiscarefultreatmentofMelanchthon’seucharisticunderstanding,andhishigh-lightingofMelanchthon’sdefenseofMarianexilesinLutheranlands.

What,then,isnottolike?Tobeginwith,verylittleoftheabovewasprevi-ouslyunknown.Moreproblematic,how-ever,arehintsthatSchofieldhimselfisunawareofthis.Heclaims,forexample,thatHenry’sseekingofreligiousadvicefromEuropeantheologiansis“anoftenoverlookedaspectofHenry’sdivorcecri-sis”(59),whichisfarfromthecase.ThatSchofieldcouldmakesuchasuggestionseems,atleastinpart,relatedtohisuseofsources;someofthoseuponwhichhemostheavilyrelies,especiallyinearlychapters,areseriouslyoutdated.Similarly,almostwhollylackingisanyrealengage-mentwithmorerecentauthorswhoseresearchmightcontradict,oratleastqualify,hisown.Whilethisresultsinabookmuchlesspolemicalthanmightotherwisehavebeenthecase—whichMelanchthonwouldsurelyappreciate—italsoevadessomeofthemostimportant,andmostdebated,historiographicalques-tionscurrentinEnglishReformation

studies.WithregardtoHenryVIII,forinstance,wasittheKinghimselforhisministersandadvisorswhomostcloselydirectedthereligiouschangestakingplaceduringthe1530sand1540s?JusthowtheologicallyliteratewastheKing?

Afailuretoanswersuchquestionsdecisively—andtochallengealternativesuggestions—leadsultimatelytosomeconfusion.Tonotejustoneexample:itissomewhatdifficulttobelievethatHenrywassuchanamateurtheologianthathecouldnotappreciatethevastdifferencebetweentheLutherandoctrineofjus-tificationandhisown(133-4),whileatthesametimebelievingthattheKing’sknowledgeofthechurchfatherswassosophisticatedthatheconsciouslysoughttocreateachurchandtheologyinhar-monywiththe“middlefathers”(Cyprian,Augustine,etal.)ratherthanearlyfatherssuchasIrenaeusorlaterfatherssuchasGregory(126).

Thoughtheremayberoomforhon-estdebateoversuchissuesofinterpreta-tion,thisisnotthecasewithsomesimplefactualerrorsthatslippedbytheeditors.KingHenry,astaunchtransubstantiation-ist,isforexampledescribedasbeing“ada-mantthatthesubstanceofthebreadandwineremainedafterconsecration”(119).Melanchthon,conversely,isdescribedasneverhavingacceptedpredestinationeveninitsmodest,“single-predestinarian”form(xiv).Finally,andadmittedlymorepedan-tically,someawkwardandanachronisticanalogiesoccasionallymarSchofield’sotherwiseclearandpleasantprose.ComparingHenryVIIIto“amodernevangelicalafteranAlphacourse”(77)orLutherto“thegreatformerworldheavyweightboxingchampion,MuhammedAli”(38)issimplymoredistractingthanilluminating.

382

Suchquibblesaside,itmustbeadmittedthatSchofield’sworkdoeswhatitstitlesaysitwilldo—describetherela-tionshipbetweenPhilipMelanchthonandtheEnglishReformation.Evenifmanyofitsconclusionsareneithernewnorwhollypersuasive,havingthemdrawntogetherinonevolumewillcertainlybenefitafuturegenerationofstudentsapproachingthequestionofsixteenth-centuryAnglo-Lutheranrelations.

KoreyD.MaasConcordiaUniversity

Irvine,CA

Editor’s Note: The following reviews by Professor Reed Lessing reflect some of his latest research in anticipation of his Concordia Commentaries on Isaiah.

ENCOUNTERING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH: A Historical and Theological Survey.ByBryanE.Beyer.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2007.303pages.Paper.$24.99.

ThebookofIsaiahisoneofthemostcomplexandtheologicallysignifi-cantbooksintheHebrewBible.Beyer’sbookseekstomakeitsmessageclearandapplicableforhistargetaudience,whichappearstobeundergraduatesatanevangelicalChristianuniversity.Hestructureshisbookbymeansofside-bars,chapteroutlinesandobjectives,keytermsandglossary,studyquestions,andsuggestionsforfurtherreading.Sidebarsincludetitleslike,“ThePlaceoftheSacrificialSysteminIsrael’sFaith,”“TheProphetsandSocialJustice,”“HumanReactionstoTheophaniesinScripture,”“Sennacherib’sSiegeofJerusalem,”and“VineyardImagesinIsaiah5and27.”

Beyer’sinterpretivestrategyistoreadIsaiahholistically,movetotheNewTestament,andthenapplythetexttoevangelicalChristianconcerns.Hence,hesprinkleshisbookwithcommentslike,“Isaiah’swords[66:19]anticipatetheGreatCommissionproclaimedbytherisenJesusashesentforthhisdisciplestomakemoredisciplesthroughoutalltheworld(Mt28:18–20)”(32).Inhiscom-mentsonIsaiah4:2,theauthornotesthatthisisIsaiah’sintroductiontothethemeofaredemptive“branch.”Hisdiscussioncontinuesinto11:1wheretheprophetstatesthebranch’sidentityascoming“fromthestumpofJesse”whichisareferencetoDavid’sline(e.g.,1Sm16:1,11–13).BeyerconcludeswithasidebarthatdiscussesChrist’sfulfillmentofthesetextsandhiscurrentpowerasking.

Beyer’sanalysisoftheoverallmove-mentofIsaiahisrare,buthisdiscussiononIsaiah41–42isanexception.IsraelisYahweh’schosenservant,sothenationneednotbeafraid.Yahwehiswiththem,eventhoughtheyfeellikeworms.Hispowerwillgivethemstrengthtoaccom-plishhiswill(41:8–14).Yahweh’sidealservantwillcome(42:1–9)andhisSpiritwillguidehimtobringjusticetothenations.Bycontrast,Israelisspirituallyblindanddeaf(42:18–20).TheydonotseeorheartheplanYahwehhasforthem.

Beyer’scommentson52:13–53:12arelikewisehelpful.HenotesthattheIsaiahTargumaddsthewords“theMessiah”after52:13whichisnottheonlywitnesstothisbelief.Jewishrabbis,therefore,whodebatedearlyChristians,didnotbelieveJesuswastheMessiah,buttheydidembracetheideathatIsaiah’swordsdescribeaMessiah.Beyerthenprovidesthisanalysis:“This

383


evidenceisimportantbecausesometimesonegetstheimpressionJudaismhasalwaysmaintainedtheservantisIsrael,whereasthechurchhasbelievedtheser-vantisJesus.Actually,bothJudaismandChristianityappeartohavebeenunitedforamillenniuminbelievingthat52:13–53:12describedtheMessiah.Thediffer-enceofopinionlayonlywiththeissueoftheMessiah’sspecificidentity”(212).

AnongoinginterpretivemaladyisthatBeyeroftenmovestooquicklytoNewTestamentandChristianapplica-tionsandthereforefailstoexploreanideaorthemewithinthebookofIsaiah.Typicalarehiscommentson49:2wherehediscussestheservant’smouth,likenedtoasharpsword.HethenmovesdirectlytoRevelation19:15,whileignoringthefullerIsaianicthemeofYahweh’spow-erfulword(e.g.,11:4;40:8;55:10–11).InhisdiscussiononIsaiah13:1–14:23(theoraclesagainstBabylonandherking)BeyerdoesnotmentionIsaiah’slateroraclesagainstBabyloninchapters46–47.Andinhisdiscussionon35:5–6,whichpromisesthattheblindwillseeandthedeafhear,hedoesnotmatrixthesewordswith6:9–10whichprogram-maticallysetoutIsaiah’sblindanddeafthemes.

Beyer’ssidebarsareoneofthebook’sstrengths,yetrarelydotheyinter-actwithancientNearEasterntextstoshedlightonIsaiah’shistory,theology,andrhetoric.Forexample,heinter-prets13:1–14:23asoraclesdirectedtoBabylonandherking.However,itisnotthatsimple;forduringtheAssyrianeraBabylonpossessedaprestigesomethinglikethatofRomeintheMiddleAges.AndsoAssyriankingslikeTiglath-pileserIII,SargonII,andSennacheribwerepro-claimedsar Babiliki“kingofBabylon.”

Itmaybeargued,therefore,thatIsaiah’soraclesin13:1–14:23areaddressedtoAssyriaandtheAssyriankingSargonII.

SometimesBeyeriscareless.Forexample,inhisdiscussionon52:13hewritesthatmanyinterpretersviewtheverbsrumandnasa ’assuggestingthattheservantismorethanamerehumanbeing.Hisendnote,however,onlycitesonesuchscholar.

Thishandbookaimsforsimplicity,yetoftenendsupasoverlysimplistic.However,thoseseekingaconservativeChristianoverviewofIsaiahwillbeade-quatelyserved.

R.ReedLessing

MESSIANISM WITHIN THE SCRIPTURAL SCROLLS OF ISAIAH (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 456). ByRandallHeskett.London/NewYork:Clark,2007.Pp.xvi+353.Hardcover.$160.00.

Inthisrevisionofhis2001disser-tationatEmmanuelCollegeunderthedirectionofGeraldSheppard,RandallHeskettexaminesmessianisminthebookofIsaiah.Heskettbelievesthatinterpretations“mustextendtothedimensionsofthescripturalscrollofIsaiahasawholeandnottheprophetthatwecanreconstructbehindthebook”(35).Interpretiveproblemshaveoccurredbecausescholars“haveatomizedthetextintopre-biblicaltraditionsthatantecedethescripturalformofthebookofIsaiah”(153).Thefocus,then,isonhowthefinalredactorsofIsaiaheditedearliertextsandmadethemexpressionsofmes-sianichope.

Inhisfirstchapter,theauthoroffersadefinitionofmessianismwhichguides

384

hisstudy.“OurdefinitionofaMessiahrequiresthatapersonorpersonsofferasolutioninanextraordinarywaytoactivateandrestorewithinthisworldthepromisesmadetoDavidafterthemonarchyhasended”(3).WhileHeskettgroundshisstudyonthisdefinitionofmessianism,heoffersonlyonepagetodefendtheposition.Itwouldhavebeenhelpfulifhehadfurtherdefendedhisinterpretationofmessianism,sincethereareseveraltextsinIsaiahthatevenmostcriticalscholarsbelievearebothpre-exilicandmessianic(e.g.,32:1and33:17).Moreover,2Samuel7envisionsaperpetualDavidickingwhichgoesbeyondDavid’ssonSolomon,whilePsalm2(alsopre-exilic)invitesthenewlycrownedDavidickingtorequestnationsashisinheritanceandtheendsoftheearthforhispossession.

Inchapter2,HeskettdiscussestheroleofCyrusinIsaiah.Theironyisthat,whereashemaintainsthatroyaloracleslike9:1–6and11:1–9werereinterpretedasmessianic,Cyrus,theonly“messiah”inthebook(45:1),isde-messianized.Heexplains,“Therefore,justaslatereditorsmayreinterpretnon-messianictextsmes-sianically,theycouldjustaswellreinter-pretedmessianictextsasnon-messianic,showingthatthisshiftcanmoveinbothdirectionsasaresultofthechangingmeaningof‘messiah’”(36).

Theauthornextstudiesthethreemessianictextsof7:14,9:1–6,and11:1–9.HecontendsthatIsaiah7–11representsaleveloftraditionwhichhasbeen“rehistoricized”bythefinaledi-torsofIsaiah.Forexample,9:1–6wasanenthronementsongdescribinganidealking,butpost-exiliceditorsplacedthetextafterthe“formerthings”of8:23tomakeitmessianic.Heskettusesterms

like“progressivedehistorization”and“gradualopaqueness”todescribethechangeseditorsmadeaftertheexiletotextssuchas7:14,9:1–6,and11:1–9.

InhisthoroughstudyoftheServantSongs,HeskettusesthetermscoinedbySheppard,“systemicvagueness”and“functionalambiguity,”inordertoclarifytheenigmaticnatureofthesetexts.“Systemicvagueness”occursduetothedistancebetweenwritersoftextsandreaders.“Functionalambiguity”isanintentionalrhetoricalfeatureoftheauthor.TheauthorbelievesthatServantSongs“havebeeneditedintothelargercontext,wherebyambiguitynowfunc-tionsrhetoricallywithinthetext”(174).TheycontaintantalizingconnectionstoDavid(e.g.,11:1and53:2),butfurtherinformationiswithheld.ThesongswerelaterunderstoodmessianicallybyearlyChristians.

Lastly,HeskettexaminesIsaiah61:1–3astheonlyexplicitlymessianictextinthescrollofIsaiah.LiketheothertextssurveyedinIsaiah,61:1–3isambiguous,resultinginawiderangeofsuggestionsidentifyingthespeaker.Whilethepre-biblicalformofthistextmaynothavebeenintentionallymessianic,thereareenoughwarrantsinthebiblicaltextforlaterinterpreterstoreaditasmessianic,asdidearlyChristiansandpossiblytheQumrancommunity.Inbothcases,laterinterpretersexploittheambiguityofthetextandinterpretthetextasmessianic.

Inhisconcludingchaptertheauthorsummarizeshisresults.“TheoriginalIsaianictraditionsdidnotanticipateamessianichopeuponwhichthelatereditorsbuilt.Instead,thislatterlevelofeditingsemanticallytransformedearliernon-messianictraditionssothattheymaybere-interpretedbytheeditorsas

385


messianic”(265).Historicalcriticalmeth-odshavebeendistractedfromthemean-ingofIsaiahbysearchingforspecificSitz im Lebenforpre-biblicaltraditions.Itisonlywhenthebookisviewedfromtheperspectiveofthefinal,canonicalformthatoneisabletoreadIsaiahasawholeasprophecy.Heskettfinisheshisstudybydrawingseveralimplicationsofhisthesisforanotherlargebodyofscripturethatunderwentapost-exilicredaction,thePsalms.Inthiscasetheredactionallayersareevidenttoall,thusmakingforamorecompellingargumentthanheoffersinhisstudyofIsaiah.

Andthisgetstotheheartoftheproblem.TheonlycriteriontheauthorofferstodifferentiatebetweenIsaianicpre-biblicalandscripturallevelsistextualtension(e.g.,132).Yet,itispreciselythenatureofpropheticdiscoursetomakesuddenshiftsonalllevelsoflanguage,includingstyleandimagery,andtojux-taposemultiple,divergent,andevendis-sonantperspectivesinmuchthesamewayasintheuseofpoeticparallelism.ItisanachronistictoimposeuponthebookofIsaiahcriteriaappliedtowritingintendedtobescientificordidactic—clearanddistinctideas,logicallyordered.HeskettneedstodefendhisreasonsfordisjointingIsaianictextsjustbecausetheystandintension.Thisaside,theauthoroffersavaluablecontributiontothestudyofIsaiah.HeistobecommendedformasteryofthemassivesecondaryliteratureonmessianicpassagesaswellashissensitivitytoChristianinterpretations.

R.ReedLessing

OPENING THE SEALED BOOK: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. ByJosephBlenkinsopp.GrandRapids/Cambridge:Eerdmans,2006.315pages.Paper.$25.00.

JosephBlenkinsopp,longtimeprofessorofbiblicalstudiesatNotreDame,hasbeenaleadingfigureinthestudyofIsaiah,authoringthethreevol-umeAnchorBiblecommentaryonthis“princeoftheprophets.”InthisbookheprobesIsaiah’sinfluenceinSecondTempleJudaismandearlyChristianity.Blenkinsopp’sthesisisthat“theinterpre-tationofthebookofIsaiah[is]anessen-tialandirreplaceablefactorinthelegiti-mizing,grounding,andshapingofdis-sidentmovementsinlateSecondTempleJudaism”(xv).HisdefinitionofIsaiahis“…acollectionofmiscellaneousmaterialderivingfromanumberofanonymous(orpseudonymouslyIsaianic)authors,compiledoveralongperiodoftime,fromthe8thcenturyB.C.E.toperhapsaslateasthe3rdcenturyB.C.E.”(xvii).Assuch,hebelievesthattheinterpreta-tionofIsaiahbeginsinthebookitselfwhenredactorsbothchangedandcom-mentedonearliertexts.

BymeansofIsaiah40:3BlenkinsoppexplorestherelationshipbetweentheQumrancommunity(understoodassyn-onymouswiththeEssenes)andJohntheBaptist.QumraninterpretedIsaiah40:3programmaticallyasthebiblicalvalida-tionoftheireschatologicalseparationintheJudeanwildernessfrommainstreamJudaism.IntheCommunityRule(1QSVIII12–16),thelevelingofthebarrierscomesbystudyingTorah.BlenkinsopppostulatesthatJohntheBaptistwasamemberofthedesertsectandleftit

386

tobringitsmessageofrepentanceandeschatologicalawarenesstoallwhowouldlisten(e.g.,Mt3:2–3).

BlenkinsoppmaintainsthatitisnotjustthenumberofIsaiahquotationsandallusionsintheNewTestamentthatindicatesitsinfluenceupontheChristianfaith,butitisalsothat“thebookofIsaiahcametoserveasagridorcogni-tivemapbymeansofwhichthey[earlyChristians]couldarticulatetheirsenseoftheuniquecharacteroftheirfounderandchartthedirectioninwhichtheirdestinywasleadingthem”(136).ChiefamongIsaianictextsthatimpactedtheNewTestamentistheFourthServantSong.TheearliestChristianpreachingannouncedthatJesusisthesufferingMessiah(e.g.,1Cor15:3–4),whileIsaiah52:13–53:12isreflectedbymeansofthetermton paida(“thechild/servant”)forJesusinActs3:13,26;4:27,30.Thepas-siveverbsinIsaiah53,coupledwiththestatementthatitwas“Yahweh’swilltocrushhim”(Is53:10),influencedPaul’suseofparadidomai (e.g.,Romans8:32;1Corinthians11:23;Galatians2:20andEphesians5:2.)

Thechapterentitled“IsaianicTitlesinQumranandEarlyChristianity”isdelightful.Blenkinsoppcommentsontheword“way”(derek)inIsaiah40:3andnotesthatitisfrequentlyemployedmetaphorically.Thereisagoodway(e.g.,1Kgs8:25;Ps119:1),awayoflife(e.g.,Prv6:23),thewayofwisdom(e.g.,Prv4:11),andthewayofwell-being(Is59:8).ThePsalterbeginswiththecon-trastbetweenthewayoftherighteousandthewayoftheunbeliever(Ps1:6).Thereisalsoawaythatlooksgoodbutendsindeath(Prv14:12;cf.Mt7:13–14).Yahweh’swayissometimesinscrutable

(Is55:6–9;Rom11:33).Theearlychurchtook“theWay”asatitle(e.g.,Acts9:2;19:9,23;22:4;24:14,22).Apollosneededfurtherinstructionin“thewayofGod”(Acts18:24–28),andJesushimselftaught“thewayofGod”(Mt22:16;Mk12:14;Lk20:21).Isaiah’suseofbahar (“tochoose”)(e.g.,43:10;44:1,2;48:10;49:7)findsitswayintheNewTestamentasfollows:Jesus’disciplesarechosen(Mt20:16b;Jn15:19;Rv17:14),andhepromisesthatthelastdayswillbecutshortforthesakeoftheelect(Mt24:22).InRomans8:33,Colossians3:12andTitus1:1,PaulcallsChristians“theelectofGod.”BasedupontheFather’selec-tionofChrist(1Pt2:4,6),in1Peter2:9theapostleaddressesthebaptizedwiththeterm“electpeople.”

BlenkinsoppstandsinthetraditionofformratherthanredactioncriticismandassuchrearrangesthecanonicalformofIsaiahtosuithisinterpretations.InthiswayhedisregardsmuchofthepasttwentyyearsofIsaianicscholarshipwhichreadsthebookmoreholistically.Yet,forthosewhowantanin-depthstudyofIsaiah’sinfluenceinQumranandNewTestamenttexts,thisisyourbook.

R.ReedLessing

THE DESERT WILL BLOOM: Poetic Visions in Isaiah.EditedbyA.JosephEversonandHyunChulPaulKim.Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2009.299pages.Paper.$29.95.

Thisvolumeofessaysisacom-pilationofpaperspresentedbytheFormationoftheBookofIsaiahGroupoftheSocietyofBiblicalLiterature.The

387


studiespaycloseattentiontothesyn-chronicdimensionsofthetext,figurativelanguage,specificimagery,metaphors,andmattersofintertextuality.Topicsexploredcombinescholarly,academic,andpastoralconcerns.Atotalofthirteenessaysarepresented.Iwillcommentonfourofthem.

PatriciaTull’sessaytitled“PersistentVegetativeStates,”exploresIsaiah’suseofcreationallanguage.Forexample,in40:6–8thecomparisonbetweenameadowofgrassorafieldofflowersandpeopleisacomparisonofjudgment.Carryingthisimageryfurtherin40:23–24(cf.41:2),Isaiahemploysthesameideastodescribeprincesandrulers.Theywitherandarecarriedofflikestubble.Tull’spointisthatpeoplearenotinaseparatecategoryfromcreation.Whathappenstograssandflowershappenstous.Theythriveandwethrive;theydieandwedie.Treeslament(e.g.,33:9)andsodopeople(e.g.,6:5);treesrejoice(e.g.,14:8;44:23;55:12)andsodopeople(e.g.,42:10;51:11).Longbeforetheenvironmentalmovementburstintothemainstreamofourconsciousnesswithitswarningsaboutthemisuseofnuclearpower,thedepletionoftheozonelayer,andtheabuseofpesticidesandherbi-cides,Isaiahtestifiestotheconnectionsbetweencivilizationandvegetation.Tullmaintainsthatthe“attributionofhumancharacteristicstoplants,liketheattribu-tionofplantcharacteristicstopeople,affirmsthecriticaltiesbindinghumanstothelandscapetheydependupon,andevokesrespectfortherightsanddignityofnonhumancreation”(28).Landdeg-radationsignalsthatpeoplehaveturnedawayfromYahweh.Conversely,whenthelandflourishesIsraelhasreturnedto

itsGod(e.g.,Lv26:3–6,10;Dt28:2–5,11–12;Pss65and72).Embeddedinplantlifeisthepotentialforregeneration,andsoIsaiahpromisesthatthesurvivorsofthehouseofJudahwill“againtakerootdownwardandbearfruitupward”(37:31).Spiritualhealthandenviron-mentalwell-beingareinterconnectedthroughoutthebookofIsaiah.

Inhisessay,“ABitterMemory,”A.JosephEversontraceshowthedivinehardeningin6:9–10functionsintherestofIsaiah.WhilethethrustoftheseversesisIsrael’sinabilitytosee(rah)andhear(shma),know(yada)andperceive(bin),Isaiah40impliesthatthiscursehasbeenliftedandthepeopleareonceagainabletounderstandandperceiveYahweh’splan.“Allfleshwillsee (rah)Yahweh’sglory”(40:5).“Liftupyoureyesandsee(rah)”(40:26).“Doyounotknow(yada),haveyounotheard(shma)…doyounotperceive(bin)”(40:21;cf.40:28).Theseconnectionsindicatethatwhileanewdayhasdawned,chapter40doesnotindicateanewcallforIsaiah.Lexicalsimilaritiesindicatethatitisanexpansionofthefirstone.

WillemBeuken’sessay,“YHWH’SSovereignRule,”discussestheroleofking(s)inthebookofIsaiah.Hismajorpointisthatin33:22Isaiahsays,“YahwehisourKing”(cf.6:5),yetbothSennacherib(e.g.,36:1,2,4;37:4,8)andMerodachBaladantakethetitleofking(39:1,7).However,afterthekinglydescriptionofavictoriousYahwehin40:10–11,earthlykingsareonlydescribedintheplural.“Kings”isnormallyparallelwith“nations”(e.g.,41:2;45:1;52:15.)Thethrustoftheseinsights,Beukenmaintains,isthatthebookofIsaiahwantsallpeopletomakeHezekiah’s

388

confessiontheirown;“YahwehtheGodofthearmies,theGodofIsrael,enthronedbetweenthecherubim,youaloneareGodoverallthekingdomsoftheearth”(37:16).

AlsoexpandinguponHezekiah’sroleinthebookofIsaiahinhisessaytitled“TheSpiderPoet:SignsandSymbolsinIsaiah41,”HyunChulPaulKimnotesthattherootchazaqisacatchwordin41:1–13.Isaiahemploysitin41:6,7(twotimes)todescribehowidolatersattempttoencourageorstrengthenoneanother.In41:9,13thewordrecurs,denotinghowYahwehstrengthenshispeople.Kim’sinsightscomewhenhecallsatten-tiontothefactthatKingHezekiah(whosenameisderivedfromchazaq),ismentionedthirty-twotimesinchap-ters36–39.Thenamemeans“Yahwehhasstrengthenedhim”or“Yahwehismystrength.”LivinginBabylonandtemptedbyheridols,Isaiah’smessagetotheexilesin41:1–13istowalkinthefootstepsofHezekiahandtrustthatYahwehwillstrengthenthemagainsttheirenemies.

Isaiah’svision(1:1)isaportraitofshalomforpeopleaswellasallcreation.Theseessaysgivereadersofthismarvel-ouspropheticscrollmuchtoponderandmuchtoappreciate.

R.ReedLessing

389

LUTHERAN CHURCH EXTENSION FUND

LCEF is a nonprofit religious organization; therefore, LCEF investments are not FDIC-insured bank deposit accounts. This is not an offer to sell investments, nor a solicitation to buy. The offer is made solely by LCEF’s Offering Circular. Investors should carefully read the Offering Circular, which more fully describes associated risks. Photo © istockphoto/Amanda Rohde.

Lutheran Church Extension Fund10733 Sunset Office Drive, Suite 300St. Louis, MO 63127-10201-800-843-5233 n www.lcef.org

Supporting MiniStryWith loans and services created with the Church in mind, LCEF assists LCMS ministries in your neighborhood and around the world to build and expand.

Supporting youLCEF’s financial strength and competitive interest-rate investments provide opportunities to make a difference for investors personally and in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

With every hopeful and faith-filled aspiration

you have for your ministry or your personal investing, LCEF is no more than a

stone’s throw away.

For information, contact an LCEF Information Representative at 1-800-843-5233

or visit us at www.lcef.org.

®

Concordia Journal | Fall 2010

Documents

Transcript of Concordia Journal | Fall 2010