ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University
ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University
ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>ST</strong>. <strong>CATHARINES</strong><br />
<strong>CONCORDIA</strong>
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
published jointly by the faculties of<br />
Concorclia LutheranTheological Seminary<br />
St. Catharines, Ontario<br />
and<br />
Concordia Lutheran Seminary<br />
Edmonton, Alberta<br />
EDITORS<br />
John R. Stephcnson<br />
Nornlan J. Threinen<br />
FACULTIES<br />
Edmonton<br />
St. Catharines<br />
L. Dean Hernpelmann, S.T.M., PhD. Jonathan F. Grothe, Th.D<br />
President<br />
President<br />
Steven E. Harold, Th.M., D. Min.<br />
C. Robert Hogg, Jr., M.Div.<br />
Edward G. Kettner, Th.D.<br />
Roger J. IIumann, S.T.M.<br />
Norman J. Threincn, Th.D.<br />
John K. Stephenson, P1l.D.<br />
Ronald W. Vahl, Th.D.<br />
John R. Wilch, Dr. Theol.<br />
Lutheran Theological Review is published by the scminary faculties of Lutheran<br />
Church - Canada. Thc periodical exlsh lor the d~scuss~on of theological issues within<br />
the fiame of reference of Confessional Lutheranism, but the views represented by the<br />
individual writer\ dre not necessar~ly those of the faculties.<br />
Changes of address, paid subscriptions, and othcr business matters should be<br />
addressed to:<br />
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
P.O. Box 11 17<br />
St. Catharines, Ontario<br />
L2R 7A3<br />
Annual subscriplion rate: $7.00
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
Volume V SpringISumrner 1993 Number 2<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Foreword ..................................................... 5<br />
.................................<br />
E. Edward Hackmann: An Appreciation 7<br />
ARTICLES<br />
Towards Constnicting a Spiritual Family Tree. ............................ 9<br />
Erwin A . Brese<br />
AbraminEgypt .................................................... 15<br />
John R. W ilch,<br />
........................................<br />
Augsburg Conl'ession 1V & V. 28<br />
Thornas M . Winger<br />
REVIEW ARTICLE<br />
Scripture Within Scripture<br />
...................<br />
Rogfr J. Hum~znn<br />
HOMILIES<br />
The Kingdom Ours Remaineth ........................................ 50<br />
Mumin M. Meitz<br />
..............................................<br />
Remembrance Day '93 53<br />
.Io/zn R. Stephenson
Dr. E. Edward Hackmann
EDITORIAL FOREWORD<br />
FOREWORD<br />
This issue of Luthel,un Theological Review is dedicatcd with affcction and respect<br />
to Dr. E. Edward Haclcmann who, since his retirement in January 1993, has become<br />
the second Emeritus Professor of thc St. Catharines seminary.<br />
New York pastor and St. Catharines adjunct professor Dr. Erwin Brese placcs in<br />
Biblical perspective a popular pursuit in his l'il-t contribution to these pages, "Towards<br />
Constructing a Spiritual Family Tree: Blood and Water."<br />
In an essay honouring his longtime colleague at St. Catharines, Dr. John Wilch<br />
combines Old Testament scholarship with a foray into the controverted area of<br />
"Christian Ethics" in "Absam in Egypt."<br />
Pr. Thomas Winger learned I'roni Dr. Ilackmann the importance and value of<br />
meticulous study of the Lutheran Confessions. Now assistant pasLor of Grace Lutheran<br />
Chmch where Dr. and Mrs. Hacknlann held membership during their years in St.<br />
Catharines, PS. Wingcr salutes his respected leacher in "Augsburg Confession IV &<br />
V: Justification, Means of Grace, Office of the Holy Ministry."<br />
Another long-time colleague of Dr. Hackmam contributes to this Festschrift in an<br />
article review. In LTR I:l, Dean Roger Humann deal1 with "The Function and Form<br />
of The Explicit Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John." Dr. Bruce Schuchard<br />
has dclved dceper into this subject in his recently published doctoral dissertation,<br />
Scl-iyture Within Scripture: The Inter-relationship qf'Fom and Function in the E,vylicit<br />
Old Testanzcnt Cifutions of the Gospel of John."<br />
During his years in St. Catharines, Dr. Hacknlarm thrice responded to the call to<br />
fill pastoral vacancies, once at Our Saviour in Niagara Falls: and twice at Grace in St.<br />
Catharines. There is therefore a certain appropriateness in the inclusion in this issue<br />
of a sermon by Pr. Marvin Meitz, the current senior pastor at Grace. The occasion of<br />
Pr. Meitz' hornily is, alas, an appalling tragedy which has rcceived much publicity<br />
throughout Canada and even beyond our borders. Kristen French was abducted on her<br />
way home from school on Holy Thursday 1992, and s~~bsequently found brutally<br />
mul-clered. It would appear that the abduction itself took place in Grace's parking lot,<br />
within yards of the altar at which Pr. Meitz serves. In "The Kingdom Ours Remaineth,"<br />
preached on Invocavit Sunday 1993, the Holy Gospel is pertinently brought to bear on<br />
a tragedy which has indelibly wounded St. Catharines and lcft its impact on all of<br />
Canada.<br />
At the suggestion of his colleagues, we includc a chapel homily delivered by the<br />
undersigned, "Remembrance Day 1993." The Sci-ipture Readings appointed for the<br />
day were Dan. 4:2S-33 and Lk. 18:9-14. Tn company with his colleagues and many<br />
past and present members of our student body, the undersigned has inarvelled at (13~1<br />
would not presume to emulate!) Dr. Hackmann's ability to deliver a superbly structured,<br />
coherent, and powcrful twcnty-minute setmon without a manuscript!
6 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
The editors herewith salute a colleague remarkable for courlesy in bearing,<br />
diligence in scholarship, ar~dforrnidablepresence inlearned dcbatc; and WC wishGod's<br />
every blessing to Ed and Pauline Hackmann in their Albuquesque retirement.<br />
JRS<br />
Wcdncsday in the Week of Reminiscere 1994.
E. EDWARD HACKMANN:<br />
AN APPRECIATION<br />
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in<br />
his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after<br />
him'! (Ecclesiastes 3:22 KJV)<br />
Retirement. What does it mean? How is it done? Our estecmcd colleague, Dr. E.<br />
Edward Hackmann, has embarked on that portion of his pilgrimage, along with his<br />
life's companion, Pa~rline. This has meant leaving St. Catharines, where Ed served<br />
Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary as Professor of Systematic Thcology for<br />
about a decade. It has meant moving into a new house in Albuquer-que, New Mexico,<br />
Ed's boyhood home, "where the sun shines 360 days a year." It has meant caravanning<br />
(in an Air Stream trailer) under that sun, and having time for reflection on the beauty<br />
oS everything which God has madc and continues to make "in its season."<br />
It is good, sail11 Koheleth, indeed: nothing is better than to rcjoice in onc's works<br />
which have been his portion. Ed Hackmann's "portion" has been the noble calling, a<br />
vocation to sellre the Lord in His Ministry. This he did, with faithfulness and integrity,<br />
for nigh unto fifty years, as a parish pastor in Iowa and Nebraska and as a professor at<br />
Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois; Concordia Teachers' College,<br />
Sewwd, Nebraska; Capital <strong>University</strong>, Columbus, Ohio; Concordia College, Ann<br />
Arbor, Michigan; and Concordia Lulheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines.<br />
The fruits of his labours in his vocation arc many. Scores of colleagues remember<br />
him with respecl and affection; his st~tdents, trained to think clearly and to take every<br />
thought captivc to Christ, are legion. The crisp reasoning of his clear mind lives on in<br />
things he has written, including a number of contributions to this journal.<br />
This is how retirement is done: to rejoice in those labours, not with a wrongf~d<br />
pride, but not with a falsc humility, either. There is a genuine and appropriate joy in<br />
recalling the encouragement given, the love shared, and yes: the doctrines taught. To<br />
attain to that joy is a gift from God, amongsl the best of the gifts He gives "under the<br />
SUII."<br />
"Who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?" No one can tcll what lics<br />
ahead for Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, SOS Lutheran Church-Canada or<br />
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. These instit~ltions, for whose weal Ed laboured<br />
and in whose fellowship Ecl and Pauline served and still are serving, are entities of this<br />
age. But all of his preaching and teaching, all of their counseling and encouraging, yes:<br />
even all of those meetings attended contributed to thc building up of the Church, the<br />
Body of Christ. Concerning the Ch~~rch, there is One who has caused us to see what<br />
shall be after all of this: the Lord Jesus Himself brings revelation hom beyond the sun<br />
and shows to us all our glorious future in Him.<br />
There is joj7 in retirement under the wn ... and joy beyond that in the life of the world<br />
beyond the sun.<br />
Wilh this issue OS Lutherzlri Theological Review the faculties of Concordia Lu-
X<br />
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
theran Seminary, Edmonton, and Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St.<br />
Catharines, pay gralel'ul Lribute to ProLeisor Emeritus E. Edward Hackmann and pray<br />
that Ed and Pauline have all thc joys that thc Lord has to give.<br />
JFG
TOWARDS CON<strong>ST</strong>RUCTING<br />
A SPIRITUAL FAMILY TREE:<br />
BLOOD AND WATER<br />
Erw in A . B mse<br />
"Pastor," she confided, "if I didn't have this church family, I'd have no family at all."<br />
At first the pastor Ielt warm, like he must be doing his job to make this person a past<br />
of the church family. However, hc also noted that this woman was sabotaging allempts<br />
by members of her own family to join the church. He also saw hcr need to bc in charge<br />
of everything in which she was involved, posing many problems for those who wished<br />
to work with her in church activities. What does this mean?<br />
Rabbi Ed Friedman has wisely noted that people are "simultaneously involved in<br />
three distinct familics whose emotional forces interlock, Lhe families within the<br />
congregation, the congregation, and our own."' Thesc forces at work are the living<br />
family or emotional system ol which we are all a part.<br />
So, the clergyman who pursues an undcrstanding of his own family system is<br />
simultaneously gaining an understanding of the families of the parish and of the parish<br />
as a family. To pursue such a genealogical enterprise is a useful experience in humble<br />
confession and serendipitous absolution as the hand of God is tracked through past<br />
and present.<br />
Constructing n family tree of any kind could be dismissed as prohibited by the<br />
New Testament since Titus (3:9) and Timothy (I Tim. 1:4) arc both adviscd against<br />
"vain genealogies." However, Paul's point seems to target the work of constructing<br />
family trees for the sake of vanity, using them competitively in the Kingdom where<br />
cooperation in the body of Clxist is the living and crucial way of lifc.<br />
Scripture contains lists of "begats" beginning already in Genesis (ch. 11) and<br />
running through to the very Christ of God as recordcd by Matthew (1:l-17) and Luke<br />
(3:23-37). The Gospel writers do not give the genealogies in a grudging manner but<br />
in a spirit of commcndation. To be sure, all endeavours of' mankind can and will be<br />
misused, but all are useful and bring glory to Cod by those who arc alivc in Him. The<br />
harsh words to Titus and Timothy may more likely be connected to the words of Jesus<br />
to Pharisees who saw thcir claim to grcatncss in their blood relationship Lo Abraham<br />
(John 81, thus blocking out a faith relationship to the heavenly Father who has a<br />
kingdom and people who are made up ol'niore than blood descendants of Abraham<br />
(Matt. 12:46-50, also in Mark and Luke).<br />
A warning about VAIN genealogies is in order, but the encouragement to pursue<br />
the constn~ction of a family tree in a spirit 01' humility and failh can lead to giving<br />
greater honour to our God and calling His people to their knccs in awe at thc workings<br />
ol' His I-edemptive plan in a personal and family perspective. There is no substitute for<br />
I lidwin Friedman, Geiieriinoii to (;ri?ewtioir (Ncw Yo1.k: Guilford Prcss, 1985) 1.
10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
salvation by grace through faith alone, and the pursuit of a spirilual family tree can<br />
enhance an appreciation for it.<br />
From the example of the genealogy of Jesus by Matthew, one senses that a true<br />
family search will reveal the presence of gross sins like the incest of Judah and Tamar,<br />
the prostitution of Rahab, thc thievery, murdcr, and family devastation of David,<br />
whom only the grace of God could come upon and produce a Son of David who was<br />
so much rnore. 2<br />
To look realistically at one's family of origin is to look original sin in the face<br />
with all its ugliness and shamefulness. (Such an exercise makes original sin less an<br />
academic exercise about Adam and Evc and more an expcricncc in faith.) Hence, it is<br />
not surprising that a main resistance often heard to digging into a family tree is a fear<br />
of what one might find in the closet. Such kars are well founded. However, it only<br />
increases the sin to kccp secrets in thc closct sincc they are already powerfully at work<br />
in the present in powerful covert ways. Indeed, it is much better to know them, to<br />
understand them and to live with them, than to attcmpt to recreate a world into which<br />
wc may enter full-grown and without ancestry. Only Adam and Eve can claim that,<br />
and their fate is well known.<br />
From biblical reading, from historical understanding as well as from the study of<br />
family systems, it becomes quite clear that keeping family secrets cripples and<br />
paralyses fulure generations, locking them out of a dynamic, more abundant life. Thosc<br />
who rcfusc to know history are bound to repeat it.<br />
Old Israel got in trouble repeatedly by forgetting what good God had done for<br />
their sinl'ul forefathers. No serious reading of thc Old Testament can miss sceing how<br />
the forefathers were made patriarchs, nearly objects of worship, instead of remaining<br />
as objects of God's grace upon sinful human being\. They were not moral heroes, but<br />
examples of thc powcr of a rescuing, saving and faith-giving God.<br />
PUTTING IT TOGETHER<br />
Most people are alrcady genealogists of a sort, collecting stories and clippings,<br />
photos, and heirlooms. To become an intentional builder ol' a family tree, one may<br />
avail oneself of many resources. In the secular world, genealogy has become onc of<br />
the most popular "hobbies." As a result, a person can get started by a trip to the local<br />
Post Office with a query. Local schools offer courses Ihr beginners, and most<br />
communities have organized historical and gcncalogical socictics that are eager to<br />
hclp anyone get started.<br />
Another important place to start is with living relatives. Pursue those especially<br />
who are more cur off from the family. Listen to them and ask them questions. Use a<br />
tape recorder. Look through their old family Bibles and pictures. Kecord everything,<br />
even dead ends! All infornation received--facts, dead cnds, and stories--provides<br />
important information for latcr detective work. Buried treasures and mine fields often<br />
2 hlartln Franzmann, hilow Me: /)ist~pleshrp Accoriirng to Mrrttheu (SL. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,<br />
1961) 10k.
E~win A. Brcsc: BLOOD AND WATER 11<br />
are found together. Separate facl Crom I'iclion. It is fascinating how stories grow into<br />
fairy tales in the retelling!<br />
The same process occurs for the canonizing of saints. Molly spent most of her<br />
rnal~ied life grumbling about salty old Sam and the way he treated her. He drank<br />
heavily and demanded so much of her that pastor, friends, and rclativcs wondered if<br />
she nccded proteclion from this ogre. Yet when old San1 died, hilolly had nothing but<br />
to say about him. Evcn by the time of the funeral she told the pastor that he was<br />
the best husband any woman could want. The grandchildren heard nothing but how<br />
old Grandpa way. The stories grew like Pinocchio's nose.<br />
Keeping an accurate log will help you rcmcmbcr what ground ~ OLI have covcrcd.<br />
Chcck places where records are kept: churches, civic archives, national archives.<br />
Public records contain ship logs, birth, deaths, marriages, land transfers, probate court<br />
reports, census, etc. The Latter Day Saints' free public libraries are geared toward<br />
genealogical research and have vasl amounts oI' material on nlicrofilrn that can be<br />
brought from Salt Lake City to your local library for study.<br />
At the same time, it would be advisable to leain family systems theory, at least in<br />
a beginning way. The works ol' Musray Bowen, Edwin Priedrnan, or Peles Sleinke, a<br />
Lutheran pastor, are available to make more understandable the emotional systems<br />
3<br />
that make up our I'amily. If courses on family systems theory are available they could<br />
be a great rcsourcc for the researcher. These studies can aid in helping identify the<br />
rolls of certain members of every family and how generations pass on these roles.<br />
Such study can also be aided by the rereading or the Old Testament to see the way<br />
the family of God rclatcd. A family tree of Abraham can be quite revealing; David's<br />
can be shoclung. The interrelatedness of the Persons of the Trinity becomes a<br />
fascinating family system study.<br />
All of these become resources for the on-going, circular and unending study of<br />
the family tree. There will be a back and forth, going over and returning to material<br />
once thought irrelevant. Evcn if a sketch is produced to outline each person in the<br />
family tree, there will be branches and off-shoots that continue to find attachment and<br />
be instructive.<br />
INHERENT DANGERS<br />
As in any historical iearch, one is in danger ol'only finding that I'or which one 16<br />
looking. If one is only finding thc honourable and pure, there is the suspicion that a<br />
whole level 01 reality is missing. Then the whole p~oject runs the danger of being a<br />
3 The following resouice books xe suegested for introductory reading in the whole area of Family Systems study<br />
today: Franzmann, Martin, Follow Me: Discipleship According to Matthew, St. Louis: CPH, 1961; Friedmnn.<br />
Edwin H. Grizei.otron to Generutmz Family Proccss in Church and Synagogue, NY: Guilford Press, 1985;<br />
Ourman, Alan S. and Knistem, [)avid I' Ilr-i~~ilhook of l.'urmly I'hri-qy. NY: Hvunner Maxvcl, 198 1. "Fam~ly<br />
System Theory and Therapy" by Michael Keu (on Mursay Bowen) pp. 226-266; Napie~.. Augustus with Cad<br />
Whitaker, The Furrrilj Cru~iI~le. NY: I-Iarper and Row, 1978; Steinke, Pete~, How You1 Chirr-ch Fanrily Works.<br />
Urideistundirzg Congregutions us Emotionul Systems, Waahinglon, DC.: The Albm Insdlu~r, 1993.
12 LUTHERAN THEOLOGTCAL REVIEW<br />
Pharisaic exercise to establish a position that can be used to look down on others<br />
through the accomplishments of some ancestor.<br />
In the secular world, this is easily seen in the work of the Daughters of the<br />
Amcrican Revolution, in which genealogy is a rcquircmcnt for membership. Or one<br />
is struck by the use of the word "pedigree chart" as used by genealogical societies. In<br />
the church, the same kind of spirit can creep into those who talk about their dcsccnt<br />
from somc noblc religious lcadcr. Experience and family systems studies support the<br />
understanding that those who boast are st~iving 10 rill a hollowness in their hilh and<br />
life. Using a fnmily name for power or position is common both in the world and in<br />
the organized church.<br />
Another danger can be a deep discouragement by some who become entangled<br />
with a long history of brokenness in thc family trce or who run into nxmy dead ends<br />
or missing pieces. While that may be a reality for many, the need to find others wilh<br />
s~~pport and encouragement can also grow from this study in the process. The twin<br />
dangcrs of arrogance and despair are the daily fare for the growing child of God, also<br />
in his humanness.<br />
A SPlKITUAL DIMENSION<br />
So on top of a l~uinan family tree, with all of ils religious dimensions as well, we<br />
are set to begin to superinlpose and deepen our picture of a spirit~~al family trec aftcr<br />
the manner of Jesus' declaration: "Whoever does the will of my Father: is my brother<br />
and sister and molher" (Mark 3:35).<br />
A spirit~ial overlap needs to be done with thc human in sight, but adds the crucial<br />
questions of faith. As Luther wondered where faith would have existed in the middle<br />
ages were it not for the power of Baptism, so we may wonder about our family trec<br />
as well. Hencc a Baptismal history is in order for everyone. Identifying the people of<br />
faith as well as the people of blood may produce some people who are bolh. It will<br />
also produce names and faces of people who are not in your human lincage but whose<br />
lifc affccts yours.<br />
Since we are people who live in both ol' God's Kingdoms, we can see our heritage<br />
in both a human dimension bound by all thc laws of nature as wcll as a spiritual<br />
dimension blessed by all the grace of our God who became human. Even a secular<br />
genealogist can say: When you study the hislory of all the plagues, wars and other<br />
catastrophes that have swept through thc ccnturics, onc can only marvcl that hetshe is<br />
the descendant of the survivors. So in the Kingdom of God, one can not only marvel,<br />
but pray, praise and give thanks that one is numbered among the spiritual descendants<br />
whom thc Spirit of God has numbered by His amazing grace!
Erwin A. Brese: BLOOD 4ND WATER<br />
APPENDICES<br />
A. A Family Study sheet4<br />
Names. nicknames, titlc, labels: What privilcgcs and/or difficultics could havc<br />
been passed on from generation to generation by being dubbed this or that name,<br />
nickname, etc.<br />
Medical history: Is there sterility, abortion, miscarriage, congenital anomalies,<br />
mental retardalion, learning disabilities. Any cancer, leukemia, heart disease, etc.<br />
What is the usual cause of death in the family? Who takes drugs? Adoptions?<br />
Birth, death, marriages. divorce, rite of passage: How do family members respond<br />
to various changes? Locate coincidence of events around - the birth ofa firs1 born,<br />
somconc's promotion, a child bccoming adolcsccnt, dcath. What othcr cvcnts<br />
happen within 6 months?<br />
Geography: What are the rules for physical proximity for your culture andfamily?<br />
How close is too close? too far? What were the circumstances regarding immigration?<br />
What are the family's connection to its roots'? What are extended family<br />
rules for privacy, visits?<br />
Emotional contact: frequency: patterns, quality. Who contacts whom? When?<br />
How does the family keep each olher posted on personal/Samily changes'! Is<br />
reciprocity rcquired, suggested or unimportant? Is there a family clearing house<br />
for information?<br />
Closest and most distimt: Who are you most close to in your own generation?<br />
Parents generation? Grandparcnts? Any similarities in those rclationships? What<br />
is your style of closeness? What is it about relationships that makes it safe for<br />
you to be personal?<br />
Sibling position: What similarities are apparent between siblings of the same<br />
position in diflrenl generations'!<br />
Relationship Principles: Who are crnotional pursuers? Who arc thc cmotional<br />
distancers? Does it vary by sex? age?<br />
Emotional Cutoffs: Who are you and your family cut off from? When did it<br />
happen? How?<br />
Ethnicity: What values does your culture give to your family? Do you have more<br />
than one culture influencing your family? How does that work out? How many<br />
generations since immigration?<br />
Religious al'l'iliation: What is Camily's religious tradition'! How does it inhence<br />
rites of passage? celebration? values'? Is the practicc or lack of practice a family<br />
issue?<br />
Socio-economic level: Is income and neighbourhood the same? Views on the<br />
richest and poorest in thc family? Attitudes towards work? professions? cducation?<br />
4 Adapted from a compiletion by Paul D Stemlie.
14 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
13. Issues with intense emotional charge for each ho~~sehold (occupation: sex,<br />
religion, moncy, dcath, alcohol): What issucs did parcnts never talk about? What<br />
topics did your parents tell you their parents would never let them talk about?<br />
What can't your children talk about'? What do you give advice on quickly? When<br />
and how will the hot topics become cool enough for family conversation?<br />
R. A Spiritual Worksheet<br />
This primer set of questions is intended to promote the development of a spiritual<br />
fam~ly tree, a pictu~e ol' who are 111e real brothers, sisters, mothers, etc. 5<br />
Who saw to it that I was baptized? Whom did they choose to assist them in the<br />
process of spiritual training and why?<br />
Who first read me Bible stories belore I could read, if anyone? Who was my<br />
greatest childhood Bible story hero and who told me about him or her?<br />
In my spiritual journey, against whorn have 1 rebelled, who avoided? Why? Who<br />
listened to me without quickly judging?<br />
Who taught me about the Communion of Saints, the Holy Christian Church and<br />
led me to come to the Table ol' the Lord Tor the first time'? How was that? Who<br />
went with mc?<br />
Who embodies the source of the forgiveness of sin in my life'? Who are and have<br />
been my spiritual mentors'?<br />
Did I marry someone to convert? to believe for me? to cooperate in talking/not<br />
talking about the faith? Any reasons'?<br />
Have I raised my children like my parents/grandparents or in opposition to ~ hc<br />
way they raised me? In what ways/ Did you succeed? Of what about my<br />
cllildren/grandchilcIren am 1 glad'! What fears do they trigger in me?<br />
Whcrc am 1 with thc John 8 question about the church building/membership<br />
question as opposed to the church family question?<br />
Envzn A. B~ese zspastor of Grace Lulhet urz Church, Nwgaru FalO, New York (LCMS),<br />
and alw .wrves as adlunct professor of Practical Tlwology at Concordia Lutheran<br />
Theological Seminary, Sr Catharines, Ontario.<br />
5 The allusion to Ma~k 3'31-35 is intentional. Jesus encoulages us LO follow hi111 in napping oiit OUT spisitwdl<br />
hnily.
ABRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT?<br />
John R. Wilch<br />
In Egypt, Abram passed off his wife Sarai as his sister (Gen. 12:13). Was he guilty of<br />
lying according lo natural law, so that hc maliciously deceived the Egyptians (see<br />
1218-19)? Or did Abram act n~dently according to the Bccdom of thc Christian lifc<br />
7<br />
that is oriented by the Gospel? L~kevery other believer, Abram was both a saint and<br />
a sinner. But how should he be evaluated in this incident'! Most commentalors mince<br />
no words in denouncing Abram's action in Egypt as a dcccption that broke God's Law.<br />
However, Martin Luther is conspicuous in arguing that Abram did not con~nlit a breach<br />
of Christian ethics--indeed, that he was even led by the Holy Spirit in his action!<br />
Now, E. Edward Hackmann rejected the designation of "Christian ethics" on the<br />
premise that "the Christian lire is not a lire oS ethics [i.e., according to a law-oriented<br />
system] but a lifc of sanctification livcd in the fear and love of God, in faith in Christ,<br />
through the power of the Holy Spii-it" [i.e., oriented by the ~ospel].~<br />
1. ABRAM'S LIE<br />
Luther stressed Abram's dilemma: God's Promise of eventual blessing for all<br />
people groups (Gen. 123) had "been attached to his body. ... God must not he put to<br />
the test. Thus he looks for every means of safcty or self-defcnsc ... Thc promisc must<br />
not be wasted through negligence." On the one hand, Luther expanded on Abram's<br />
rcqucst to his wife: "... if I must surrender my life ..., then the Lord ... will surely be<br />
able to revive me after I have died. But I must not for this reason overlook some way<br />
of saving mysell'. Iherefore, my dear Sal-ah, ... say thal I am your brother. Thus 1 shall<br />
rcmain alive through your favor. But as for you, ... you shall experience the help of<br />
the Lord, so that nothing dishonorable may befall you Franz Delitzsch quoted<br />
Augustine's defense of Abram ("indicavit sororem, non negavit uxorern; tacuit aliquid<br />
veri, non dixit aliquid falsi;" Faustum 22:3) and stated that trust in God docs not<br />
preclude clever action4 $ee Matt. 10: 16). Bemo Jacob would pennit a "white lie"<br />
whcn in dangcr of death.<br />
I It may seem anachron~st~c to spcah of thc (Gnspcl and thc frccdorn of Ihc Chntian in thc Yamc hrcath a? Abratn.<br />
how eve^, aa Luthei liked to point out, all Old Testament ramts believed In the Protevangelium oitien. 3:15 that<br />
God would raise up a Saviour to defeat Satan Since Jesus Cluist fulfilled this Promise, all lhose who earlier<br />
believed in Him were in esaeuce "Chrislia~~a" (WA 4:193; 24:99-100; 40/1:378. 355; 54:S5; AE 15:335,<br />
26:239-240; see It'A 42147; AE 1: 197; J. Wilch: "Luther As Interpreter: Christ and the Old Tesrament,"<br />
Consozr~ls IX:3 [3-91& 4 [l 1-20]). Because their life was propelled by faith in this Gospel, they were guided<br />
by the Holy Sp~rit In sanctification (scc Luthcr, W4 54247. 251; AE 15:385).<br />
2 "Ts Chr~man F.thics Possihlc?" Lcithei.a~z Thrological Revww 11:2 (1990): 20-21.<br />
3 Al: 1 294.<br />
4 Franz Delitzsch, Die Geriesis, (Leipzig: Dorffling c% rianke. 1852) 262<br />
5 The Firsi Book of the Bihle. Genesis, trans. and ed. E.I. 6r W. Jacob (New Yolk: KTAV, 1974) 90. This 1s<br />
perhaps based on the same principle of rabbinic deduction that presclibed WUI-k Lo save a Me, men if, when done
16 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
Abrnm found himself in what ethicists call a "conflict situation.^^ He was<br />
confronted by a "conflict of duties," whereby he had "an ethical obligation to do two<br />
or more rnutually exclusive tlii~~gs ... incompatible acts."7 On the one hand, he was<br />
obligatcd to tcll thc Egyptians the tmth but thercby put his own lifc and God's Promise<br />
for all peoples into jeopardy; on the other handhe was obligated to employ a stratagem<br />
to save his life but thereby tell n lie. Scri ture shows "that some duties (to \how love,<br />
justice and mercy) outrank othcn .."'For Abram to tcll rhc wholc truth to thc<br />
Egyptians at the cost of God's Promise would be cornparable to a youth in Nazi<br />
Germany (who had beenforced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler) preferring to fulfil1<br />
his loyalty to Hitler rather than to disobey a murderous order. Being faithful to Cod's<br />
Promise had priority for Abram over being Lruthl'ul to an unjusl despot.<br />
Wcmer Elert statcd that "citizcns arc no longer subjcct to public order which the<br />
sulers thelnselves have ravaged."' Abram was therefore justified 111 expecting the<br />
Egyptiansto want to do what Pharaoh then did: he ravaged the order of justice by<br />
simply taking Sarai by force, both against her will and without the consent of her<br />
"brotheru-guardian. Facing a conflict of duties, an "unusual venture" was necessary<br />
for Abram to "dare the extraordinary" because the established secular order did not<br />
pesmit him to practise his obedience to ~ od. l' Indeed, "concealment of truth does not<br />
necessarily constitute lying. Man is not always obligated to reveal everything ... He<br />
can even refuse to answcr [so Jcsus: Matt. 21:27; 26:63; 27:12, 14; Luke 23:9; John<br />
19:9]. The Hebrew midwives (Exod. 1:19-20) and Samuel (l Sam. 16:l-2) did not lie;<br />
they were not obligated to divulge infomnlion ... ,,l1<br />
Several explanations havc bccn proposcd for Abram's stratagem to save himsclf<br />
by identifying his wife as his sister, including the happenstance that, in Hebrew<br />
language and culture, as his half-sister Snrai really could be called his "sister" (20: 12).<br />
Further, a husband may well have to be eliminated in order to get his wife (see 2 Sam.<br />
ll), but not a brother to get his sister.12 The best defense presented appears to be that<br />
by Umberto Cassuto. Following the lead of some medieval comrncntators, hc notes<br />
that Abrain was indeed attempting to protect Sarai as much as possible by claiming<br />
to be her brothel-. For if he admitted to being her husband: he would be killed and she<br />
suffcr disgracc. Howcvcr, as hcr brothcr hc could fcnd off hcr potential suitors through<br />
the customarily extensive marriage negotiations until the famine subsided and they<br />
on a Sabbath, it violated the Law of God for the Sabbath (see Shahbath 18:3, J. Wilch, "Why It Was Necessary<br />
fur the Pl~uisees lo Oppobe Jeaua,' LTR 1 (Spririg 1983) 25.<br />
6 Werner Elert. The Chriscim~ Ethos, tr. C. J. Schindler, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957) 259.<br />
7 Ronold J. Sides, "Conflict of Dutles, Interest." Dictionary ofCh~.istian Ethics, ed. C. F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids:<br />
Baker, 1973) 123.<br />
8 Sidcr 123.<br />
9 Llert 123.<br />
10 Elett 257.<br />
11 Ralph H. Alexander, "Lying," Diu~ioriuiy of Chrihriun Eflrics 401.<br />
12 Jacub 89.
John R. Wilch: ABRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT? 17<br />
13<br />
could return to Canaan. This was the plan enacted by Simeon ;uid Levi against<br />
Shechem in order to spare their sister Dinah (Gen. 34: 13-17); and the attempt of Laban<br />
14<br />
on behalf of his sister Kebeltah (2455). In the latter case, the plan backfired when<br />
Kebekah frcclg consentcd to thc proposal of marriage on behalf of Isaac (24:58). In<br />
Abram's case, his plan misfired when Pharaoh himself who. especially in ancient<br />
Egypt, was the one person who could not be denied, bypassed lormal negotiations and<br />
simply took Sarai to bc his wife.'' Thus it may bc prcsumcd that Abram hoped to be<br />
able to prevent Sxai from actually falling into the hands of the Egyptians. That is,<br />
humanly speaking, it was the hest clever scheme he could devise, li)r he lacked the<br />
direct promise of a miracle from God. But as an alien in Egypt, Abram had no legal<br />
rights ~ md so could not prevent Pharaoh's unjust taking of Sarai.<br />
Whethcr Abram should tcll thc wholc truth to the Egyptians or whether he should<br />
try to protect hin~self and Sarai, both alternatives involve some evil. The question is,<br />
which is the lesser one? Our choices in lilt: are rarely black and white.16 Thus, John<br />
Calvin generalizes that no action is so pcrfect as to bc absolutely frcc from all stain. 17<br />
E. Edwxd Hackmaim likewise stated: "We cannot look to ourselves and say that<br />
anything we do is good."'8 lather, too, identifies Abram's action as lying, but,<br />
following Augustine's threefold definition of lies, as a "ministering lic." Such a lie is<br />
defensible because it hinders the devil and preselves life, and therefore is not to be<br />
19<br />
classificd as a malicious lie. Dietrich Bonhoeffer agrees in principle, but objects that<br />
a "ministering lie" should be called a lie at all. For a lie, properly understood, "is a<br />
deliberate deception of another man to his detriment ..." 1f deception of the enemy in<br />
warfare is included in this dcfinition, "the lie thercby acquires moral sanction and<br />
justification ...lt It "is unwise to generalize and extend the use of the term so that it can<br />
bc applied to every statement which is formally untrue. ,,20<br />
Abram's critics accuse him variously that hc uscd a prcvarication, stratagem,<br />
scheme or ruse, that he was guilty of duplicity, trickery, subterfuge or deception, that<br />
A Comnlenta~y on the Book of Genesis: Part 11: From Nooli to Ahmhmr, tr. I. 4hvahains (Iclusalcm: Magncs,<br />
1964) 350; see Bruce Vawter, 4 Poth TIuuugh Grnesis (Yew Yol-l
18 LLI'HEKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
he was craven or sinister, that he was at fault, that he lied, in short, that he cornrnitled<br />
a grave sin.21 Some of them sympathize with him in aclcnowledging his dilemma, but<br />
refuse ro excuse him. Thcy may explain his "fall" as a failure to be honest and to believe<br />
that God would protect both him and Sarai from danger. Instead, similar to the later<br />
occasion when he and Sxai tried to produce an heir through Hagar (Gcn. 16:l-21, he<br />
herc took matters into his own hands instead of relying on God. A few com~nmentators<br />
even claim that, in this case, Pharaoh was more righteous than Abram. Claus Westermann<br />
ventured the ideal action of the belicvcr that, in such aperilous situation, a person<br />
"can choose not to sacrifice something in order to buy life, not to submit to violence.<br />
... to conquer rear of death through confidence that God knows a way out has always<br />
been the extraordinary coursc ... , ,22<br />
2. ABRAM'S FAITH<br />
Somc highcr critics takc a more neutral stance in observing that the Biblical<br />
account does not put any blame on Abram. John Skinner claimed that, for the ethical<br />
code then in vogue, lying to one's advantage was cx~usable.~~ Gcrhard von Rad,<br />
following Hermann Gunkel, believed that the narrator celebrated both the cunning of<br />
the patriarch and the beauty of the matriarch, as well as God's timely aid.24<br />
Luther, however, statcd categoricallj~ that Abram "did not lie" and "did not sin."<br />
Hc argued that his opinion is "in agreement with Script~~re." That is, he likely had the<br />
unnlogiufidei in mind, the Lestimony of Scripture as a whole: "Because Scripture often<br />
presents Abraham to us as a bclicving father and a perfect model of faith [e.g., 2 Ch.<br />
20:7; Isa. 29:22; 41:8: 51:2; Mic. 7:20; Matt. 1:l; Lk. 16:22-31; Ac. 7:2-X; Rom. 4;<br />
Gal. 3; Js. 2:21-221, 1 prefer to decide in favor of the opinion that hcre, too, his great<br />
faith is rcvcaled ..." Luthcr even referred to Abram's belief in the resurrection, as was<br />
evidenced when he followed God's conlrnand to sacrifice Isaac (Heb. 11: 19).25<br />
e.g., Nachmanidcs, ciled in Jacob 90): Jacub himself (134); John Calvin. Cornmclztarics on the Fiist Book of<br />
Mosrs h-. J. King, (reps.: Grand Rapids: Baker. 1979K359-360; Car1 F. Kcil Tiw First Book of Moses,<br />
Cornme~nary on the OldTestamenr by Keil &F. Delirzsch, tr. J. Mxtin (rcpr.: Grand Rapids: lierdmans, 1978)<br />
197-198; PaulE. Kretzmann, PopuIar Conm?cnrary of t h Rihle: ~ T ~ Oiil'l'esfoment P<br />
(St. Louis: Conco~dia, 1923)<br />
28; Herbert C. Leupold, Expo.~zth nf(;rnr.~i~ (Columhus: Wwtburg, 1942)424-425; Derek Kidne~, Gena~is,<br />
Tyridale Old Tr~rtlnwit Cornn~~nto~ws (Downers Grove: Inter-Vru-sity, 1967) llG; Bruce Vawier, 012 Genesis:<br />
A New li'mding) (Garden Clty: Doubleday, 1977) 181-152; Walier R. Roehrs, Old Testanzent. Concorclia<br />
Sey-Study Commenfaly by Roehs ad M. H. Franzrnann (St. Luuis: Concordia, 1979) 30; Claus Westermann,<br />
Genesis 12-36. A Cornmentulv, tr. J. J. Scullion, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 163-167; Victor P. Hamilton,<br />
The Book uf Genes&. Chupters 1-17, New Into-nntionul Conlmentary on the Old Testanz~nt (Grand Rapids:<br />
Eerdmans. 1990) 380-385; and John C. Jeske, Genesis, People's Bible Commentmy (St. Louls: Concordia, 1992)<br />
125.<br />
Genesis: A P~.actlcal Comnientur:v, 11.. D. E. Green, '1L.xt nnd Intelptetatioti (Grand Rapids: Eedmans. 1987)<br />
104.<br />
A C~vtlral
John R. Wllch: ARRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT? 19<br />
Luther also paid tributc to Sarai's faith as extraordinary, not only for obeying her<br />
husband, but also "she was not disturbed by hcr own danger. ... in pure faith both of<br />
them commended themselves to the mercy of God." He praised Abram as a most<br />
considerate husband, for he "spcaks amicably to Sarah ... he entreats her; ... he adds<br />
those words about her beauty. ... nothing tyrannical, nothing dictatorial; everything is<br />
affectionate and lovely? the way it ought to be ...lt (see Ecclus. 4:30). Luther adds: "...<br />
these are outstanding examples. ... sincc the Holy Spirit wanted this to be committed<br />
to writing, the student or the Holy Scriptures will regard nothin as so insignificant<br />
that it is not helpful, at lcast as a guide for our lire and conduct." 86<br />
Since Abram's choice did put his wife into potential danger, it is similar to the<br />
decision that any Christian may be called upon to make in a conflict situation:<br />
"Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy o C Me" (Matt. 10:37).<br />
Abram exhibited his faith, according to Elert, "daring against rcason, against appearances,<br />
renouncing the finite ..." For "all works of daring are good works if they are<br />
done in faith. "27<br />
The Christian must not refuse to do the lesser evil in a conflict situation with the<br />
excuse that he must stand on his self-righteousness, like the moralist or non-Chsistian.<br />
The moralist presumes the fallacies that moral choice involves a simplc, rational issue<br />
betwccn absolute right and wrong; that the central issue is the preservation of one's<br />
own moral purity; and lhat virtue is always rewarded and truth always triumphant. For<br />
the non-Christian, wliethel. Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, one's sclf-perfection is the<br />
religious ideal and purpose of sanctification. In either case, this is essentially deism,<br />
for both the inoralist and the non-Christian arc dcaling with an abstract concept that<br />
has no reference to God. 28<br />
To criticize Abram for sinning by lying, yet to praise him [or his fear of God, as,<br />
for example, Calvin did, is rejected by Rousas Rushdoony. For that violates the unity<br />
29<br />
of life. The action must be considered as one indivisible deed: either he sinned or<br />
he did not.<br />
On the basis 01 Jolm 14:6 ("I am the Way, the Truth and thc Life"), John Murray<br />
stated that the true is thc absolute in contrast to the relative, for it refers to the sanctit<br />
of the being of God as the true God; thus, all truth derives its sanctity from God. 36<br />
Similarly, Bonhoeffer defines Lhe lie as "primarily the denial of God as Hc has<br />
evidenced Himself to the world." For "the lie is a contradiction of the word of God,<br />
which God has spoken in Christ, and upon which crcation is founded. Consequently,<br />
thc lie is the ... deliberate destruction of the reality which is created by God ... The<br />
assigned purpose of our words, in unity with the word of God, is to express the real,<br />
26 AE 2:295-296.<br />
27 Elea 257-259.<br />
28 Rushdoony 542-543,549.<br />
29 Rushdoony 542.547.<br />
30 Pri~zciples of Condi~ct (Grand Rapds: Eerdmans. 1957)123, 125.
20 LUTHhKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
as it exists in God ..."31 In this sense, then, Abram did not lie. 11 was rather thc<br />
Egyptians who were hving a lie by their denial of the true God as the Creator and<br />
Saviour (cf. Gen. 20:l l), while Abram's priority was to be true to the real as God had<br />
revealed it to him. Thcrefore, Abram actually told the truh<br />
3. TO DECEIVE EVIL PERSONS<br />
Luther bcgan his defense of Abram by identifying his action as an "obliging lie"<br />
(or, as Helmut Thielicke would describe it, a "lcgitimatc illegality"),32 which he<br />
defined as being donc "for thc sake of someone's good ... It not only sesves the<br />
advantagc of someone else, who would olherwise suffel. harm or violcncc, but also<br />
prevents a sin. ... it is rather a virtue ..., by which both the fury of Satan is hindered<br />
and the honor: life. and advantages of others are sesved." By contrast? it "is a lie whcn<br />
,,33<br />
our neighbor is deceived by us to his ruin and our own advantagc. Acknowledging<br />
that Abrarn suffered a struggle with his faith and a conflict of conscience, Luther may<br />
havc bccn thinking of his own experience when he pointed out that Abram, whcreves<br />
he went. was a foreigner with "a new religion." Suffering under the "scandal of<br />
par~icularity,"74 could he bc certain that he is "the only one who is holy ... the only<br />
object of Cod's concern?" 35<br />
Otherwise, Lulher is only concerncd about the possibility of criticizing Abram<br />
"for having evil suspicions about the Egyptians ..." For every "suspicious person is a<br />
slanderer in his heart ... Slander is a great sin" (see 1 Tim. 6:4; Matt. 7:l). "Every<br />
suspicious person sets himsclf up as a judge over others and condemns them."36 But<br />
on the othcr hand, Luther demonstrated that, because Scripture also plainly teaches<br />
that "all men are by nature evil and thereforc arc all liars" (PS. 116:l l), Scripture<br />
"demands that we not put our trust in a human being, for it can happen that he will fail<br />
us." Against human reason, which "thinks that the good ... dcscrvc not only love but<br />
trust," Scripture declares that "we should lovc all human beings equally ..." (Matt.<br />
5:45), and should consider "not simply the conduct OS mother person but the Word<br />
and the fear of Cod. Where we find these, the people arc no do~lbt pious ...u~' Thus,<br />
Abram did not hate the Egyptians, but neither could he trust them, because not only<br />
"nature per sc is evil ... [but] also Egypt is devoid oS the Word and thc truc religion."<br />
Thus, "love ... (l Cor. 13:4,7) is not suspicious, but is hopeful even about evil things.<br />
... those who are evil can improvc. ,,35<br />
In short, because the Egyptians lacked the Word and true rcligion of God, Abram<br />
could expect them to be lustful, unjust and tyrannical, that is, to kill him in order to<br />
Bunl~uelTer 369-370.<br />
l%eological Ethics, Vol. l: F~uizd~t~~~t.~,<br />
tl.. .l. W. L)o/)esste~~l (Grand Eerdmans, 1979) 583.<br />
AE 2292.<br />
See Horacc D. Hummcl, /ha Wo~dGeco~niiig Flesh (SL. Louis: Concordia, 1979) 67.<br />
AE 2:29R.<br />
AB 2296.297.<br />
AE 2:298-299.<br />
AE 2:299-300.
lohn R. Wkh: ABKAM 1.U EGYPT. SINNLK OK SAINT" 21<br />
take his beautiful wife and his possessions (see Gen. 12: 12). Indeed, because Pharaoh<br />
regarded himself as god, he could neither know or rear Ihe true God, nor receive word<br />
39<br />
fro111 Him; only plagues could impress him (12:17). Thcrcforc, Abram had to takc<br />
whalever measures were necessary to save his earthly life, since God's Promise for<br />
all peoples was bound up with his body. Rut good may come out of evil (see 50:20),<br />
SO he could hope that, although both he and Sarai could be in danger. the Lord would<br />
40<br />
so be able to influence the Egyptians that they would not come to har~n.<br />
Of course, thc Clxistian is not to bear false witness against his neighbour, and one<br />
is under obligation to God to tell the truth at all times where normal communication<br />
exists. However, our neighbour may not be enlilled to the truth if it does not concern<br />
him. Scripture warrants the conccalmcnt of tnlth from those who havc no claim upon<br />
it (Prov. 11:13).~' As Bonhoeffer puts it, "'truthfulness' does not mean the disclosure<br />
of everything that exists."42 Thus, it is correct for civil law to prevent the compelling<br />
of a witness to testify against himself. No enemy or criminal has any right to knowled e<br />
$3<br />
which can be used to do evil; no one seeking to do evil is entitled to the truth.<br />
Therefore, if a govcrnmcntal authority would use thc tnrth to do cvil, onc is not<br />
obligated to disclose it; disobedience is then justified. It was in this sense that some<br />
Christians disobeyed orders of the Nazi government in order to protecl hunted Jewish<br />
persons.44 Robert Dabney argued that, as it is justifiable for a human government to<br />
kill a murderer through capital punishment because his crime has forfeited his rights,<br />
so an unjust and malignant aggressor forfeits his rights to the truth.45 A Christian is<br />
obligated to God not to tell the truth if evil persons would usc it to steal, murder or<br />
rape (PS. W1 X). Indeed, to so aid evil persons is to make oneself an accessory to their<br />
offencc. 46<br />
When Abraham sojouined later in Gerar, he again passed Sarah off as his sister<br />
for rhe same reason as earlier in Egypt: "There is surely no rear ol' God in this place,<br />
and they will kill me beca~lse of my wifc" (Gcn. 20:2, 11). Indeed, he was afraid that<br />
wherever he would go, he could expect to be confronted with wicked evildoers who<br />
lacoh 134.<br />
Ahram's danger In Egypt and Ihc plagucs on Pharaoh and his court wcrc an went prophecy of thc suffei-ing of<br />
the Israehtes in Egypt and the 'I'm Plagues (Jacoh YO; (lassuto 336; Wcnharn 291; Flamilton 386).<br />
Rushdoony 543, 545. Thus, ~t is light for one's prrvate matters to be respected. inclnding mail and the<br />
cunSesaional. If a person \~oultl inipropr~ly handle an Itern of tiuth so that it is falsified or misused, the11 one<br />
should nor say it to that peraon at all (Trillhaas 301-302).<br />
Bonhoeffer 372. A family has the right lo preserve its own secrets from others, so that the betrayal of a secret<br />
ttuth may bc worse than the lie to preserve it (367-368).<br />
Rushdoony 543-544; Trillhaas 302; Bonhoeffer 372.<br />
[chard von We17sackcr. thc prcscnt Prccidcnt of Germany, In a spccch on thc occaslon of thc thousandth<br />
;umiversary of the City of Potsdam In a hich hc cxtollcd tllc l~ad~tional I'1.ussian virtucs ot rcspcct for thc law.<br />
loyally LO 111s Sellow citizen, and conscientio~~sness (whlch were taken advantage of by the Nazis?, expla~ned<br />
Iivw such virtues rrlay lcad LU the cunacisnlioua denial oT obed~ei~ce lo authority; tl~~s<br />
was actually p~actised<br />
against Icing Fried~ich the Great, as well as ~gainst Hitler- by office~a oT the Ninth Potsdam Infantiy Regiment<br />
(Dcirache Pi.cssc, I4 July 1993, Toronto).<br />
Cited by Rushdoony 548.<br />
Rushdnony 544.
22 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
may try to kill him (20:13). As noted above, Luther could sympathize with someonc<br />
called out or idolatry who could imagine that he could scarcely expect to meet up with<br />
any other believers in the true God. In this case, Abraham was surprised to find that<br />
King Abimelech, in slark contrast to Pharaoh, was at least some kind of "God-fcarer"<br />
(20:4-6) who could receive God's word, so that he in effect apologized to him<br />
(20:9-13).~~<br />
Likewise, Isaac also sojourned in Gerar--this time becausc of a famine and through<br />
the cxprcss direction and promise of blessing from the LORD (26:l-6). Here, too,<br />
Isaac claimed that his wife Rebekah was his sister because he feared for his life (267,<br />
9). Again, Isaac could well have had good reason to believe that, with many years<br />
intervening and a different King Abiinelech in Gerar, the present Philistines were not<br />
so "God-fearing" as before. Indeed, this seems to be thc case, with no mention of such<br />
intimations until it became too obvious to them that Isaac's God was richly blessing<br />
him and it would be to their distinct advanta e to negotiate a non-aggression pact with<br />
such a powerful sheikh (26:12-16,26-29). 45<br />
Abram was certainly not the only Biblical believer who resorted to a "nrinistesing<br />
lie." Luther mentioned Michal, who helped David escape from Saul and then claimed<br />
that David had threatened to kill hcr (1 Sam. 19:ll-17), Hushai's bad advice to<br />
Absalom that enabled David to quell his revolt (2 Sam. 15:34; 17:7-16), and the lie of<br />
the woman at Bahurirn which saved the sons of Abiathas and Zadok from Absalom's<br />
search party (17:17-20).~~ But there are many other masters of the "legitimate<br />
illegality:" According to the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, Moses' parcnts werc<br />
heroes of the faith along with Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, David and, of<br />
comsc, Abraham and Sarah (l 1:8-1. l, 20-21,23, 27, 31-32). This they were, not just<br />
for being saved by faith in the Gospel of the promised Saviour, but for acting<br />
courageously according to their tmst in the Lord. Jochebed risked her own lik by<br />
hiding the baby Moses in violation of Pharaoh's edict (Ex. 1:22-23).<br />
Likewise, some Christians violated laws of Adolf Hitler's totalitarian oppression<br />
to hide Jews, which involved lies, deception and falsified docuinenls. Thielicke<br />
understood thern as being in a "borderline situation" where they could employ "the<br />
eschatological c~rrective."~~ For, "frce in Christ to disobey the orders of this fallen<br />
age, they belonged already to the coining age, sustained by Divine fo~~iveness."'~<br />
These were heroes of the faith against the tyranny of the Satanic forces of evil that<br />
were attacking thc pcople of God--both the physical members of the Old Covenant<br />
and the spiritual members of the New Testament Church.<br />
47 Jacob 133-134.<br />
48 Whe~eas higher crilical commentators try to identify different sources for thc thrce accounts of rnatnarchs'<br />
danger, Cassuto explains them as a natural progression and rcpctitinn for the sake of emphasis according to<br />
oriental narrative conventions (341-344).<br />
49 AE 2:225, 292.<br />
50 Thiclicke 378, 578.<br />
5 1 S. W~ich; "'I he Use and Misuseof Scripture inEt11ics." Consen~u~, XI:3 (1985): 22; Thielicke 379-381.579-580,<br />
583, 588, 590.
John R. Wilch: ARRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT? 23<br />
We likewisc praise thc courage of Rahab of Jericho who risked her life 10 deceive<br />
her king by lying to his soldiers about the Israelite spies hiding in her house (Josh.<br />
2:l-7). Similarly, Jehosheba hid Prince Soash [or six years against the vengeful Queen<br />
Athaliah, and Jehosheba's husband, High Priest Jehoiada, organized a conspiracy<br />
against the lyrarltlical queen at the Temple on the Sabbath for the sake of God's people<br />
and thc truc religion (2 Kn. 1 1 : 1 - 1 X). The Israelite Ehud deceived King Eglon of Moab<br />
by hiding a sword under his clothing, drawing it out unsuspectedly with his left hand<br />
to assassinate him (Jdg. 3: 16-30). One of the "worst" deceptions was perpetrated by<br />
Jael, who took advantage of hcr family's friendly terms with King Jabin 01' HUor to<br />
entice his fleeing general, Sisera, to rest in her tent, but then murdcrcd him in his<br />
sleep--which sinister deed was rorelolcl by the LORD and praised by the prophetess<br />
Deborah (4:9, 17-21; 5:24-27).<br />
David saved his skin from the Philistines when he in desparation had fled to them<br />
from King Saul by acting as if he were insane, so that they let their enemy go (l San.<br />
21: 10-15). King Solomon deceptively threatened to dividc a surviving baby in two in<br />
order to reveal its Lrue mother--a ploy that was recognized by all Israel as proof of<br />
God's blessing of wisdom (1 Kn. 3:24-28). Queen Esther deceived Harnan by luring<br />
him to a dinner with King Xesxes, only to unmask him as the enemy of hcr Jewish<br />
people (Est. 578; 7:l-h).<br />
As the prime minister of Egypt, Joseph dcccivcd his brothers by not revealing his<br />
identity Lo them. He proceeded to increase their agony and that of their aged father by<br />
secrctly returning their money into their sacks of grain, by requiring them to bring<br />
favourite son Benjamin back with thcm, and by having his silvcr cup planted in<br />
Benjamin's sack (Gen. 42:7-38; 43:23-44:17). Israel's midwives defiantly countermanded<br />
Pharaoh's ordcrs to kill newborn baby boys of Israel and deceived him by<br />
claiming that the Israelite mothers were so healthy that they gave birth bcfore the<br />
midwives could arrive. They thereby earned the reward of the LORD (Ex. 1:16-21).<br />
Abram sprang a surprise attack at night from at lcast two sides on the camp of the<br />
Ihm kings who had defeated Sodom and taken captives, including Lot and his family<br />
(Gcn. 14: 15). For such a good purpose, Abram did not flinch at using such a sneaky<br />
manoeuvre to outwit the stronger evil foc. That this subversive device met with the<br />
LORD'S approval is made clearly obvious, particularly by Abram's being blessed in<br />
the Narnc of "God Most High, the Creator of heaven and earth" by Melchizedek, Lhe<br />
king of Salem and the "priest of God Most High" (14:18-20, see v. 22). Gideon<br />
similarly deceived a gigantic Midianite army by surrounding it with his mere 300 men<br />
and driving thcm into a panic by waving torches and blowing trumpets in [he middle<br />
of the night, so that they killed each other or were cut down as they tried to flee--an<br />
operation against Tsrael's and God's evil enemies that was initiated and carefully<br />
prepared by Divine guidance (Jdg. 6:ll-7:25).<br />
With [he LORD'S approval, Joshua deceived the asmy of Ai with an ambush in<br />
ordcr to defeat them (Josh. 8:4-27). When Moah revolted against Israel, the LORD<br />
assisted the combined army of Israel, Judah and Edom by instructing them through
24 TLJTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
the prophet Elisha to dig trenches in the desert, which He filled with water from a flash<br />
flood. When the rising sun's rays shone on the water making it look like blood, the<br />
Moabites were tricked into believing that the confederates had killed each other and<br />
they only had to sally forth to plunder the spoils. Instead, they lurched into defeat (2<br />
Krl. 3:4-25). After all, "one is not obligated lo divulge military inlenlions." 52<br />
Admittcdly dcbatable was thc deception by Rebekah and Jacob in order to obtain<br />
Isaac's blessing for Jacob. For Isaac planned to give it to Esau, in clear violation ol'<br />
the 1,ORD'S directive that it should belong to Jacob (Gen. 2S:23-26; 27:s-27).<br />
Rebekah and Jacob were driven to take desperate action bp Isaac's stubborn resolve<br />
to disobey the LOKD. Later, both the repentant lsaac and the LOKD Hi~riself<br />
confirmed the blessing on Jacob (28: 1-4, 12-22). Indeed, Isaac is remembered as a<br />
hero of the faith for properly blessing Jacob and Esau (Heb. 11:21).<br />
The LOKD HirnselS is no1 above resorting to deception: He lured the Egyplians'<br />
crack chariotry into thc Red Sea whcrc Hc could drown thcm all but savc Israel (Ex.<br />
14:23-3 1). Once, when the Arameans were invading Israel, the LORD kept their amy<br />
From recognizing where they really were; enabling Elisha to lead them right into<br />
Israel's capital city Samaria (2 Kn. 6:18-20). Again. the LORD deceived another<br />
invading Aramean army by making them hear at dawn what sounded like a great<br />
approaching army of Assyrians, so that they fled in panic (7:5-7).<br />
Inspired by the LORD, an unnamed prophet disguised himself as a wounded<br />
soldier and told an imaginary story lo deceive King Ahab as a sel-up to condemn him<br />
(1 Kn. 20:37-42). Likcwisc, thc LORD inspircd thc prophct Nathan with a fictional<br />
story to trick David into condemning himself (2 Sam. 12:l-7). When Samuel was<br />
afraid to go to anoint a new king because Saul wnuld kill him for it, the LORD directed<br />
him to lie about his intentions (1 Sam. 16: 1-2). The LORD also inspircd the hcathen<br />
prophet Balaam to deceive King Balak of Moab thee times by blessing Israel instead<br />
of cursing them, as he had heen hired to do (Nurn. 225, 17, 20,35, 38: 235, 11-12,<br />
16,25-24:2,10). The LORD even commanded Moses to deceive Pharaoh no less than<br />
eight times into believing that Israel only wanted to go into the desert for three clays<br />
to worship the LORD, instcad of leaving Egypt for good (Ex. 3:17-18; 5:1, 3; 7:16;<br />
8:1, 20, 26-27; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 9, 25-26). Pharaoh rightly suspected their mischief<br />
(1O:lO-1 l).<br />
Perhaps most questionable of all was the event when thc LORD comrnissioncd<br />
one of His ministering spirits to inspire the prophets of King Ahab with lies so that he<br />
would he enticed to altack [he Arameans at Ramoth Gilead, where the LORD could<br />
dircct an archcr's arrow to strikc Ahab with a mortal wound (1 Kn. 22: 19-23,34-38).<br />
Thus a false king was deceived by his false prophets.53<br />
Should we absolutize truth-telling as a Platonic idea or universal above God? God<br />
alone is absolute and truth-telling must be in relation to Him. 54<br />
52 Alexande~ 401.<br />
53 Rushduuny 548.<br />
54 Rushdoony 548.
John R. Wilch: ABRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT'? 25<br />
Or could we imagine that ethical aclion for God and His faithful in the Old<br />
Testament pcriod is to bc distinguished from that of the New Testament period?<br />
I-lardly, for St. Paul deceived his enemies in Damascus by letting himself be lowered<br />
from the city wall in a basket a1 night to escape them (Ac. 923-25). He later wrongly<br />
to be on trial for preaching the rcsusscction of thc dead in order to instigate a<br />
disrupling debate between his Pharisee and Sadducee accusers of the Sanhedrin,<br />
resulting in thc Roman commander's rescuing him from them (23:6-10). Even our<br />
~ord Jesus Christ was not above misleading people by somehow disguising Himsclf<br />
from recognilion, Sor example: by Lhe people of Nazareth who wanted to kill Him (Lk.<br />
4:29-30). Aftcr His Resurrection, Hc was not easily recognized by Mary Magdalene<br />
(Jn. 20:14-16), the disciples on the way to Ernmaus (Lk. 24:15-16), and by seven<br />
disciples on the beach (Jn. 21 :4). Indeed. one of His great stratagems lhroughoul His<br />
ear.thly ministry was "the Messianic secret:" He successfully disguised Ilimsclf as the<br />
promised Christ from most people until after His Resurrection (see Mark 1:40-44;<br />
3: 11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9; 11:33; I,uke 24:26-27,44-48; John 12Z-41).<br />
IVhat lessons do we learn from this? First, in such cases as those of Jesus'<br />
"Messianic secret," His disguising Hirnself Crom Mary Magdalene and certain disciples,<br />
and the dcccptions by Joscph of his brothcrs, of the two mothers by Solomon,<br />
and oP David by Nathan, they were pedagogical lessons to lead those involved to a<br />
dceper recognition of God's will. Secondly, in most other cases, such as of our Lord's<br />
disguising IIimself from the would-be executioners of Nazareth. David's fcigning<br />
n~adness before the Philistines of Gath, St. Paul's escaping from Damascus, and<br />
Rahab's hiding Isracl's spics, it was the necessity of secretive action in order to prevent<br />
ham to God's faithful who were being critically threatened by enemies of both<br />
themselves and God. Similarly, the rnilitmy schemes of Abram, Joshua, Ehud, Jael,<br />
Gideon, etc., wcrc ncccssary to savc God's pcoplc from His and their enemies. They<br />
were ulti~nately doing battle with the forces of evil.<br />
Augustine declared: "We must never al a11 tell a lie " I'or i Twe always tell the truth,<br />
55'<br />
God will always make a way of escape (1 Cor. 10: 13). But that is misusc of Scripture,<br />
hr lo tell the lr~~th to an enemy and expect God to deliver one is "demonic theology."<br />
Indeed, it is the Satanic temptation, testing God (Matt. 4:7). No one may impose a<br />
requirement upon God, expecting Him to deliver oneself when one refuses to do so<br />
oneself. 56<br />
Can it bc, then, that thcrc arc two scts of norms for the Christian--two ethical<br />
systems? The one would follow natural law and God's Law strictly, not allowing any<br />
deception whatsoever, as long as there is a situation where one can reckon with juslice<br />
and fair play. But the other system would allow for dcception in word or dccd whcn<br />
one is confronted by an enemy of God and of justice. Is the one norm that of the Law<br />
and thc other that of freedom from the Law? Dr. Hackmann rejected every ethical<br />
system for the Christian as a system of law. because the Christian is freed bp Christ<br />
55 1)e Mer~rlncio, Nicerre rindl'ost-~Vrcene Pnfhn-S, first ,Yurres, 111, 42-43, pp. 476-477; ct. Jeske 125.<br />
56 Rusiidoony 544.
26 LLTHERAN THEOLOGTCAT, REVIEW<br />
Srom the Law to live according to thc Gospel.<br />
Similarly, Dr. Luther did not resort to the Law or an ethical system when he<br />
exhorted Christians to live a sanctified lice. Rather, because Christ has won forgivcncss<br />
and everlasting lifc for Christians, they have bccn freed from worry about any of their<br />
personal concerns and for love and service to God and their- neighbours. When<br />
Christians are confronted by a situation demanding action on behalf of a neighbour,<br />
their primary question is not: What does the Law say? But they rather ask: How can<br />
we serve God and help our neighbour in need'?<br />
S7<br />
This includes the secondary question:<br />
If necessary, what injustice must bc overcome in order to serve God and help our<br />
neighbour? This is the Christians' principle of serving God and preventing harm to<br />
their neighbour by deed despite injustice and despite the danger they may incur for<br />
thcmsclves. Acting by this principle, for example, Israel's midwives disobeyed and<br />
deceived Pharaoh, risking punislment for themselves while saving the lives of baby<br />
boys; the Apostles disobeyed the orders of the. duly constituted authority of the<br />
Sanhcdrin by continuing to preach the Gospel ublicly (Acts 4: 18-21; 5:21,28); some<br />
Christian pastors preached against Nazi evilsp md some Christian laymen hid Jews<br />
from the Nazis.<br />
Likewise, Abram misled the Egyptians intentionally because he knew of the<br />
treachery praclised hy them (Gen. t2:12). Tn order to save his own lifc hc had to rcsort<br />
to dcccptive strategy. He did this not for his own sake, but, as the context indicates,<br />
for the sake of God's plan to bring the salvation oTHis blessing LO all the people groups<br />
of mankind (1 2:3). As we have seen in an~lnlber of Scriptural cases, God has no qualms<br />
about deceiving His enemy who, ultimately, is Satan, the arch-deceiver (see Gen.<br />
3:l-5; Jn. 8:44). Considering how God Himself employed deceptive tactics against<br />
His Satanic focs in human form, that Abram's stratagem was inspired by the Holy<br />
Spirit as Luther intimated would certainly not be an unreal possibility. Allhough<br />
Abranl knew that Sarai would be endangered, he did not yet know for sure that Cod's<br />
Promisc would be fulfilled through her as well as through himself (not until Gen.<br />
17: 16). Neither did Abrarn act without trust in God's help. The best he could do initially<br />
was Lo ensure his own safety. From thcn on, he had to leave everything--including<br />
Sarai-up to God. The LORD did not let him down, but plagued Pharaoh's household<br />
to save them both (12:17). That God did not judge Abram guilty of sin and that he<br />
acted rather in sinccrc faith is indicated by his and Sarai's leaving Egypt safely with<br />
many gifts (12: 16,20).<br />
In conclusion, there are no holds barred when dealing with "the fathcr of lies" and<br />
his human hcnchmcn who allow themselves to become his instruments of treachery<br />
and tysanny.39~l~e Cluistian must be sure that he is being led by his conscience as it<br />
57 Sec Cother, 'Ihr F~wdnrn ofn C'lil-istion, AE 31.344-5, 349,364-371.<br />
58 li.g., Hermann Sasse (''Die Kixhe und die politiaclle~i Mvlacl~le Jer Zeil" 119321, in: 112 Sratu Coifessiorzis, ed. F.<br />
W. Hopf, Berlin: Ve~lag die Spur, 1975, 251-264) dnd Paul Schneider (Der P~mligci' von Buchcrrwuld, ed.<br />
Heinrich Vugel, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstdlt, n.d.).<br />
59 Hummel434: There really is no "abstract 'evil' apart from embodiment in evil pcoplc ..."
Jolul K. Wilch: ABKAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT9 27<br />
is directed by God's Word as to whether he in a particular situation is really being<br />
confronted by Satanic rorces and may resort to a deceptive manoeuvre in order to be<br />
faithful in his service to God and in protecting his fellow mcn--that is (referring again<br />
to E. Edward Hackinann), in his "religious living," his "life of sanctification lived in<br />
the fear and lovc of God, in faith in Christ, through the power oT he Holy Spirit."<br />
In their life of sanctification, the Apostles broke thc Fourth Comrnandmcnt in thc<br />
sense of disobeying and dishonouring civil and religious authorities. Christians in<br />
Rome rejectcd thc demands of the authorities to offer sacrifices in the name of Caesar.<br />
Martin Luther spurned the authority of his bishop, the pope, the vicar of the<br />
Augustinian order and the emperor when he insisted on pursuing his evangelical<br />
reformation. Certain Saxons reneged in thcir divinely rcquired duty to thcir duly<br />
authorized aulhorities in ch~~rch and state by fleeing their homeland to settle in<br />
Missouri in 1539. Somc Christians deceived and disobeyed the authorities in Nazi<br />
Germany in order 10 save the lives of persecuted Jews. All these conscientiously<br />
claimed to "obey God rather than men" (Ac. 5:29). So, too, Abram in Egypt.<br />
The question to ask about a Christian's action is not the ethical one: was it good<br />
or bad? It is rather: could that have been an act springing from faith in Christ and from<br />
lovc of God?<br />
John R. Wilclz is pvofessor ofE~egefica1 Theology at Cowcordia Lutheran Theologirnl<br />
Seminary, St. Catharirzes, Ontarzo
AUGSBURG CONFESSION IV AND V:<br />
JU<strong>ST</strong>IFICATION, MEANS OF GRACE,<br />
OFFICE OF THE HOLY MINI<strong>ST</strong>RY<br />
INTRODUcrl'ION:<br />
THE <strong>ST</strong>RUCTURE OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION<br />
The contemporary debate on the Office of the Ministry has Socussed a lot of<br />
attention on the SiSth arlicle of the Augsburg Confession [AC]. While thcsc discussions<br />
have looked at this articlc's relatiomhip to both the fourth and fourteenth articles, we<br />
are concerned here with the fosmer. It is often noted [hat AC V is concerned with how<br />
one oblains the justification described in AC IV; but the mcrc juxtaposition of AC V<br />
with AC IV does not yet explain its purpose or content. We need to discover the<br />
unifying theme which holds both articles together and foims the hcart of each. In this<br />
way AC V will not only be cxplained by IV, but also the reverse--that is to say that<br />
our understanding of the article of justification itsell' is tied to the meaning of AC V!<br />
There are lour clues which suggest that articles four and five arc intimately mated<br />
with cach other. (l) The standard introductory foi-mula "It is further taught" [Weiter<br />
wird gelehrt; Item docent], present in one form or another at the start of most articles,<br />
1<br />
is lacking in AC V. This suggests that AC IV & V together are considered as a single<br />
articlc of faith, needing only the one introduction found at the start OS AC TV. Tn the<br />
doctrinal section (AC I-XXI) this omission occurs only twice morc. The two articles<br />
on the church (V11 & VIII) arc joined simply by "Item [likewise]". The church is<br />
defined in AC VII, yet the apparently contradictory definition of the church as thc<br />
"assernbl y of saints" and as the place of Word and Sacrament needs further explication.<br />
"Thc purpose of this article [VIII] is to make it in~possible for anyone to accuse the<br />
evangelicals of Donatism. The negotiators at the diet were well awarc that fcars of<br />
such an attack were not without grounds. . . ."2 Thus AC V111 serves as a sort of added<br />
3<br />
note to AC VII. The third instance of this omission deals with a real accusntioil<br />
levelled against them. AC XX "Of Faith and Good Works" begins: "Our [teachers]<br />
are falsely accuscd that they forbid good works". This, too, is a sort of added note, to<br />
1 All cilaliu~is oC 11ic Augsbuig Confession are based on the best critical edition: Die Bekeizntiz~ssclirft~iz clrr<br />
e~~i~~~grli.v~h-l~itI~t!~'i~rche~i<br />
KII.C/IE (BKS), 10th ed. (Gottingen: Vandcnhocck & Ruprecht, 1986). English translations<br />
are by the present author.<br />
2 Leif Grane, The Airgsbzrrg Coi;fessioii. A (loininmtory, tram .lnlin H . Rasmussen (h'hneapolis: Aupburg,<br />
1987) 99- 100.<br />
1 This is conf~rmed by the fact that in all the ea~ly sources ol the AC here ia only one article on the church. See<br />
LiKS h1 -62. Schwabach Article XI1 (1529) un Lhe chu~ch leflecrs only AC VII, and is tracedby BK,S to Luther's<br />
"G~eat Confessioii" (1528), which also I-eflects only AC VII. AC V111 must have been a. late addition to thc AC,<br />
fui even Ihr early draft of the AC identified as "Na" in BKS contains but onc articlc on thc church (see helnw<br />
for a discussion of all of these documents).
Thornay M Winger 4lJGSBlJRG CONFESSION IV & V 29<br />
be understood as an expansion of AC VI, or as a defence of the entire doctrine of<br />
4<br />
justification by faith. These parallel structures suggest that AC V is to be taken as an<br />
"added note", an apology and explanation of AC TV.<br />
(2) An indication that AC IV was not to bc considered complete in itself is given<br />
by its lack of any "condemnalion" paragraph. Perhaps the collde~nnahns given in AC<br />
V were meant to serve for bothIV and V as aunit. If this is the case, it would strengthen<br />
the link between the two, and bear implications for understanding AC IV in relation<br />
to the Anabaptist heresies condemned in V. This structure is paralleled again in AC<br />
V11 and VIII, whcrc condemnations fall only at thc cnd of thc lattcr articl~.~<br />
(3) The strongest connection is made by the introductory phrase "in order to obtain<br />
such faith" [Solchen GInr,~bc~i zu erlungcn; Ut hancf?dem ronseqim~~u~-1. This plxase<br />
indicates that AC V describes the means by which justification through faith (AC IV)<br />
is applied to the individual. The qualification or raith as "suchhhis Saith" poinls 10 an<br />
antcccdcnt in thc prcvious article. The connection might bc cxprcsscd in this way: AC<br />
1V describes the nature of justifying faith and its object; AC V explains how one<br />
obtains rhi\ faith. "Such Saith" provides the bridge belween the articles. and carries<br />
through even to AC VI.<br />
(4) Finally, one inmediately notices the verbal parallels between the articles in<br />
spcakina of justification. In fact, AC V within itself summarizes the entire content of<br />
G :<br />
AC IV. Th~s occurs as it describes what the "Gospel" teaches its hearers: "that not on<br />
account of' our merits but on account of Christ does God justify those who believe<br />
thenxclvcs rcccivcd into gracc on account of Christ" (Lat.). AC V prcsupposes the<br />
fuller exposition of these statements given in AC IV? and teaches that it is this very<br />
justification by faith which it promises to deliver.<br />
These observations raise several questions which we will address. What sort of<br />
"necessiLyW does AC V ascribe to its contents? IT AC V refers Lo the "Orrice of the<br />
Ministry", in what way is this "necessary for salvation"? If it refers only to the Means<br />
of Grace, why the references to the Predigtamt in the title and body of the text? Can<br />
the Means ol' Grace and the Ol'f'ice of the Ministry ever be allematives'! In order 10 go<br />
AC XX is vuken as an appendix to i\C lV-V1 by Nestor Beck, Tl~c Doctrt~w of Fc~itl~ (St. Louis: Concordin,<br />
P~~hlishing House 1987) 106: "hc [Mclanchthon] composcd Art. XX m order to~~fute theallegations concel-nmg<br />
the pemicmi~s ettects of the doctr~ne of justification through faith and tn demonstrate how nzcessary and<br />
benefic~al ~t is for etlhancing Clmst's glo~y, renewlog people's consciences, and promoting 11 ue aelvicz to God.<br />
111 short, .4rl. XX must be regdrded ds a delinite apology UI dehae of he doclrir~e uShilh." Beck (22) iderllifics<br />
arl. V111 and XX as idditions in reaponse to Eck's articles.<br />
However. in both cases the condemn~~tions seem to fit better only with the articles to which they are attached.<br />
Further doubt is rnised by the fact that condcmnntion paragraphs arc frcqucntly ahscnt in the AC. It sccms that<br />
whcrc thc contrary posltion is an ancicnt hcrcsy or aplcscnt ~ad~cal "Anahaptist" group ~t is directly condcmncd;<br />
where the contmry positmn IS pnmanly I
I ,UTHERAN TI IEOLOGICAL REVIE&<br />
beyond the barc structural exegesis pcrformcd above we must delve into the various<br />
sources for the production of the AC and the extant dral'ts ol' ils creation. We must ask<br />
whether the apparent str~~cture is retlected in these sources, and what alternatives were<br />
poscd at each stage. Furthermore, the original context of certain phrases will help tc<br />
understand their meaning in their new setting.<br />
THE "VISITATION" DOCUMENTS (1527-28)<br />
Perhaps lhe earliest direct source [or the AC is the articles drawn up for the<br />
visitation of Saxon parishes. Due to thc explosive expansion of the Reformation,<br />
enormous areas had been left without adequate oversight. Cominissions composed oi<br />
jurists and theologians were sent out into the parishes, in Saxony during the ycara<br />
1526-30, using these documents as norms of doctrine. Because of this use, these<br />
documents can be considered as one of the earliest evangelical "conlssions", fol<br />
which reason they were drawn upon for the AC.<br />
The first collection of Visitation Articles was produced by Melanchthon in Latin<br />
7<br />
in 1527. Justification is discussed under the first asticle, entitled: "First: what faith<br />
8<br />
is". Mclanchthon cannot rcfcr to "justification by faith" apart from an evangelical<br />
definition of faith. This lies behind the constant qualification in the AC: "such Saith",<br />
He begins with this definition:<br />
Now this is faith: to believe that God forgives our sins on account<br />
of Christ, and that he forgives sins, is near, guides and governs us<br />
and intends to save [us]. Moreover, mcn must be taught that faith<br />
is not only to believe the remission of sins, but also that it is proper<br />
to draw near by this [IBith], so that we might believe that after the<br />
forgiveness of sins wc arc defended and guidcd by God.<br />
Having thus stressed the meaning of faith, Melanchthon teaches justification in words<br />
very sin~ilar to what will appear in the AC.<br />
Therefore it must also bc taught that our sins arc forgivcn not on<br />
account of our merits, but on account of Cluist, . . . . Likewise they<br />
must be taught that even ir we should have merits and good works,<br />
nevertheless thcy would not bc ablc to appease God, according to<br />
this [passage]: "Say, 'We ase useless servants"' [Lk. 17:10];<br />
likewise, "No one living will he justified in your sight" [PS. 143:2].<br />
But we are justified by Christ-s satisfaction.'<br />
The Holy Spirit is introduced, as the article continues:<br />
7 Artiruli visitatinnrs. I'xceipts are prov~ded with some articles in BKS. The 1~111 iexi is in C ~~pu~Re~ot-mut~<br />
I'hilrppr Melcmchthonis upel-cl qiroe sirprrsii~~t omiiicr [CR], ed. Kd Gottlizb Brelbclmeider and Heinrich Ems<br />
Bindseil, 28 vols. (Hdllt: 61 Brau~lscl~weiy, 1834-60) 26:7-28.<br />
S Prirnum quid sitfides. CR 26: 10-12. The citations below come from this article.<br />
9 This language, including the Luke quotation, is picked up in AC VI.
p<br />
Tlloma~ M Wmgei: AUGSBURG CONFESSION IV & V 3 1<br />
In this way, thcrcfore, Christ is diligently shown to the people,<br />
wherefore the Father will have mercy on them, so that he certainly<br />
makes sati\laction Ibr our sms, and that on account of Chlst the<br />
Holy Spirit is givcn to thosc rcccived into grace, by whom the<br />
believ~ng elect are sanctified, guided, and watched over.<br />
Though the Holy Spirit is tied to justification, He appears as a gift rather than as<br />
the moving cause of its reception. Shot-tly aftcr this, however, the acquisition of faith<br />
is said 10 occur through hearing the Gospel, as in AC V.<br />
Under thc guiding hand of Luther, Melanchthon reworked these articles into<br />
Gennan, published in 1528 as the Instriiction for the Visitors to the Pastors i17 the<br />
Elector~~te oj'~axt,ny.10 'I%e visilations which have already taken place have unearthed<br />
a disdain for the Law and repentance.<br />
Concerning Doctrine. Among other things we find that the chicf<br />
defect in leaching is that while some do preach conceniing the faith<br />
by which we arc justified, nevcrthclcss the manner in which we<br />
attain that faith is not made sufficiently clear, and so almost all<br />
neglect the one article of Christian doctrine withuul which nu one<br />
can understand the true naturc of faith. . . . But, at the prcscnt time,<br />
many speak only of the forgiveness of sins and have little or<br />
nothing to say concerning repentance. Yet there can be no forgiveness<br />
of sins nor understanding of the naturc of such forgiveness<br />
without repentance. l l<br />
The problcm is a wrong understanding of faithbtrue justifying I'aith is only<br />
attained by the road of repentance.<br />
The "Instructions" remind us that the means cited "to obtain such faith" is dictated<br />
somewhat by the error being combattcd. In this case, "repentance" is that without<br />
which I'aith cannot be obtained. "Therefore when preaching about faith the people<br />
must continually be instructed where true faith can exisl and how we may attain to it,<br />
for true faith cannot exist where there is no true rcpcntance."12 Thc right use of the<br />
Meany of Grace is hardly neglected, however: there is constant emphasis on Confession<br />
and Absolution before receiving Communion. Though there is no separate arlicle<br />
on the Office of the Ministry, the entire document prcsumcs thc need for pastors to<br />
preach the Law and administer the Means of Grace as the solution to the crisis.<br />
10 liilte~richr der I4siturol-rz an die Pk~rhef-rr )nl Ku
32 LUI'HEKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEL<br />
LUTHER'S GREAT CONFESSION (1528)<br />
It should not be necessary to repeat here the circumstances of Luther's gre;<br />
writing Confession Conceunif~g Christ's Supper (1528).13 According to 1,ulher'<br />
express intent, the third section of this work was to be his confcssion from which h<br />
would not stray until death. Therefore it served as a major source for the AC.<br />
Justification is discussed under [lie second article of the confession's "Trinitarian<br />
structure. The "officc of pricst" is citcd as an institution established by God, but, lilc<br />
the estates of mail-iage and civil government, it is not a cause ul' salvation for thos<br />
who hold it.<br />
Bcllold, all of thcsc arc callcd good and holy works. However,<br />
none of these orders is a means of salvation. There remains only<br />
one way above them all. viz. faith in Jesus Chsist. For to be holy<br />
and to be saved are two entirely different things. We are saved<br />
tl~ough Chsist alone . . . . 14<br />
All the glory in salvation is ascribed to Christ and His work alonc. "And it i<br />
impossible that there should be more saviours, ways, or means [wege odder weise] h<br />
be saved than through the one righteousness which our Saviour Jesus Christ is and ha<br />
bestowed upon us, and has offcrcd to God for us as our one mercy seat, Roman<br />
3[:25]".15<br />
Under the third arlicle Luther discusses the conlplen~entary roles of Christ and th~<br />
Holy Spirit in justification.<br />
[Because of the Fall] the Son himself subsequently gave himsell'<br />
and bestowed all his works, sufferings, wisdom, and rightcousness,<br />
and rcconciled us to the Father, in order that restosed to life<br />
and righteousness, we might also know and have the Father and<br />
his gifts. Rut because this gracc would bcnefit no onc if it remained<br />
so profoundly hidden and could not come to us, the Holy S i~it<br />
comes and gives himself to us also, wholly and completely. I ff<br />
Chr~at attains justification and thc Holy Spirit bcstows it on men. This hc<br />
accomplishcs through means:<br />
He does this both i~iwardly and outwardly --inward1 y by means of<br />
faith and other spiritual gifts, outwardly through the gospel, baptism,<br />
and the sacrament of the altal, through which as thsough three<br />
means or melhods ht: comes to us and inculcates the sufferings of<br />
1'1 Van? Abe17dmnliI C'hristi, Ueke~rriinis. U;;i 26:241-509=AE 37:153-372.<br />
14 WA 26:505~~-'~=~~ 37:365.<br />
15 WA 26:504~"~~=il~ 37:364. Schwabach Article V11 speaks in similar terms of thePrcaii~mmt, as the<br />
or path" ta justifying faith. See below.<br />
16 AE 37:366=WA 26:505~~-506~.
Thornas M. W~nge~. AUGSUUKC CONFESSION TV M V<br />
Christ for the benefit of our salvation. '<br />
Faith is inner, yet it comes orily from outside by the woi-k of the Holy Spirit through<br />
external means. This twofold discussion of the acquisilion of justification and its<br />
applicalion foreshadows the relationship of articlcs IV and V in the Augsburg<br />
Confcssion.<br />
THE SCHWABACH ARTICLES (1529)<br />
Thc most direct precursor ol' LIE doctrinal articles in the AC is the Schwnbach<br />
~rticles," so called because thcy wcrc submitted as a basis of union by the Saxoris at<br />
a conference with southern Germans at Schwabach, 16-19 October 1529. Though<br />
rejected at this confcrcnce, they were picked up in he earliest negotiations at Augsburm<br />
in May 1530.'' The Schwabach Articles prefigure the AC in their subdued polemics. 28<br />
Maurer dwells at length on the differences between these articles and Luthcr's<br />
Confession (1528), and lancnts the loss of the Trinitarian outline. 'lhis he attributes<br />
to Melanchthon's "abstract approach".21 Though "abstract" is less than accurate, the<br />
articlcs certainly show Melanchthon's systematic thinking, presenting for the first time<br />
a distinct article on justification.<br />
The older of articles surrounding that on justification suggests thc logic of this<br />
docurncnt. At least the first ten articles are co~mected by an introductory phrase which<br />
picks up on something in the preccding article. Justification (art. V) is connected to<br />
the previous article on original sin by the phrase: "Since now all mcn are sinncrs . . .<br />
it is impossible that a man worlc out by his own powers or good works that he again<br />
become righteous and godly."22 Justification is continually described as beyond Lhe<br />
powers within inan to aLPain. In fact, the harder man tries, the worse it goes for him.<br />
. . . but that the only way [weg] to righteousness and to deliverance<br />
from sin and death is as one without all mcrit or work believes in<br />
the Son of God, whv suffered fos us, etc., as we have said. Such<br />
faith [solcher glnwh] is our righteousness, for Gocl is pleased to<br />
AE 37:3hh=WA 2h:~~lh'~'~. The nature of these "other spiritual gifts" is not explained. Luther is conce~ned only<br />
with faith. The "internal-exrcmaI' [bst~r~caon is explained further below, inconnection virh the hkans urGrace.<br />
CC'A 3011':81-91; some articles are in I1KS; trans. in Reu "40-"44.<br />
On the baais of the dale of the Schwaback meeting, scholarv plw~ously assumed that these were a reworking of<br />
the Marburg Articles; ~esemcll has denio~lst~ated, however. that they had been In production already during the<br />
summer of 1529, and thus were llle fo~e~u~lne~ of the Ma~burg Articles. See the ~ntl.odnction in WA 30"':81;<br />
also Granc 15; and Wilhelm Maurer, Histor-ircrl Cornrtw~1ii1-v o~i the Aiq~Dur-R Con$ession, rrans. 11. Cieorge<br />
Andersnn (Philadelphia: Fomess. 1986) 4, 9 10.<br />
blmrer 21: "'l'hc scvcntccn Schwabach Articles depend on Luther's private confession [l5281 but lhcy are less<br />
cumprel~ensive. That stems frnln Ihc grcatcr rcstraint they maintain toward both the enthusiasts and the<br />
L~aditionalists.'<br />
Maurer 24. Maurer's predilection for Luther over Melanchtlron is evident ultimately from the fact that at the<br />
end of his commentary on Lhe AC he appends his personal suhzcription not to the A(:, hut only to Luther's 1528<br />
Confession (419).<br />
All rcfcrcnces to the Schwabach Articles are translaled by the presenl author fiom WA 30'":87-88.
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVTEW<br />
reckon and regard as righteous, god1 y, and h01 y, to forgive all sins<br />
and give eternal life to, all who havc such faith [solichenn glnwben]<br />
in His Son, that for His Son's sake they should be Laken into<br />
grace ancl be His children in His kingdom.<br />
Schwabach Article V is at pains to cxplain that the faith which justifies is that faith<br />
which holds to an object outside of man: the Son of God who suKered lor us. "Such<br />
faith" can be considered as righteousness becausc it is intcrchangeable with its<br />
object. 23<br />
Article V1 contains elements of AC V and VI. It emphasizes "that such faith [Das<br />
.so/ichcr glawb]" is not a human work but is "God's work and gift which the Holy<br />
Spirit, given through Christ, works in us". This stresses the role 01 the Holy Spirit in<br />
giving such faith; even Saith is not "something in man" but is a gift from outside.<br />
However, it then adds to thc definition of "such faith" the fruits and good works<br />
produced before God, and for the neighbour. This progression OS thought runs thc<br />
danger of subsuming good works under justification. Thc order of thcse articles will<br />
continue to shift until settled in the AC.<br />
The seventh article coins the familiar phrase to be picked up in AC V: "In order<br />
to obtain such faith [Solicherzn glcxzrhen zuer.lalzngerz]", further qualified by the<br />
marvellous phrase, "or [rather] to give [it] to us ~iien". This means is further expounded:<br />
God instituted the Prcaching Officc or oral Word [daspr.edig ambt<br />
oder murltlich ~lort], namely the Gospel, tl~ough which He causes<br />
Lo be preached such faith and its power, use and fruit, and givcs<br />
also through thc same, as through a means, faith with His Holy<br />
Spirit, how and where He desires. Otherwise there is no other<br />
mean5 or manner, neither ways nor paths [weder. wege noch stege]<br />
to rcceive faith, for thoughts outside or before the oral Word,<br />
however holy and good they appear, Lire certainly vain lies and<br />
errors.<br />
This differs from AC V in two significant ways. First, as noted, it includes the<br />
fruits of faith under the definition of "such faith" which is givcn. Secondly, it speaks<br />
only of the "oral Word" in apposition to the "Preaching Office", without mention of<br />
the Sacraments.<br />
The Sacrame~its appear in the next article: "With and bcside this oral Word God<br />
also institutcd cxtcmal signs, namely Baptism and the Eucharist, tlxough which,<br />
beside the Word, Cod also offers and gives faith and His Spirit and strengthens all<br />
who desire Him." What definition of Predigtnmt docs this suggest? One could argue<br />
that it spcaks of thc "preaching office" in abstract as the oral Word in any ram.<br />
However, the separation of Word Srom Sacraments could simply bc bascd on the<br />
23 Scc Rcclc 70-75.
Thornas M. Wmger: AUGSRllRG CONFESSION IV & V 35<br />
understanding of the Word as comprehending also Lhe Sacraments, so that the<br />
Predigtunzt can be spoken of simply according to the Word. The Sacraments are then<br />
added in article V111 in furlher explanalion, and to introduce the articles on each<br />
Sacrament which follow. Perhaps Mclanchthon rccognized the potential danger in tllis<br />
separation, combining Scl~waDach V11 and V111 into AC V so that it is clear that the<br />
Office of the Ministry, including both Word and Sacrar~ient, is intended. Finally one<br />
must note that the real issue is the externality of the Word. Faith comes by the oral<br />
[nzuntlich] Word. What is rnuendlicl? requires a concrete Mund "mouth"; thus he<br />
speaks of the "Preaching ~ fficc".~~<br />
THE MARBURG ARTICLES (1529)<br />
At the Marburg Colloquy, 1-4 October 1529, Iduther adapted (apparently) the<br />
seventeen S~~h~~ubach Articles into fourteen Ma~hztrg Articles, adding a treatment of<br />
the L,ord's ~ up~er.~' On the surlhce the Mu~b~trg Articles appear to abandon the neat<br />
linkiug of articles achieved in their prcdc~cessor. However, by pawing over the<br />
numbering of the articles and the stock phrase "Gleuhen wir [WC belic~c]", one finds<br />
the same intimatc conncctions. The linking word again is "such". Article V "Vom<br />
C&dwn [Of Faith]" follows on the discussion of original sin.<br />
Fifthly, we believe that we are delivered from such sin and all other<br />
sins, together with eternal death, as we believe in this Son of God,<br />
Jesus Christ, who died for us, etc., and apart from such faith,<br />
through no kind of work, stat~on, or order, etc., may we be<br />
delivered from any sins, etc. 26<br />
"Such faith" is defined according to its external objcct: Cln-ist and His work.<br />
Good works find no place in Lulher's discussion of justifying faith--a dccidcd<br />
inlprovement upon the Schwabach Articles. In l'act, with the hits of faith moved to<br />
article X, Luther is able in articles V-V111 to alternate between justification by faith,<br />
and thc means of obtaining this faith. Hue we find repeated emphasis on the external<br />
At Augsburg in May 1530 the Schwabach Articles, hither10 kqx sfcrel, appeared in an ~llic~t printing under thc<br />
trtie, I;IR Hdwmtilis c/zr.or/lcher Lehl-r cind c/zr.isrlic/~cn Glaubms ["A Confessiuli ol Cluistian Doctrine and<br />
Clu.ist~an I'a~th.'] (WA 30"': 172-182), ascribed to Luther. Three Roman theologians reapundetl wiilr dztailed<br />
rel'ulatio~~, Gegrri die brkni7ntnri~ iMnr.tini Lut1ie1.s . . . ["Against the Confession of Marlin Luthrr"] (CV,4<br />
30'": 186-93). Iulespome to V they nrgue that 'fmth aionc" is ~nadcquate. Instead, pl.ecedingdiv~negraceallous<br />
one to bring onesell LU furtbe~ grace, tlumgh which good works arc dccmcd rncritorious. Faith which works<br />
through love is necessary. The lea1 issue is not so lnilch "faith alone" vs. "faith and works", but more whether<br />
anything in man contributes to his aalva~ion. Faith alone points only to what 1s outside. Therefnrc, on V1 thcy<br />
ohjcct that in Baptism faith and virtues are poured in, so hi, So~~nrd by divms love, faith does mcr~torious<br />
wo1.k~. In crltic~zing V11 they so dilute the preached Word lhat it becomea only a lrleluis of iilstruction and<br />
enlightenment 111 thosc who already have faith poured in. Grane (71) discusses their Cundarrienrally dilkrent<br />
undrrslandi~ig of proclamation.<br />
W7A 30'11:92-171; some a~ticles are in HKS; tmnslation in AE 38:XS-89. and Reu *44-4'47. The historical<br />
background is discussed ii~ Maurer Y c! 26<br />
Marbusg ,bticles V-V111 ale hund in WA 30'": 162-65.
36 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
means of salvalion.<br />
Sixthly, that such faith is a gift of God, which we can neither<br />
acquire by any p~eced~ng work or merit nor produce by our own<br />
power, but the Holy Spirit gives and creates the samc in our hcarts<br />
where He desires, when we hear the Gospel or Word of Christ.<br />
For the acquisit~on of faith we are agam direcled outside of ourselves to the<br />
external work of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel of Christ. This givcn, cxternally<br />
directed faith is counted as righteousness and justifies.<br />
Seventhly, that such faith is our righteousness before God, since<br />
on account of this God reckons and rcgards us righteous, godly,<br />
and holy, without any work and merit, and through this He delivers<br />
from sin, death, and hell, Lakes [us] into grace, and saves [us] for<br />
thc sake of His Son, in whom wc thus believe, and thereby enjoy<br />
and are partakers of His Son's righteousness, life, and all goods.<br />
By a faith wh~ch trusts in Chr14t's work, we \hare in all the spoils of His victory<br />
as a gift.<br />
The external means then receive further exposition. The work or the Holy Sp~r~t<br />
15 repeated in an expl~citreatment of the externality of thc Word:<br />
Eighthly, that the Holy Spirit, to speak of proper order [or-dentlich<br />
ziiredden], gives no one such faith or its [His?] gist withoul<br />
preceding preaching or oral Word or Gospel of Christ, but through<br />
and with such oral Word He works and creates faith, where and in<br />
who111 He desires.<br />
ln the next article he cites Baptism as also institutcd "for such faith. One notes<br />
that in place of thc Sclzwnbaclz Articles' "dos yr-edig ambt oder. muntlich wort<br />
[Preaching Office, or oral Word]" Luther offers "P~digt oder murrt1ic.h wort oder-<br />
Eumgelion Christi [preaching or oral Word or Gospel of Christ]". This is one solution<br />
to the possible confusion the Schwabach Articles allow: not the entire Oflice, but the<br />
"preaching" aspect thereof is identified wilh the oral Word. These central articles are<br />
unified by the thcmc: "such faith".<br />
AN EARLY DRAFT OF THE AUGSRURG CONFESSION (NA)<br />
On 8 May 1530 the cmpcror rejected thc Schwabach Articles, sent by Elector John<br />
in preparation for Augsburg. Until this point new theological work had Iocussed on<br />
abuses (producing the Tor-guu A~.ticles), with the intention that the Schwabnch Articles<br />
would serve as thc doctrinal confcs~ion.~~ Their rejection gave need for an improved<br />
confession. Melanchthon and the other theologians and lawyers began work in the last
Thomas M. Winger: AUGSBURG CONFESSION TV & V 37<br />
third of May 1530, and by 31 May the Nurnberg delegates wcrc able to producc a<br />
nearly complete copy of the Latin text, which they sent home to Niimberg on 3 June.<br />
On 10 June this text was translated into German for their city council, and this<br />
translation is available today, identified in BKS as " ~ a " . ~ ~<br />
Becausc of the rejection OF the Srhwahuch Artklcs, it is not surprising that Na<br />
differs significantly from them.2g Schwabach I-IV arc rearranged in Na 1-111 so that<br />
the soteriological articles follow directly on Christology, rather than on original sin.<br />
Thereupon follows an interesting twist on the order oT Schwaharh V-VII. "Version<br />
Na places statements about the Holy Spirit immediately after the christological article<br />
and considers them as presupposilio~is Sor the bestowal of salvation through Word and<br />
~acrament."~~ The a~.ticlcs procced in this ordcr:<br />
Fourthly, that the Holy Spirit is given through the means of thc<br />
Word and the Sacrament, as Paul says: "Faith comes Trom hearing"<br />
[Rom. 10:17]. Here arc rcjccted thc habaptists and the like, who<br />
despise the Word and Sacraments, and think that the Holy Spirit<br />
is obtaincd through human preparation.<br />
Fifthly, that we may not obtain forgiveness of sin and justification<br />
before God through our own work or satisfaction, but rather we<br />
receive frccly, sheerly for nothing, as we believe that sin is<br />
forgiven us through Clxist and we are taken into grace. For this<br />
reason Christ came into the world, that all who believe on Him<br />
should not perish. Jn 3. Through such faith in the Gospel or<br />
promise of grace we receive the Holy Spirit, as Paul says in Gal.<br />
3, that we receive the promise of the Spirit through I'aith.<br />
Sixthly, that this faith brings good works with it, or that of<br />
necessity nlust do good works, for the reason that God desires to<br />
have thcm, although one does not thereby merit forgiveness of sins<br />
and righteousness before God, but they are given to us frccly, as<br />
we believe that the Father receives us into grace for Clrrist's sake<br />
and we are justificd, just as thc ancient teachers say, such as<br />
Ambrosius, the Epistle to the Corinthians: "This is resolved by<br />
God, that whoever believes in Christ, is saved without works and<br />
freely receives the forgiveness of sins through faith."<br />
By numbering the asticles strictly and rearranging their order, Na loses the neat<br />
28 See Maurer 13-14. Na is prinkcl d~licle by article with Lhe 4C iliBICS, and as 'The Oldest Form of the Augshurg<br />
Confession, May 31, 1530" in Reu "166-"303.<br />
29 Subsequent revisions drew more heavily upon the Schwabrzch Articicv as the evangelicals fuund the amusphere<br />
m m congcninl than expected. Thus the final form of AC shows a return to the Sclzwabuch A~.ticles. See below.<br />
30 Manrer 72. 1 Ic sccs thls as a rcturn to thc Trinitarian format of Lulher's 1528 Confession, thus placing greater<br />
emphasis on Pneurnatology.
38 LU I HEKAN 7 HEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
connections which the Schwabach Ar.ticles made between each article. Na 1V removes<br />
the rel'erence to the Prcdigtamt which was present in the Schwabnch Articles. Pcrhaps<br />
that is because of thc Trinitarian structure noted above: the article speaks of the Spirit<br />
working directly through the means. Never~heless, the theologians must have found<br />
this unsatisfactory, for the Pvcdigtumt is retumcd in AC V. Thcy cannot say Means<br />
of Grace without Office. Na V removes the connection with original sin, and seems<br />
out of place when co~mecled with Pneumatology. The AC rectifies this by placing<br />
justification after Christology. Na V also lacks Schwabach's strong statement that<br />
"such faith is our righteousness", which returns in AC IV. The order 01 Na lacks the<br />
aclive role 01' the Holy Spirit in giving faith; instead, the Holy Spirit is Himsclf the<br />
gift. Thus faith and the Means of Grace are not cleanly presented. Na takes a positive<br />
step, though, in moving good works akr justification, which leads into AC V1 with<br />
little change. These great changes, not surprisingly, have left Na a little rough. 3 1<br />
THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION (25 JUNE 1530)<br />
The preceding investigation has equipped us to identify what is significant in the<br />
structure of the final form of the AC, presented to the enlperor on 25 June 1530. 32<br />
First, a negative conclusion: the re.jection of the Anabaptists probably docs not apply<br />
to both AC IV and V, since in its first appearance (Na) it comes before the justification<br />
article. The lack of a condenmation paragraph in AC 1V would suggest that the<br />
contrasy error is Roman. The other three clues discussed in the introduction, howcver,<br />
have gained strength.<br />
The sources demonstrate that the distribution of introductory phrases like "it is<br />
further taught" is not accidcntal. Absent in all sources up to Na (31 May 1530), they<br />
appear in the first original Gernlan formulation of the new confession, sent to Niirnberg<br />
on 15 June ( NI).~~ 'I'his document lacks this phrase in the same three placcs as the<br />
final AC. The only altcsnate reading for the start of AC V appears in Spalatin's copy<br />
of a working version (Sp), which reads: "Weiter wird in unscrcn Kir-chcn gclchl-t lrnd<br />
gcpr-edigt . . . [It is further taught and preachcd in our churches . ..<br />
Maurer dates<br />
Sp bcfore 15 June, since it appears less complete than ~ 1 The fact . that ~ Sp ~ includes<br />
the introductory phsase befure every doctrinal article suggests that the authors had a<br />
puipose in removing it where thcy did--or perhaps that Spalatin himself added it.<br />
3 1 Maurel- (33) notes: "All of these observers lead to the conclusion that whenever Na goes beyond its prcdcccssors<br />
the formulations are not yet completely polished. Thc author has clca~.ly concentratctl lnorc on the composltlon<br />
as a whole than on rndlvitlual ideas." PyIaurcr 288-89 has a mqor disclrssion ot Na's rearrangement of the<br />
Schwahach Articlcs.<br />
32 No original maooscnpt exists from th~s presentatioi~. BKS follows ~11z 1580 Gern~anBook u/Cuilcur.ci in placing<br />
[he greatest weight on the rnanuscnpt Mz for the Gel.~nan Lest; he Lati~~ tzxl iri BKS I'ulluws the manuscript<br />
group I
Thomas M. Winser: AUGSBURC CONFESSION IV Rr V 39<br />
The connecting phrase "to obtain such faith", taken from thc Schwabach Articles,<br />
carries with it all the fi-eight we have discovered concerning the content of "such faith".<br />
"Faith" is the unifying thcmc through AC TV-VT. As the Roman objections have<br />
de~nonstrated, the issue was not whether a man need "only believe" over against<br />
"bclieve and do world. Rather the entire dehitiori oSl'aith was dil'krent. For Kome,<br />
faith was a quality in man (although poured in by God), which was viewed as<br />
meritorious when formed by love and works.36 For the Reformers, "faith" was a gift<br />
of the Holy Spirit, and was interchangeable with its object: Christ and his work. The<br />
real dichotomy was between justification depending on "something in man" and all<br />
of justification "outside of man". AC V describes the means by whicl~ faith comes<br />
from the outsidc.<br />
In the early draft Na, "justification" phrases were removed from the discussion of<br />
thc Means of Grace. The new order in the final form OS the AC allowed them to be<br />
inserted again. Thus AC IV-V1 is tied togcthcr by thc repetition of justification "by<br />
grace, fix Christ's sake, through faith".<br />
THE MEANS OF GRACE<br />
Clearly, AC V e~nphasizes the Means of Grace as the way to obtain justification<br />
by faith, in opposition to the Anabaptists "and others". Rut why are the Means of Grace<br />
the necessary way? This question can be answercd by turning to Luthcr's grcat work<br />
against the Srhwiki-mu-: Aguirlsl /he Heuvenly Prophets, in the Mattel. of Irrlnges and<br />
Sne-arnent (1<br />
Accordiug to Luther, Karlstadt and his followers claim that God speaks directly<br />
to them, informing their tloctrine.38 This is in line with Karlstadt's constant emphasis<br />
on internals.<br />
His iusole~lce leads llim to set up a contrary order and, as we have<br />
said, seeks to whorriinate God's outward order to an inner spiritual<br />
one. Casting this order to the wind with ridiculc and scorn, hc<br />
wants to get to the Spirit first. . . . But should you ask how one<br />
gains acccss to this same lofty spirit they do not refer you to the<br />
outward gospel but to some imaginary realm, saying: Remain in<br />
"sell-abstraction" [dcr lung weyle] where I now am and you will<br />
S6 Heck (39) cxpla~ns how tlccp the difference was as he describes Eck's objection: "If Chistians would accept<br />
that hth alone 1s sufficient and no ~vork? arc ncccssary, they would not do good worlts and consequently would<br />
not acquire mel-its. Wilhout Inerrts, howevel., they would not ohtain calvation. Tf Christians would presume that<br />
pdith aluue juslifies and for th~s leason would disregard love and works, theu tmth would remain ineflcctivc and<br />
lhey wuuld not be justiSied; Sol-ouly the hit11 whichdoes good works on account of love is ahle to juztity, lwm<br />
Eck's perspective, 'fdilll alone' and ik sequels theaiened the co~e of 'Catholic' sute~iolugy."<br />
37 WI&T die i7in7miisclici1 Proplieten, v011 deii Bildem ~ind Sncr'ornenf. W.4 18:62-214=AE 40:73-223.<br />
40:lU: WA 18:138'=~~ 40:l48.<br />
38 WA 18:lN2'=;l~
LUTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
have the same experience. A heavenly voice will come, and God<br />
himself will speak to you. 39<br />
In this way Karlstadt actually rernovcs any way for thc Spirit to come to men:<br />
With all his mouthing of the words, "Spirit, Spirit, Spirit", he tears<br />
down the bridge, the path ancl the way [steg und wcg], the ladder,<br />
and all the means by which thc Spirit might come to you, namcly<br />
the outward order of God in the material sign of Baptism and the<br />
oral [mundliche~i] Word of God. He wants to teach you: not how<br />
the Spirit comes to you but how you come to the Spirit. 40<br />
Luther responds with the proper order of the Spirit's work, by distinguislling that<br />
which is outsidc from that inside.<br />
Now as God sends forth his IIoly Gospel he deals with us in a<br />
twofold manner, Grst oulwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he<br />
deals with us through thc oral [mindliehe] Word of the Gospel and<br />
tluough material [leypliche] signs, that is, Baptism and the Sacrament.<br />
Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit and Saith,<br />
together with other gifts. But whatcvcr thcir mcasurc or order the<br />
outward factors should and must precede. And the inward comes<br />
aftcr and through the outward, since he [God] has determined to<br />
give the inward to no one except through the outward. For he wants<br />
to give no one the Spirit or Sailh outside or the outward Word and<br />
sign, which hc has instituted for this . . . . 41<br />
The Means of Grace are stressed because they are external; they direct man to<br />
God for the savlng laith which God gives.<br />
Luthcr dcscribcs justification thc samc way. Karlstadt directs one to the cross<br />
through inwa~d med~tation. Luther responds:<br />
Christ on [he cross with all his suffering and death do not help,<br />
even if, as you teach, they are "acknowlcdgcd and mcditated upon"<br />
w~th the utmost "passion, ardour, heartfeltness". Something else<br />
must always be there. What is it'? The Word, the Word. the Word. 42<br />
Karlstadt not only makcs cvcrything inward, but also confi~ses Christ's earning<br />
of justification with its application to the individual.<br />
We treat of the forgiveness OS sins in two ways. First, how it is<br />
achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and givcn to us.
Thomas M. Wingcr: AUGSBUKG CONFESSION IV 6( V<br />
Christ has won it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed<br />
or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the Supper or<br />
Sacramcnt. But there he has distributed and given it through the<br />
Word, as also in the Gospel, where it is preached [pedigt].. . . If<br />
now I desire to have my sins forgivcn, I must not run to the cross,<br />
for I do not find it distributed there. Nor must l hold to the suffering<br />
of Christ in knowledge or remembrance, as Dr Karlstadt trifles,<br />
for T will not find it there cither. But [I must hold] to the Sacrament<br />
or the Gospel. where I find the Word, which dislributes, delivers,<br />
offers, and gives 10 me such forgivcness which was won on the<br />
43<br />
cross.<br />
This analysis can now be applied to AC IV and V. First, it shows Luther pointing<br />
to what is exkernal. Thur AC TV directs faith to its external object, and AC V leads<br />
one to an external mcans for obtaining that faith. Secondly, the distinction between<br />
Christ's acquisition of salvation, arid its delivery to the individual, suggests the same<br />
distinction in AC IV and V: AC IV dcscribcs the nature of justifying faith and the<br />
salvation won by its object, Christ; AC V describes how such Faith is ohtaincd by thc<br />
individual.<br />
THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY MINI<strong>ST</strong>RY<br />
If the stress in AC V lies on the Means of Grace for the acquisition of faith, why<br />
does it speak first of thc instit~ition of "dns Pr.edigarnt [the beaching Ol'fice]",<br />
"ministerium docendi evangelii etpol-rigendi sacmrncnti [the Ministry of tcaching the<br />
Gospel and handing out the Sacr.aments]"? Is the titlc given to AC V, "Vorn Predigmmt;<br />
DP minisfe~io ecclesinstico", really "misleading" as is so oSten asserted'! 44<br />
Such an assertion separates the Means of Grace Prom the Office of the Ministry.<br />
A question which pith the Means against thc Officc is wrongly put. Thus Eugene Klug<br />
poscs the false alternatives of a "high church" "episcupal" interpretation of AC V,<br />
and a "functional'; "Means of Grace" reading4? Klug opts for thc latter based on his<br />
CVA 18:203~~-204~=A~ 40:211- 14.<br />
See The Book of Conco~~l, cd. I'heodore Tappelt (Philadelpl~ia: Furiress, 1959) 31 n. 4: "This title would bc<br />
m~slcading it it were not obse~ved (as the text ufthe arlicle makes clear) that the Reformers thought of 'thc office<br />
of the mmistry' in other than clerical tarnis." Tappert has not done justice to the corresponding nntc in HK,S SS<br />
11. 1, which, by the exprcssiun 'nicht klerikal', merely denies any hierarchicalism. The reterences BKS cites<br />
show llial Luther thought of the Predigtiimt :IS parallel to thc othcr dwinely ~nstitnted orde~s: nlmiage and<br />
govamment. The Ministry is not a "hlgher order", but lt ic an nrdct, an otfice. Tappert 27 11.2 notes tIraL~11c tillts<br />
were added "in and after 1533"; cf. BKS 50. 'l his would 1-efel to the ocluvo edition of the German AC<br />
(Wittenberg. 1533). Cf. CR 26:723. Printcdundcr hlelanchthon's superrisiun, thia litle must be a Fair assessment<br />
of its contcntq.<br />
Eugene F. Klug. ".4~1gshnrg V. Intent and Meaniug ol Lbe Confessors on 'Ministry'", Concordia Journal 17.1<br />
(Jan. 1991): 30.31. Klug argues that AC V u~usl be speaking of a "broad" use of rmrzisteri~mz, clsc thc. 'valid~ty"<br />
of the Meaus uf Grace would depend on llwr being done by clergy. "Validity" is a Law question, and as such<br />
misses the point. The Gospel qucation asks whether or not God has givcn the Office ot the Minist~ y to adnli~lisler<br />
the Means of Grace for our benefit.
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
reading of Holstcn Fagcrbcrg. Yet Fagerberg merely stresses that the Confessions<br />
view the Office according to its functions. Against Rome's view that ordination places<br />
the priest into a higher class, ignoring the Means of Grace, the Confessions emphasize<br />
that the Office has been instituted for the sake of thc Mcans of Grace. Therefore, for<br />
apologetic reasons, they never talk about the Office apart from its functions. 46<br />
Against this background we can now understand AC V. This<br />
article says more about the Word and sacraments than it docs about<br />
the office of the ministry, because the Holy Spisit comes to man<br />
though thcsc and not through the office. When Melwchthon<br />
formulated AC V, he did not exclude the special office of the<br />
ministry, but he was anxious to give expression to its new meaning<br />
as an instrument for thc Word and the sacraments. As a result, he<br />
shilled the emphasis from the ministry to the means of grace. 47<br />
The Office cannot be discussed apart from Lhe Means of Grace, nor can the Means<br />
be discussed apart from the Office, for "To be effective, the gospel must actually be<br />
preached and the sacraments ~nust be administered. But these are precisely the<br />
functions the symbolical books attribute to the incumbents OS the sacred<br />
Divorced from the Office of the Ministry, thc Mcans of Gracc arc just an<br />
ab~traction.~~ As we have noticed, the purpose of the sequence AC IV-V1 was to point<br />
man ootsidc of himself for his salvation. Just as Christ is the external object of' faith,<br />
and the Means of Grace are the external delivery points, so also thc Officc of the<br />
Ministry is the instrument for keeping the Means external. One cannot preach to<br />
oneself, baptize oncsclf, commune oncsclf (alone), or absolve oneself.<br />
Cannot one have those [objective, external] means of grace without<br />
ordained clergy'! The unexpressed premise, however, is that<br />
the ministerial office is necessary to prcaching and sacraments.<br />
The word of God communicated orally and sacramentally does<br />
not retain its true life-giving character a\ God's word, not ours,<br />
unless it is offered by ministcrs who stand over against the con-<br />
46 Holsten I'agcl.hct.g, A New Look at the Lutheran Corfcssions (1529-1537), trans. Gene Lund (St. Louis:<br />
Concordia, 1972) 226-50: especially 233.<br />
47 Faperbelg 246.<br />
48 Arlliu~ Car1 Piepkorn, "The Sacred Ministry and IIoly Ordination in the Symbolical Books ot thc 1,uthcran<br />
Church", in Lutherctn.~ und Cu/holic~ in Diulu~ue IV: E[lririi~-ist utld Mitristry (U5.4. National Committee of<br />
the Lutheran World Federation and the Bishop's Cornniilkz Ivr Ecurrienicdl and Inle~~eligious Arfairs, 1970)<br />
104.<br />
49 Cf. Dawd Trucmpcr, "Church and Ministly in the Lutheran Symbols: Serving the Gospel to the Priestly People",<br />
in Chiirri~ end A4uzistr.y: Chosoz Race, Royal Priesthood, Holy Nation, God's Own People, ed. Daniel C.<br />
Urockopp, Brim I.. f lelge, and Llavrd G. Tiucmper (Valparaiso, IN: Institute of Liturgical Studies, 1982) 67:<br />
"The Augsburg Confession know3 nothing ot an ahstract function of ministry apart from its concrete occurrence<br />
iri iricuniben~s of the office of the miu~stry. This parallels the notion that the gospel may not he ahstractcd from<br />
its concrete saying and doing in preaching and aacrauients."
Thnmas M. Wlngcr: ArGSBLRG CONFESSION IV & V<br />
gregation, whose authority comes from God rather than human<br />
beingj, who represenl . . . not Ihemselves, but "the person of<br />
Christ" (Christi personam). . . . The inseparability of office and<br />
function explains, in turn, the declaration that "God ~nslituted the<br />
preaching office (Prrdigtnmt)." The office is needed for prcaching<br />
ad sacramcnts, and these actions in turn, are needed for justifying<br />
faith . . . . so<br />
The Office of the Ministry is necessary for thc extm nos of salvation.<br />
Finally, of what sort is the "necessity" of the Office of the Ministry? Is it<br />
"absolutely essential" to obtain juslil'ying laith? The Office of the Ministry is essential<br />
because God gave it, as AC V asscrts. It is neccssary because of and for the sake of<br />
the Means of Grace it admini~ters.~' "It is therefore because of its indispensable<br />
inslrurnen~al or serving role that the ministry is dr iure divino and ncccssary to thc<br />
church."52 Thc samc sort of necessity is dcrivcd from the definition of the church.<br />
To be "signs" or "marks" of the church the word ol God niust<br />
obviously be proclaimed and applied and the sacrarncnts administcrcd<br />
at concrete times and in concrete places. Since this proclamation<br />
and application of the gospel and this administration of the<br />
sacraments is precisely the task of the sacrcd ministry, thc sacred<br />
ministry itself becomes a "mark" or characteristic of the church. 53<br />
The church is known by the presence ol the Office of the Ministry because of the<br />
Gospel and Sacraments which thc Officc administcrs. This point is pushed too far,<br />
however, through assertions which go beyond the purpose of these articles, such as<br />
Truemper's dangerous thesis: "The olke of the ministry is not optional, nor merely<br />
beneficial to thc church's bcing, but absolutely necessary, in the only sense in which<br />
anything is necessary in the church, viz., necessary for ~alvatiou."~~ This stalernent<br />
neglects to point out that it is for the sake of the Means of Gracc that the Ministry is<br />
css~ntial.~~ Whether the Means of Gracc can work salvation apart from the Office-<br />
Avcry Dullcs and Gcorgc A. Lindheck, "Riuhops and thc Ministry ot the Gospel", in Confessing Otte Faith: A<br />
.loi~~t Conmenfory on tile A~~gshur-g (.'nnf~worr 17)~ I~rthe~nrr nrrd Culholic T/rrolo,oiuws. ed. George Wolfgang<br />
Forell and James 1'. McCue (R.li~meapolis: Augsburg, 1982) 156.<br />
One might argue thal III tlir case of life-and-death elnergeiicy, Lhe Means of Grace ;ire ultimately necessary for<br />
salvation, even apalt from the Office. In the same way the Word producing faith gains priority over Baptism,<br />
md Baptism over the Lwd's Supper--in an emergency. However. AC V is not discussing cxccptions and<br />
emergencies. One would hesitate to say that the Office of the Ministry is "unncccssary" as much as to say that<br />
the Lord's Supper is "unnecessary".<br />
Dulles and Lindheck 156.<br />
Ikpkorn 107. Luthcr himsclf madc this point in Von den C'onciliis uwil Kirchrrt ["Or [lie Councils and the<br />
Chmch" (15?Y), WA 50:632~~-633'', AU 41. 154 f.<br />
Truemper 72. His earlier for~nulation is much nlole congenial: "IC Gud gwts forgiveness only through the<br />
gospel, then people's salvation depends upon thal gospel being proclaimed and sacramentally enacted" (69).<br />
Maurer 350: the Office starts the chain which points to the following link, Word and Sacrament, which then<br />
lead to the next link, faith. Edmund Schlink, Theology of r/zc Lutheran Cor~fewolw, trans. Paul F. Kochncckc
44 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
bearer is not a question which the AC deigns to discuss.<br />
The kick is always to hold juslil'ication, the Means of Grace, and the OfSice of the<br />
Holy Ministry togcther as an inseparablc unit.<br />
That these things be done flows from (ut) Article 4, Justification.<br />
What is conkssed in A~ticle 4 is conl'essecl as given oul by the<br />
ministry of preaching (Predigtarnt). When Gospel and Sacraments<br />
are given out they are the meaiis by which the Holy Spirit works<br />
faith in those who hear the Gospel. This faith is the "such faith" at<br />
the beginning of the Article. faith given the gifts confessed in<br />
Article 4, the forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God for<br />
Christ's sake. Thc faith that rcccivcs thc gifts as thc gifts they arc<br />
is worked by the IIoly Spirit. The way, means, instruments He uses<br />
are the Means of' Grace, the preachinglteaching ol' the Gospel and<br />
the giving out of the Sacraments, whose instrumcntality is the<br />
ininistry (Predigtumt) instituted by God. Article V is concerned<br />
with the gifts and their being delivered. This happensby way of<br />
the means of grace, and so that they might be going on, God has<br />
instituted the ministry (Predigrurnl).<br />
56<br />
In this way one highlights all of the instruments which God has providcd for<br />
effecting the redemption of His people.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
This investigation of the sources behind the Augsburg Confession has demonstrated<br />
that our initial observations aboul the s1ructur.e and purpose of arlicles IV and<br />
V arc confirmcd by thc cvidcncc. Thc unifying thcmc in AC IV-V1 is faith. AC IV<br />
stresses the nature of justifying faith and its object, Jesus Clu-ist and His work. AC V<br />
describes how "such faith" is obtained. AC V1 shows that "such faith" will not remain<br />
fruitless, but that these fruits arc riot in any way meritorious for salvation. At each<br />
point the externality of salvation is at stake, whether from the side of the Schwiirmer<br />
57<br />
or from Romc: Both want salvation to bc bascd on something in man. Thc proper<br />
exposition of justification, the Means of Grace, and the Office of the IIoly Ministry,<br />
points man o~dside of himself to his Saviour, Jesus Christ.<br />
Thornas M. Wingeu is assi~tant pastor of Grace Lutlzer.an Chuuch, St. Cathniines,<br />
Ontarzo.<br />
and Herbelt J. A. Bouman (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1961) 246 n. 16 refers to the fonu~ilatiori of Th. Ha-nack,<br />
Die Kidzr, ihr Arni, ihr Rrgimr111 52: "The cliinch possesses ao olfice not bfcauac it liaa believir~p or spiritually<br />
endowed persons, but because il has [lie rrlearia ol grxc and he mandate ol its Loid.'<br />
56 NomanE. Nagel, "The Office of the Holy Ministry in the Confessions", Coizcoi.dia Joumal (July 1988): 289.<br />
57 Grane (63) points out that the decrees of Trent concentrate "on the psychological, i.e., what happens 'inside' the<br />
pcrson during justification."
Bruce G. Schuchard, Scripture Within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form<br />
and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John, SBL<br />
Th~rtation Series 133 (Atlanta: Scholars Presu), 1992.<br />
Roger J. Humann<br />
Thc very first issue of this journal conhined the sludy, "The Funclion and Form of the<br />
Explicit Old Testament Quotatiom in the Gospel of John" (LTR I: l, 1988189). The<br />
twenty-three page article, which rcflcctcd studics undcrtakcn some years previously,<br />
sought to answer two questions: what Sunclion do the thirteen explicit Old TeslomenL<br />
quotations have within the structure of the Gospel? and what is the significance of the<br />
form in which they appear?<br />
That study concluded that the quotations were incorporated by the evangelist at<br />
key points where they served the apologetic function of explicating Jesus' rejection<br />
by IIis contemporaries, and where they were introduced in such a way as to focus upon<br />
the hour of Jcsus' glorification as the fi~lfilment of the Father's purpose in sending the<br />
Messiah. Tt further obsemed that while the text form of these citations did not<br />
consistently reflect a single Old Testament text tradition (e.g., MT, LXX) the form<br />
was always appropriate to its Gospel context. John reflected the MT where the<br />
significance of the quotation demanded it, and other times the LXX was quoted<br />
verbatim where this was appropriate. Frequently he cited in such a way as to indicate<br />
thc fulfilment or application of the Old Testament to the current situation; or again,<br />
the wording may simply have reflected his own style and vocabulary.<br />
A NEW <strong>ST</strong>UDY<br />
Now we have a recently published monograph which examines the same data but<br />
in significantly greater detail and depth and which brings the discussion very much<br />
up to date as some of the recent dates on bibliographic entries would indicate (e.g., no<br />
fewer than 45 entries, out of nearly 300, dated between 1988-90!) Scr.iptur-e Within<br />
Scriptur-e is a PhD. dissertation submitted to Union Theological Seminary in Richmond,<br />
Virginia, and published by the Society of Biblical 1,ileralure in ifs Dissertalion<br />
Series. The author, Bruce G. Schuchard, is a 1976 graduate of Concordia Theological<br />
Seminary, Springfield, Ill., and presently serves as pastor of St. Jamcs Luthcran<br />
Church, Victor, Iowa.<br />
The goal of Schuchard's investigation was to exarnine the use of the Old Testament<br />
in the Gospel of John, specifically to characterize "the interrelationship of form<br />
and function in the explicit Old Teslarnent citations" in the Gospel (p. xiii). He limits<br />
his investigation to those thirteen explicit Old Testament citations which are identified<br />
by a formula. I<br />
1 They are: 1:23; 217; 631, and45; 10:34; 12.14-15.38, and 40; 13:18, 15:25; 1924, 36, and 37. Excluded *re<br />
738, and 42; 17: 12, and 19:28 since in these instances no dlsc~ctc Old Tcstamcnt passage i~ cited; ncithcr is<br />
12: 13 cons~dered slnce it is not a rcfcrcncc to the Old Testament per se, but a rendering of a popula- Jewish
46 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
As he examines each citation in turn, Schuchard considers its Johanriine context,<br />
parallcl trcatmcnts of similar subjects, parallel references to thc same Old Tcstameilt<br />
passage, and the identifying formula. He moves on to investigate the Old Testament<br />
passage cited, the form of the citation (does it rellect the Hebrew? Old Greek [OG]?~OS<br />
somc othcr sourcc?), and thc hypotheses of other scholars with respect to the textual<br />
foi-m. He then offers his opinion as to which hypothesis seems to have the greatest<br />
merit. He concludes by suggesting how the form of the citation reflects "the rolc that<br />
John as editor would have this citation play in the context in which he places it" (p.<br />
xvi).<br />
Schuchard acknowledges his indcbtcdness to M.J.J. Mcnkcn, particularly in the<br />
methodological scheme he has adopted. Menken, however, in his various studies, has<br />
dealt with only hall'of the citations, and Schuchardnntinfrequenlly arrives at different<br />
conclusions.<br />
SCHUCHARD'S CONCLUSIONS<br />
What was John's Vorlage? Schuchard concludes that the evangelist used one and<br />
only one textual tradition, the Old Greek (OG) which he Srequenlly modified or<br />
redacted in keeping with procedures well-established in first-century Judaism. This<br />
means that John might import into his citation materials from the immediate context<br />
of the Old Testament passage cited, or Srom analogous con~exts.~ Although the<br />
evidence would indicate that John kncw of thc Aramaic and Hebrew Scriptures of the<br />
Jews, he consistently cited the OG because that was the Old Testanlent of his audience.<br />
Why does .lohn cite the Old Testament? Schuchartl states that the citations<br />
"consistently touch on the identity of Jesus and assert that the details of Jesus' life and<br />
especially his death on the cross fulfil1 Scripture" (p. 154). "Thus, John employs Old<br />
Testament citations as discrete, concrete illustrations of his Gospel's largcr scheme to<br />
convey John's conviction that the entire Old Testament testifies to Jesus (5.39,45-46).<br />
Jesus, therefore, has fulSilled all of Scripture and is himsell its ultimate signil'icance"<br />
(p. 156).<br />
AN EVALUATION<br />
There can be little argument when Schuchard concludes that "John has carefully<br />
adapted his citations consistently to their eventual literary and theological context" (p.<br />
152). This concurs with earlier study that "the corm is always apprupt-iate to its<br />
Gospel context" (LTR I:l, p. 49; cmphasis original). What may be questioned is his<br />
festal g~eeting derived from PS. 118.<br />
2 Schuchard uses OG (Old Greek) rather than LXX to "refer to the first Greek translation of the Bible" (p. xvii.<br />
11.28). In this he folluws L. Greenspoon, "The Use and Abuse of the Term 'LXX' and Related Terminology in<br />
Recent Scholarship," Bulletin of the Irztcrnntional Orgatzization for Septuagint and Cogrrattr Stuiires 20 (1987):<br />
21-29.<br />
1 Therc is evidence which ~uggcsts that Jcsns cngagcd in thc same procedure when I le imported a line frnm Ts.<br />
5X:h into His synagogue reading of Is. hl: l F. (Luke 4:lX)
Koger J. Humann: SCRIPTURE WITHIN SCRIPTURE 47<br />
conclusion that "there is in John's citations tangible evidence I'or the use of one and<br />
only one textual tradition, thc OG:" (p. 151; emphasis mine). Although it is an<br />
attractive hypothesis and cogently argued, it appears lo be an over-state men^ on the<br />
basis of Scbuchard's own evaluation of the various citations, for in the case of 7 of<br />
the 13 citations thc cvidcnce of an OG tcxtual basis is at best 'tentative.'<br />
In a number of instances he indicates the inconclusive nature OS the evidence with<br />
statements such as: "This investigation: however, has failed to establish whether the<br />
influence of a spccific tcxt~lal tradition is evident in this citation" (p. 32; re: John 2: 17).<br />
"What little evidence there is ...p oints tentatively in the direction of the OG" (p. 57; rc<br />
John 645. See a practically identical statemcnt on p. 84 rc: John 12:15). "It is not<br />
possible to ascertain precisely the Old Testament referent of John 15:25." (p. 123).<br />
In three instances Schuchard concedes initially that the evidence points more to a<br />
Hebrcw Voilage. He states that a "Hcbrew Vodage explains much of the constn~ction<br />
of John's citation" in 12:40 (p. 96). He is inclined to an OG basis, however, because<br />
he sees John substituting two expressions from analogous Isaiah (OG) passages for<br />
4<br />
term in the Is. 6:10 citation. Again, Schuchard uses a possible, but highly tenuous,<br />
reference to 2 Sam. 20:21 to try and bring the citation in John 13: 1 X into the OG orbit.<br />
This is after he has noted that "several fcaturcs of John's citation go against the OG<br />
and appear to indicate that John translates a Hebrew Vor.luge" (p. 108).<br />
The least successful attempt to establish an OG textual basis is for the citation at<br />
John 19:37. Schuchard admits that scholars "are generally unanimous in theii- judgment<br />
that John does not recall Zech. 12:10 OG" (p. 143). Still he points to what he<br />
sees as ".lohn's consistent use of the OG" elsewhere in the Gospcl to suggest that "here<br />
too John recalls a Greek version of Zech. 12: 10 rather than a Hebrew one" (p. 149).<br />
What might that version be (since no existing version wi I1 suffice)? He is left to suggest<br />
a "corrected version" to which John had acccss (or pcrhaps John recalled a "marginal<br />
reading" from the OG): or "a tradition shared with Theodotion" (p. 149).<br />
AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION<br />
Even if one is unable to share Schuchard's conclus~on with iespect to a smgle OG<br />
textual bas~s Tor John's Old Teitament citations, he nonetheless seems to have notcd<br />
most of the factors which might lcad to a morc satisfactory resolution of the questlon.<br />
The OG is the Old Testament of Jolul's comnlunity. One might<br />
naturally expect thal he would draw on this for his citations<br />
(p. 154).<br />
Although he wrote in Greek, Jolm thought in Aramaic and he knew<br />
the Aramaic and Hebrew Scriptures of' the Jews (pp. 153-4).<br />
John may, on occasion, appropriate citation procedures current in<br />
4 Hc suggcsts that John has taken TCTL+LL)HLY , which ~ OCS not occur in IS. 6:10 OG, from IS. 42:lS-20 OG;<br />
hc has gonc to 1s. 44: 18 OG ~OI.;~~'PWC\V which hc rcads ~nstead of the c r u ~ i j ~ of \ Is, ~ 6:lO OG.
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
first-century Judaism (pp. xv, and 152).<br />
John's Gospel was produced in "a culture of high residual orality";<br />
therefore one m~ght expect John to c~le the Old Teslament Irom<br />
mem y (pp. xvi. and l5 1).<br />
John cites in keeping with his christologically motivated authorial<br />
intent (pp. xiv-xvi, and 154-56).<br />
Thus the data which Schuchard so ably prescnts may also be inte~pretcd in the<br />
following way: John cites the Old Testament in the manner which best f~~rthers his<br />
authorial purposes in bearing witness to the Christ. His first (and natural) inclination<br />
is to cite the Bible of his community (OG). But there are occasions when the OG does<br />
not represent the Hebrew in a way suited to his purpose and consequently he makes<br />
his own translation. In other instances, since it is the scriptural content and not the<br />
wording which serves Jolm's pui-pose, one may not be able to detect a specific textual<br />
basis. And all of this was undertaken by one relying largely (albeit accurately) on his<br />
memory, a Jew at homc in thc Grcck-spcaking world but who has not forgotten his<br />
thoroughly Palestinian roots.<br />
This const~~~ction may not be so neat and tidy as that which points to a singlc<br />
textual source, namely the OG, for John's Old Testament citations. On the other hand<br />
it may more accurately reflect 111e data and hence the reality of the situation.<br />
A 'GOOD READ' FOR PA<strong>ST</strong>ORS?<br />
Scrlptwe Within Scripture is obviously a book which ought to be of interest and<br />
of valuc to the specialist, to the onc intcrcstcd in Johanninc studies, or in the ways in<br />
which the New Testament makes use of the Old. But is it a book for pastors? With all<br />
of the various parish demands upon his Lime, why might a pastor choose to read this<br />
book (or one of a similar scholarly nahlrc) instcad of thc latcst "how to" papcrback?<br />
'I'here are several reasons.<br />
A pastor is committed to working with the Word. A study such as this one engages<br />
him with that Word in the languages in which the Holy Spirit saw fit to give it. It gives<br />
him an opporlunity to sharpen his critical faculties as he engages in scholarly debate<br />
with the author. Such activity kccps him thinking biblically and hcncc theologically,<br />
and this can have positive carry-over into all areas of his ministry.<br />
In working through a book like Schuchard's one always ericounlers new ideas thal<br />
piquc thc scholarly interest. Consider, for example, that the subject of the first two<br />
lines of John 12:40 (a citation of Is. G) may not be God, as one tends to assume ("He<br />
blinded their eyes..."), but rather the reference to Jesus' "report" (akoee) in the cilation<br />
of Is. 53: 1 which immediately precedes. Why were the Jews unable to believe? It was<br />
"because the content of Jesus' proclaniation blinded their eyes and hardened their<br />
hcarts" (p. 100). Such an understanding accords with the Old Testament context of<br />
the citation where "it is the content of the prophet's proclamation that causes offence<br />
and thus 'blinds' the peoplt: of God" (p. 101). 01ie may not be immediately convinced
Roger J. Humann: SCKIP'I'URE WITHIN SCRIPTURE 49<br />
of this interpsetation, but it is a new idea which is worth a little critical thought.<br />
The Holy Gospels (series B) for Pentecost 11, 12, and 13 are all from John 6, thc<br />
location of two old Testament citations. Schuchard does a fine job of taking one<br />
through the content of Jesus' discourse in that chapter. There we germinal ideas here<br />
for at least three good scrmons. Indccd, since the Old Tcstamcnt citations are scattered<br />
at a number of key locations in John's Gospel, this study throws considerable light on<br />
the Gospel as a whole. There are more exegetical resources than Lenski! For some<br />
ncw idcas try Schuchard.<br />
PO<strong>ST</strong>SCRIPT<br />
This is not a criticism of Schuchard's exemplary study, and it may be scholarly<br />
heresy to say so, but theie is the risk for all of ua, who from the distance ot two millenia<br />
attempt to interpret the motives and methods of ancient writcrs, on occasion to be too<br />
clever by half. The data can usually be identified but the interpretation 1s somewhat<br />
less than an exact science. A Pcan~~ts cartoon from over twenty years ago may help<br />
instill a healthy dose of that scholarly agnosticism which on occasion can serve us<br />
well.<br />
Charlie Brown is qtanding with Linus and looking at a drawing Linus has done.<br />
FIR<strong>ST</strong> PANEL. Charlie Brown: "This is a very nice drawing of a<br />
man, Linus."<br />
SECOND PANEL. Charlie continues: "I notice, howcvcr, that<br />
you've drawn him with his hands behind his back."<br />
THIRD PANEL. Charlie concludes: "You did that because you<br />
yourself have feelings of insccurity."<br />
FOURTH PANEL. Linus responds: "I did that because I myself<br />
can't draw hands! "<br />
Koger H. Humuntz is u~soriatr profisror of Exegetical Theology at Concordin<br />
Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontano.
THE KINGDOM OURS REMAINETH<br />
St. Matthew 4:l-11<br />
Mawin M. Meitz<br />
0 Holy Spint, enlcr in, ~lnd in our henrts Your work hegin and<br />
make our hem-ts Your dwelling. Amen.<br />
In the name of our victorious Saviour, Jesus Christ, dear fellow redeemed:<br />
It was not too long ago, although I am not sure of the cxact Sunday, but it was<br />
during a Communion Service, while standing at the altar, that I was suddenly very<br />
moved at the whole wonder that was happening in our midst. Our Lord and Saviour,<br />
who had so freely and willingly given Himsclf into death for our sins, was here offering<br />
to us the fruits of His death in this Blessed Sacrament. How to understand and grasp<br />
it'? Here He stood before us according to His Word and Promise giving us His very<br />
Body and Blood brokcn and shed for us. What grace is this! As the hymnwriter said,<br />
concesning the Sacrament: In my heart I fitld ascending, Holy Awe with rapture<br />
blending. . .And while such thoughts were filling my mind and heart, I happened to<br />
turn and glance to my right out of the window here at the altar, and then it struck me:<br />
Kristen French was not only abducted within the shadow of our church walls, but she<br />
was takcn and abducted just within fcct of our altar. This thought has not left me. What<br />
a fearfully Satanic thing this was that happened. How it seems as if the evil one himself<br />
is leering and laughing at our God who seems so powerless and hclpless that even<br />
within fcct of His holy altar such a thing could and did happen.<br />
How real this stiuggle between Lhe Corces of the prince or this world and the hosts<br />
of God really is. How it is the ongoing battlc of our times and of our livcs, even though<br />
we so often overlook it. How Satan works in the world so that people might believe<br />
God is powerless, or that God isn't truthl'ul when He promises every care and<br />
protcction. How Satan uses cvcry insinuation and every bold maneuver to imprison<br />
people in their fears and sins. "There is no hope," he says. "Give yoursell' over Lo<br />
despair. The world is out of control. Your God can't hclp you. All is chance. Some<br />
crazy gcnc or some excess of hormones was the reason for all the horrible crimes one<br />
inan coinmitted." And the tactic is to deflect attention Irom the cosmic battle that rages<br />
behind thc sccncs. Is this not what Matthcw points out to us in his Gospel? Our Lord<br />
Himself is attacked by the Satanic suggestion, "Shouldn't Your God, Your loving<br />
Father, led You? You trust in Him, and He brought You here to this barrcn place.<br />
Command these stoncs to bccome bread. Feed Yourself, 0 Son of God, for Your Father<br />
is powerless. He cannot help You. Nor does He even care." What a temptation to<br />
despair Satan launches against Christ. What temptation to despair Satan launches<br />
against all believers, whenever we come to the end of our resomces, to the desest times<br />
in our life.<br />
How we need to bc bolstcred up and strengthcncd by the Lord's assertion that we
Matvm M Mcit7 THE KTUGDOM OURS REMAINFTH 5 1<br />
live by the Word that proceeds from the mouth of thc Lord, that is, wc live by the<br />
gracious will of our God, who leads us, even when we do not see Him. Jesus is not so<br />
much pointing to Script~lre in these verses as rather showing Himself ay the One who<br />
will trust in God and do the will of the Father in all circumstances. Even when that<br />
will seems to be hunger, seems to be abandonnienl. . . In this confsontatiorl betweer1<br />
Christ and Satan, we see a foretaste of that final abandonment by thc Fathcr of the Son<br />
that would take place upon the cross. And as our Lord Jesus holds in faith to the will<br />
of the Father in spite ol'all the evidence of His hurnan senses, He wins approval from<br />
God for all humankind. For it is for us that Hc suffers, and it is for us that IIe submits<br />
Himself to the will of God in every deep and dark circumstance. Jesus meets the<br />
attempt of Satan to launch Him into despair by clinging to the will of the Fathcr. Wc<br />
begin to see and understand the action of Cod in the world, or the seeming nonaction<br />
of God in the world, only by looking to our Lord Christ and how lie acts here in our<br />
tcxt with Satan, how Hc acts at thc inomcnt that He offers Himself upon the trcc of<br />
the cross.<br />
Asaph, the psalmist, a man not too different from ourselves, says in Psalm 73 that<br />
he became full of despair and doubt as he saw the evil and violence in the world. When<br />
he looked and saw [.he ease and the good I'urlune OS the wicked in the world, he began<br />
to doubt and hc could not understand it, it made no scnsc to him, until hc wcnt into<br />
the House of the Lord. Then he undesstood, and thenhe saw the doomed slippery paths<br />
of the wicked, how (heir lime in this world passes like a dream, and eternal destruction<br />
is their fate. Are wc not liltcwisc to scc and understand? Only as we stand inside this<br />
House of God looking out can we begin to understand anything at all of what happened<br />
to Kristen French. Only from inside the House of God can we understand anything at<br />
all of what is happening in our world. For as we stand at the altar of God and look out<br />
upon the world we begin 10 see Irom God's perspective. As we stand before Lhe altar<br />
of God at the moment when He givcs His Body brokcn for thc world, as we stand<br />
before the altar at the moment when He gives His Blood shed for the world, then do<br />
we begin 10 understand things from God's pelxpeclive. This Jesus whom we adore:<br />
this Jesus whom we worship, this Jesus whom we receive with our lips and hearts is<br />
the One who gave Himself into death so that the evil one might be clelealecl, su that<br />
Satan and all his seeming power would come to naught.<br />
This Jesus is well familiar with Satan. He has heard the same voice speaking to<br />
Him that comes arid speaks to us in the night, and that comes and speaks to us in our<br />
day to day living. This Jcsus who hung upon thc cross heard Satan's voice behind the<br />
curses and oaths of the soldiers who gambled for His gasments. He heard Satan's voice<br />
and saw Satan's I'ace staring al Him horn the crowd that gathered beneath His cross<br />
and jeered at Him with blasphemy and rage, "If You are the Son of God, why do You<br />
not save yourself'? You saved others, You camlot save Yoursell'."<br />
But Satnn twists it all around. God is not helpless, nor is Hc indiffcrcnt. Jesus<br />
could have saved Himself, but He does not; so that we might we saved. He does not<br />
save Himsell'; so that we might be rescued. He allows Himself to be taken, to be beaten,
52 LU I HEKAN 1 EIEOLOGICAL IiEVIEW<br />
to be nailed to the cross, to die, so that all our enemies of sin, death, and the evil one<br />
could be overwhclmingly crushcd and defeated. And as we stand here at the altar of<br />
the Lord and see the broken Body and also the Blood shed for us, we can look out into<br />
thc evil of thc world that lurks just the other side of the window and understmd.<br />
"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Job said thosc words. He said them about<br />
his God. "Though He slay me, yet I will tsust in Him." Job lost a daughter too, three<br />
of them, in fact, and sons, as well as everything else he had. But Job knew that his<br />
Kedeerner, his Vindicator, would stand at the Last Day upon thc carth; and Job said<br />
that although skin worms would destroy his body, yet in his flesh he would see God.<br />
That Redeemer is Chsist our Lord who cvcry bclicvcr asserts is "my Redeemer, my<br />
Lord."<br />
What elsc can we say about a young woman, a baptized child of God, who went<br />
to a Catholic school, who was taken betwccn two churches on Holy Thursday, the day<br />
the Church remembers the betrayal of our dear Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning<br />
of His Suffcrings? This young woman who was taken so close to the altar ol' God. .<br />
.what else can we say?. . .if this is not evidence that Satan is alive and wcll and still<br />
seeking to defeat our Lord? Is this not evidence indeed that the evil one who attacked<br />
our Lord in the desert, who attackcd Him on thc cross, fights against Him still? But<br />
we are not to fear and be afraid, for by means of this very broken Body and shed Blood<br />
our Lord has won, overcome, and obtained the victory. Here in this House where the<br />
Word of God sounds forth, where the waters of forgiveness flow, where thc Sacrament<br />
is eaten and received, Gocl builds His eternal Kingdom and He gathers His children<br />
and they are upheld and supported so that they do not fall or become despondent, hut<br />
they are reminded in our Lord's own words, "Be thou faithful unto dcath and I will<br />
givc thcc a crown of life." 1 suppose we don't really like to think of it, but as Christian<br />
parents who pray for our children's salvation, must WC not consider a martyr's crown<br />
the highest honour, greater than any trophy the world could bestow? And did not this<br />
woman, Kristcn, that very name heavy with meaning, die a martyr's death? "And this<br />
is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith."<br />
0 IzttlcJloclc feu1 not he Foe<br />
Who nzadl)~ seeb your o~erthrow;<br />
DI eud not his rage, hl.7 power<br />
Whnr thozigh yoni- courugc wrrulirnc fumts,<br />
His seeming triumph o'er God's saints<br />
Lusts OLLL CL litlle hour. Amen<br />
Mar-virz M. Mcitz z s seniot puslol- of Grace Lutheran Church, St. Catlzarines, Ontario.
REMEMBRANCE DAY 1993<br />
John R. S tephenson<br />
Among Margaret Thatcher's rnirior achievements i.; lo be included her having delivered<br />
this morning's preacher from growing cynicism about Remembrance Day. My<br />
middle daughter's second name was given in honour of HM the Queen, but she is<br />
rialiied in I'irst place al'Ler Lhe great stdtesman of out. time who still dwarfs craven<br />
politicians and spinclcss technocrats as Britannia, Elizabeth I, and Winston Churchill<br />
all rolled into one. Peter Mansbridge didn't know what hit him on Monday evening<br />
when Baroness Thatcher afforded him the sort of trcatmcnt she used to give Argcntinian<br />
battlcships. For twenty blessed minutes? airwaves routinely polluted with<br />
mendacious mediocrity were puril'ied by well-founded convictions comm~~nicatcd<br />
with clarjty and courage. Brief exposure to Lady Thatcher made one realise that there<br />
are political and cultural values worth fighting and dying [or; so we do well to<br />
remember with reverent gratitude the valiant fighting men of this Dominion who died<br />
in frccdom's cause bctwccn 1914 and 1918 and 1939 and 1945.<br />
If Margaret Thatcher had been queen of the south, King Solomon would gladly<br />
have switched roles and sat at her feet; but not cvcn Baroncss Thatcher can dispel all<br />
the cynicism that gnaws at my heart in connection with Remembrance Day. It used h<br />
be customary, at eleven o'clock in the morning of this eleventh day of November, to<br />
observe two minutes' silence in honour of thc Commonwealth's war dead, at which<br />
juncture some words written by Laurence Binion were ol'len pondered.<br />
They shall not grow old a\ we that are left grow old. Agc shall not<br />
weary them, nor thc ycars condcmn. At the going down of the sun<br />
and in the mor~ling, we shall remenlber tlie~n.<br />
Uttered at Lhe right time arid in the right place, these lincs are apt to soar to the<br />
loftiest heights of rhetoric; but when chccked out against hard reality, they ring sadly<br />
hollow. For one thing, we do not remember those who died to secure our liberty. For<br />
anolher, they would undoubtedly have considercd the onset of old age a blessed<br />
possibility. It is uncthical to romanticise as heroes conscripted, frightened men, who<br />
in many cases, had no idea for what they were fighting. However green and welltrimmed<br />
their lawns and howevcr bright their rows of crosses or stars of David,<br />
military cemeteries are the most melancholy of graveyards. No gleaming Victoria<br />
cross can assuage the heartbreak of widows and orphans. While the notion of thc just<br />
war may be a nice theory, it simply fails to fit the facts of the vast majority of armed<br />
conflicts. Worst of all, you usually couldn't pass a lie detector test when you say or<br />
the fallen that they did not die in vain. The war to end war that endcd at clcven o'clock<br />
on the morning of November 11,1918 fuelled yet more war. Four years after the Beslin<br />
wall came down, you have to be tern~inally stupid to believe there is going to be such<br />
a thing as a peace dividend. Along with the poor, war and the nlmour of wars will be
LUTHERAN TIHEOLOGICAL REVIEW<br />
always with us. All the horieyeci rhetoric in the world cannut relieve one-thousandth<br />
of the miscry which war will continuc to bring. It is so unfair that, at any rate bcfore<br />
he moved outdoors to join the animals, Nebuchadnezzar had all the powes; that the<br />
Pharisee basked in all the prestige; and that the hreast-beating tax collector has been<br />
such a marginal figure in human affairs. even though he was vouchsafed more wisdom<br />
than Nebuchadnezzar and the Pharisee combined. Yes, one can grow cynical when<br />
one considers how, if it had suited his purposes, Ncbuchadnezzar would have pinncd<br />
a poppy to his lapel and sombrely laid a wreath on the tomb of Babylon's unknown<br />
soldier.<br />
But ... we have more than thc indomitable Margarct Thatcher to rescue us from<br />
cynical despair. All the cultural and military and political battles of this life take place<br />
in the context of a higher warfarc. God became Man to fight and prevail for us against<br />
our enemies. The Word became flesh to give all the baptised a commission in IIis<br />
army. God took our nature upon Him so that He might lead us into battle with the<br />
powers of hell and givc us victorics which will stand forcvcr. Laurcacc Binion's prose<br />
starts Lo look less than adequate when it is changed from the plural to the singular and<br />
applied to our Lord Himself.<br />
IIe shall not grow old as we that are left grow old. Age shall not<br />
weary Hmi, 1101 the years condemn. At the gomg down of the sun<br />
and in the morning, WC shall rcmcmber Him<br />
Remembrance Day awakens painful memories even when we limit its scope to<br />
those who I'e11 in a just cause. Should we extend its compass to include also those who<br />
died as instruments of tyranny, we stir up a hornet's nest. Bcttcr by far to remcmbcr<br />
our blessed Lord, because on Calvary He purified the memory of God of all the bad<br />
things which He would otherwise remember 01' us. Jesus was not trapped between the<br />
rock of conscription and the hard place of the deserter's firing squad; He willingly<br />
accepted conimand ol' the hosts of God in order to reconcile us with our Maker and to<br />
reclaim His own crcation. Of Him it cannot bc said that He died in vain, for His death<br />
defeated hell and opened heaven. He never got a headstone, because His grave was<br />
so soon emptied. And for the hest part of' Iwenty centuries He has been rnasterrninding<br />
and leading a rclcntlcss scrics of assaults against every pathetic holdout where Satan<br />
presumes to plant his flag as he retreats headlong toward the lake of fire. Sweet sounds<br />
of victory are heard already as Neb~~chadnezxairs move hack indooss to rejoin mankind<br />
and beat their breasts and submit to the gentle reign of God. Those sounds grow in<br />
volume when the children ol' God get their lives together to His glory and go onto the<br />
offcnsivc for what is true and right in education and politics and along the whole<br />
battlefront of the life issues. And there will be no perfunctory two minute silence but<br />
only shrieks of anguish ;md deafening shouts ol' triumph when our Lord reappears in<br />
glory and the saints of God chase the enemies of Jesus down thc boulevards of hell.
John R. Stephenson: REMEMBRANCE DAY 1993 55<br />
What will then be remembered is how the justest of wars was fought by the best of<br />
men against the worst of enemies, nor will that memory ever grow dim.<br />
.John R Stephenson is nssociate professo~ of Historical Theology at Concordin<br />
Lutheran Theologiccd Senzirzal-y, St. Cathnl-i~zes, Ontarzo.