ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University

ST. CATHARINES
CONCORDIA

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
published jointly by the faculties of
Concorclia LutheranTheological Seminary
St. Catharines, Ontario
and
Concordia Lutheran Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
EDITORS
John R. Stephcnson
Nornlan J. Threinen
FACULTIES
Edmonton
St. Catharines
L. Dean Hernpelmann, S.T.M., PhD. Jonathan F. Grothe, Th.D
President
President
Steven E. Harold, Th.M., D. Min.
C. Robert Hogg, Jr., M.Div.
Edward G. Kettner, Th.D.
Roger J. IIumann, S.T.M.
Norman J. Threincn, Th.D.
John K. Stephenson, P1l.D.
Ronald W. Vahl, Th.D.
John R. Wilch, Dr. Theol.
Lutheran Theological Review is published by the scminary faculties of Lutheran
Church - Canada. Thc periodical exlsh lor the d~scuss~on of theological issues within
the fiame of reference of Confessional Lutheranism, but the views represented by the
individual writer\ dre not necessar~ly those of the faculties.
Changes of address, paid subscriptions, and othcr business matters should be
addressed to:
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
P.O. Box 11 17
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2R 7A3
Annual subscriplion rate: $7.00

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Volume V SpringISumrner 1993 Number 2
CONTENTS
Foreword ..................................................... 5
.................................
E. Edward Hackmann: An Appreciation 7
ARTICLES
Towards Constnicting a Spiritual Family Tree. ............................ 9
Erwin A . Brese
AbraminEgypt .................................................... 15
John R. W ilch,
........................................
Augsburg Conl'ession 1V & V. 28
Thornas M . Winger
REVIEW ARTICLE
Scripture Within Scripture
...................
Rogfr J. Hum~znn
HOMILIES
The Kingdom Ours Remaineth ........................................ 50
Mumin M. Meitz
..............................................
Remembrance Day '93 53
.Io/zn R. Stephenson

Dr. E. Edward Hackmann

EDITORIAL FOREWORD
FOREWORD
This issue of Luthel,un Theological Review is dedicatcd with affcction and respect
to Dr. E. Edward Haclcmann who, since his retirement in January 1993, has become
the second Emeritus Professor of thc St. Catharines seminary.
New York pastor and St. Catharines adjunct professor Dr. Erwin Brese placcs in
Biblical perspective a popular pursuit in his l'il-t contribution to these pages, "Towards
Constructing a Spiritual Family Tree: Blood and Water."
In an essay honouring his longtime colleague at St. Catharines, Dr. John Wilch
combines Old Testament scholarship with a foray into the controverted area of
"Christian Ethics" in "Absam in Egypt."
Pr. Thomas Winger learned I'roni Dr. Ilackmann the importance and value of
meticulous study of the Lutheran Confessions. Now assistant pasLor of Grace Lutheran
Chmch where Dr. and Mrs. Hacknlann held membership during their years in St.
Catharines, PS. Wingcr salutes his respected leacher in "Augsburg Confession IV &
V: Justification, Means of Grace, Office of the Holy Ministry."
Another long-time colleague of Dr. Hackmam contributes to this Festschrift in an
article review. In LTR I:l, Dean Roger Humann deal1 with "The Function and Form
of The Explicit Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John." Dr. Bruce Schuchard
has dclved dceper into this subject in his recently published doctoral dissertation,
Scl-iyture Within Scripture: The Inter-relationship qf'Fom and Function in the E,vylicit
Old Testanzcnt Cifutions of the Gospel of John."
During his years in St. Catharines, Dr. Hacknlarm thrice responded to the call to
fill pastoral vacancies, once at Our Saviour in Niagara Falls: and twice at Grace in St.
Catharines. There is therefore a certain appropriateness in the inclusion in this issue
of a sermon by Pr. Marvin Meitz, the current senior pastor at Grace. The occasion of
Pr. Meitz' hornily is, alas, an appalling tragedy which has rcceived much publicity
throughout Canada and even beyond our borders. Kristen French was abducted on her
way home from school on Holy Thursday 1992, and s~~bsequently found brutally
mul-clered. It would appear that the abduction itself took place in Grace's parking lot,
within yards of the altar at which Pr. Meitz serves. In "The Kingdom Ours Remaineth,"
preached on Invocavit Sunday 1993, the Holy Gospel is pertinently brought to bear on
a tragedy which has indelibly wounded St. Catharines and lcft its impact on all of
Canada.
At the suggestion of his colleagues, we includc a chapel homily delivered by the
undersigned, "Remembrance Day 1993." The Sci-ipture Readings appointed for the
day were Dan. 4:2S-33 and Lk. 18:9-14. Tn company with his colleagues and many
past and present members of our student body, the undersigned has inarvelled at (13~1
would not presume to emulate!) Dr. Hackmann's ability to deliver a superbly structured,
coherent, and powcrful twcnty-minute setmon without a manuscript!

6 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The editors herewith salute a colleague remarkable for courlesy in bearing,
diligence in scholarship, ar~dforrnidablepresence inlearned dcbatc; and WC wishGod's
every blessing to Ed and Pauline Hackmann in their Albuquesque retirement.
JRS
Wcdncsday in the Week of Reminiscere 1994.

E. EDWARD HACKMANN:
AN APPRECIATION
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in
his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after
him'! (Ecclesiastes 3:22 KJV)
Retirement. What does it mean? How is it done? Our estecmcd colleague, Dr. E.
Edward Hackmann, has embarked on that portion of his pilgrimage, along with his
life's companion, Pa~rline. This has meant leaving St. Catharines, where Ed served
Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary as Professor of Systematic Thcology for
about a decade. It has meant moving into a new house in Albuquer-que, New Mexico,
Ed's boyhood home, "where the sun shines 360 days a year." It has meant caravanning
(in an Air Stream trailer) under that sun, and having time for reflection on the beauty
oS everything which God has madc and continues to make "in its season."
It is good, sail11 Koheleth, indeed: nothing is better than to rcjoice in onc's works
which have been his portion. Ed Hackmann's "portion" has been the noble calling, a
vocation to sellre the Lord in His Ministry. This he did, with faithfulness and integrity,
for nigh unto fifty years, as a parish pastor in Iowa and Nebraska and as a professor at
Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois; Concordia Teachers' College,
Sewwd, Nebraska; Capital University, Columbus, Ohio; Concordia College, Ann
Arbor, Michigan; and Concordia Lulheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines.
The fruits of his labours in his vocation arc many. Scores of colleagues remember
him with respecl and affection; his st~tdents, trained to think clearly and to take every
thought captivc to Christ, are legion. The crisp reasoning of his clear mind lives on in
things he has written, including a number of contributions to this journal.
This is how retirement is done: to rejoice in those labours, not with a wrongf~d
pride, but not with a falsc humility, either. There is a genuine and appropriate joy in
recalling the encouragement given, the love shared, and yes: the doctrines taught. To
attain to that joy is a gift from God, amongsl the best of the gifts He gives "under the
SUII."
"Who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?" No one can tcll what lics
ahead for Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, SOS Lutheran Church-Canada or
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. These instit~ltions, for whose weal Ed laboured
and in whose fellowship Ecl and Pauline served and still are serving, are entities of this
age. But all of his preaching and teaching, all of their counseling and encouraging, yes:
even all of those meetings attended contributed to thc building up of the Church, the
Body of Christ. Concerning the Ch~~rch, there is One who has caused us to see what
shall be after all of this: the Lord Jesus Himself brings revelation hom beyond the sun
and shows to us all our glorious future in Him.
There is joj7 in retirement under the wn ... and joy beyond that in the life of the world
beyond the sun.
Wilh this issue OS Lutherzlri Theological Review the faculties of Concordia Lu-

X
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
theran Seminary, Edmonton, and Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St.
Catharines, pay gralel'ul Lribute to ProLeisor Emeritus E. Edward Hackmann and pray
that Ed and Pauline have all thc joys that thc Lord has to give.
JFG

TOWARDS CONSTRUCTING
A SPIRITUAL FAMILY TREE:
BLOOD AND WATER
Erw in A . B mse
"Pastor," she confided, "if I didn't have this church family, I'd have no family at all."
At first the pastor Ielt warm, like he must be doing his job to make this person a past
of the church family. However, hc also noted that this woman was sabotaging allempts
by members of her own family to join the church. He also saw hcr need to bc in charge
of everything in which she was involved, posing many problems for those who wished
to work with her in church activities. What does this mean?
Rabbi Ed Friedman has wisely noted that people are "simultaneously involved in
three distinct familics whose emotional forces interlock, Lhe families within the
congregation, the congregation, and our own."' Thesc forces at work are the living
family or emotional system ol which we are all a part.
So, the clergyman who pursues an undcrstanding of his own family system is
simultaneously gaining an understanding of the families of the parish and of the parish
as a family. To pursue such a genealogical enterprise is a useful experience in humble
confession and serendipitous absolution as the hand of God is tracked through past
and present.
Constructing n family tree of any kind could be dismissed as prohibited by the
New Testament since Titus (3:9) and Timothy (I Tim. 1:4) arc both adviscd against
"vain genealogies." However, Paul's point seems to target the work of constructing
family trees for the sake of vanity, using them competitively in the Kingdom where
cooperation in the body of Clxist is the living and crucial way of lifc.
Scripture contains lists of "begats" beginning already in Genesis (ch. 11) and
running through to the very Christ of God as recordcd by Matthew (1:l-17) and Luke
(3:23-37). The Gospel writers do not give the genealogies in a grudging manner but
in a spirit of commcndation. To be sure, all endeavours of' mankind can and will be
misused, but all are useful and bring glory to Cod by those who arc alivc in Him. The
harsh words to Titus and Timothy may more likely be connected to the words of Jesus
to Pharisees who saw thcir claim to grcatncss in their blood relationship Lo Abraham
(John 81, thus blocking out a faith relationship to the heavenly Father who has a
kingdom and people who are made up ol'niore than blood descendants of Abraham
(Matt. 12:46-50, also in Mark and Luke).
A warning about VAIN genealogies is in order, but the encouragement to pursue
the constn~ction of a family tree in a spirit 01' humility and failh can lead to giving
greater honour to our God and calling His people to their knccs in awe at thc workings
ol' His I-edemptive plan in a personal and family perspective. There is no substitute for
I lidwin Friedman, Geiieriinoii to (;ri?ewtioir (Ncw Yo1.k: Guilford Prcss, 1985) 1.

10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
salvation by grace through faith alone, and the pursuit of a spirilual family tree can
enhance an appreciation for it.
From the example of the genealogy of Jesus by Matthew, one senses that a true
family search will reveal the presence of gross sins like the incest of Judah and Tamar,
the prostitution of Rahab, thc thievery, murdcr, and family devastation of David,
whom only the grace of God could come upon and produce a Son of David who was
so much rnore. 2
To look realistically at one's family of origin is to look original sin in the face
with all its ugliness and shamefulness. (Such an exercise makes original sin less an
academic exercise about Adam and Evc and more an expcricncc in faith.) Hence, it is
not surprising that a main resistance often heard to digging into a family tree is a fear
of what one might find in the closet. Such kars are well founded. However, it only
increases the sin to kccp secrets in thc closct sincc they are already powerfully at work
in the present in powerful covert ways. Indeed, it is much better to know them, to
understand them and to live with them, than to attcmpt to recreate a world into which
wc may enter full-grown and without ancestry. Only Adam and Eve can claim that,
and their fate is well known.
From biblical reading, from historical understanding as well as from the study of
family systems, it becomes quite clear that keeping family secrets cripples and
paralyses fulure generations, locking them out of a dynamic, more abundant life. Thosc
who rcfusc to know history are bound to repeat it.
Old Israel got in trouble repeatedly by forgetting what good God had done for
their sinl'ul forefathers. No serious reading of thc Old Testament can miss sceing how
the forefathers were made patriarchs, nearly objects of worship, instead of remaining
as objects of God's grace upon sinful human being\. They were not moral heroes, but
examples of thc powcr of a rescuing, saving and faith-giving God.
PUTTING IT TOGETHER
Most people are alrcady genealogists of a sort, collecting stories and clippings,
photos, and heirlooms. To become an intentional builder ol' a family tree, one may
avail oneself of many resources. In the secular world, genealogy has become onc of
the most popular "hobbies." As a result, a person can get started by a trip to the local
Post Office with a query. Local schools offer courses Ihr beginners, and most
communities have organized historical and gcncalogical socictics that are eager to
hclp anyone get started.
Another important place to start is with living relatives. Pursue those especially
who are more cur off from the family. Listen to them and ask them questions. Use a
tape recorder. Look through their old family Bibles and pictures. Kecord everything,
even dead ends! All infornation received--facts, dead cnds, and stories--provides
important information for latcr detective work. Buried treasures and mine fields often
2 hlartln Franzmann, hilow Me: /)ist~pleshrp Accoriirng to Mrrttheu (SL. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1961) 10k.

E~win A. Brcsc: BLOOD AND WATER 11
are found together. Separate facl Crom I'iclion. It is fascinating how stories grow into
fairy tales in the retelling!
The same process occurs for the canonizing of saints. Molly spent most of her
rnal~ied life grumbling about salty old Sam and the way he treated her. He drank
heavily and demanded so much of her that pastor, friends, and rclativcs wondered if
she nccded proteclion from this ogre. Yet when old San1 died, hilolly had nothing but
to say about him. Evcn by the time of the funeral she told the pastor that he was
the best husband any woman could want. The grandchildren heard nothing but how
old Grandpa way. The stories grew like Pinocchio's nose.
Keeping an accurate log will help you rcmcmbcr what ground ~ OLI have covcrcd.
Chcck places where records are kept: churches, civic archives, national archives.
Public records contain ship logs, birth, deaths, marriages, land transfers, probate court
reports, census, etc. The Latter Day Saints' free public libraries are geared toward
genealogical research and have vasl amounts oI' material on nlicrofilrn that can be
brought from Salt Lake City to your local library for study.
At the same time, it would be advisable to leain family systems theory, at least in
a beginning way. The works ol' Musray Bowen, Edwin Priedrnan, or Peles Sleinke, a
Lutheran pastor, are available to make more understandable the emotional systems
3
that make up our I'amily. If courses on family systems theory are available they could
be a great rcsourcc for the researcher. These studies can aid in helping identify the
rolls of certain members of every family and how generations pass on these roles.
Such study can also be aided by the rereading or the Old Testament to see the way
the family of God rclatcd. A family tree of Abraham can be quite revealing; David's
can be shoclung. The interrelatedness of the Persons of the Trinity becomes a
fascinating family system study.
All of these become resources for the on-going, circular and unending study of
the family tree. There will be a back and forth, going over and returning to material
once thought irrelevant. Evcn if a sketch is produced to outline each person in the
family tree, there will be branches and off-shoots that continue to find attachment and
be instructive.
INHERENT DANGERS
As in any historical iearch, one is in danger ol'only finding that I'or which one 16
looking. If one is only finding thc honourable and pure, there is the suspicion that a
whole level 01 reality is missing. Then the whole p~oject runs the danger of being a
3 The following resouice books xe suegested for introductory reading in the whole area of Family Systems study
today: Franzmann, Martin, Follow Me: Discipleship According to Matthew, St. Louis: CPH, 1961; Friedmnn.
Edwin H. Grizei.otron to Generutmz Family Proccss in Church and Synagogue, NY: Guilford Press, 1985;
Ourman, Alan S. and Knistem, [)avid I' Ilr-i~~ilhook of l.'urmly I'hri-qy. NY: Hvunner Maxvcl, 198 1. "Fam~ly
System Theory and Therapy" by Michael Keu (on Mursay Bowen) pp. 226-266; Napie~.. Augustus with Cad
Whitaker, The Furrrilj Cru~iI~le. NY: I-Iarper and Row, 1978; Steinke, Pete~, How You1 Chirr-ch Fanrily Works.
Urideistundirzg Congregutions us Emotionul Systems, Waahinglon, DC.: The Albm Insdlu~r, 1993.

12 LUTHERAN THEOLOGTCAL REVIEW
Pharisaic exercise to establish a position that can be used to look down on others
through the accomplishments of some ancestor.
In the secular world, this is easily seen in the work of the Daughters of the
Amcrican Revolution, in which genealogy is a rcquircmcnt for membership. Or one
is struck by the use of the word "pedigree chart" as used by genealogical societies. In
the church, the same kind of spirit can creep into those who talk about their dcsccnt
from somc noblc religious lcadcr. Experience and family systems studies support the
understanding that those who boast are st~iving 10 rill a hollowness in their hilh and
life. Using a fnmily name for power or position is common both in the world and in
the organized church.
Another danger can be a deep discouragement by some who become entangled
with a long history of brokenness in thc family trce or who run into nxmy dead ends
or missing pieces. While that may be a reality for many, the need to find others wilh
s~~pport and encouragement can also grow from this study in the process. The twin
dangcrs of arrogance and despair are the daily fare for the growing child of God, also
in his humanness.
A SPlKITUAL DIMENSION
So on top of a l~uinan family tree, with all of ils religious dimensions as well, we
are set to begin to superinlpose and deepen our picture of a spirit~~al family trec aftcr
the manner of Jesus' declaration: "Whoever does the will of my Father: is my brother
and sister and molher" (Mark 3:35).
A spirit~ial overlap needs to be done with thc human in sight, but adds the crucial
questions of faith. As Luther wondered where faith would have existed in the middle
ages were it not for the power of Baptism, so we may wonder about our family trec
as well. Hencc a Baptismal history is in order for everyone. Identifying the people of
faith as well as the people of blood may produce some people who are bolh. It will
also produce names and faces of people who are not in your human lincage but whose
lifc affccts yours.
Since we are people who live in both ol' God's Kingdoms, we can see our heritage
in both a human dimension bound by all thc laws of nature as wcll as a spiritual
dimension blessed by all the grace of our God who became human. Even a secular
genealogist can say: When you study the hislory of all the plagues, wars and other
catastrophes that have swept through thc ccnturics, onc can only marvcl that hetshe is
the descendant of the survivors. So in the Kingdom of God, one can not only marvel,
but pray, praise and give thanks that one is numbered among the spiritual descendants
whom thc Spirit of God has numbered by His amazing grace!

Erwin A. Brese: BLOOD 4ND WATER
APPENDICES
A. A Family Study sheet4
Names. nicknames, titlc, labels: What privilcgcs and/or difficultics could havc
been passed on from generation to generation by being dubbed this or that name,
nickname, etc.
Medical history: Is there sterility, abortion, miscarriage, congenital anomalies,
mental retardalion, learning disabilities. Any cancer, leukemia, heart disease, etc.
What is the usual cause of death in the family? Who takes drugs? Adoptions?
Birth, death, marriages. divorce, rite of passage: How do family members respond
to various changes? Locate coincidence of events around - the birth ofa firs1 born,
somconc's promotion, a child bccoming adolcsccnt, dcath. What othcr cvcnts
happen within 6 months?
Geography: What are the rules for physical proximity for your culture andfamily?
How close is too close? too far? What were the circumstances regarding immigration?
What are the family's connection to its roots'? What are extended family
rules for privacy, visits?
Emotional contact: frequency: patterns, quality. Who contacts whom? When?
How does the family keep each olher posted on personal/Samily changes'! Is
reciprocity rcquired, suggested or unimportant? Is there a family clearing house
for information?
Closest and most distimt: Who are you most close to in your own generation?
Parents generation? Grandparcnts? Any similarities in those rclationships? What
is your style of closeness? What is it about relationships that makes it safe for
you to be personal?
Sibling position: What similarities are apparent between siblings of the same
position in diflrenl generations'!
Relationship Principles: Who are crnotional pursuers? Who arc thc cmotional
distancers? Does it vary by sex? age?
Emotional Cutoffs: Who are you and your family cut off from? When did it
happen? How?
Ethnicity: What values does your culture give to your family? Do you have more
than one culture influencing your family? How does that work out? How many
generations since immigration?
Religious al'l'iliation: What is Camily's religious tradition'! How does it inhence
rites of passage? celebration? values'? Is the practicc or lack of practice a family
issue?
Socio-economic level: Is income and neighbourhood the same? Views on the
richest and poorest in thc family? Attitudes towards work? professions? cducation?
4 Adapted from a compiletion by Paul D Stemlie.

14 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
13. Issues with intense emotional charge for each ho~~sehold (occupation: sex,
religion, moncy, dcath, alcohol): What issucs did parcnts never talk about? What
topics did your parents tell you their parents would never let them talk about?
What can't your children talk about'? What do you give advice on quickly? When
and how will the hot topics become cool enough for family conversation?
R. A Spiritual Worksheet
This primer set of questions is intended to promote the development of a spiritual
fam~ly tree, a pictu~e ol' who are 111e real brothers, sisters, mothers, etc. 5
Who saw to it that I was baptized? Whom did they choose to assist them in the
process of spiritual training and why?
Who first read me Bible stories belore I could read, if anyone? Who was my
greatest childhood Bible story hero and who told me about him or her?
In my spiritual journey, against whorn have 1 rebelled, who avoided? Why? Who
listened to me without quickly judging?
Who taught me about the Communion of Saints, the Holy Christian Church and
led me to come to the Table ol' the Lord Tor the first time'? How was that? Who
went with mc?
Who embodies the source of the forgiveness of sin in my life'? Who are and have
been my spiritual mentors'?
Did I marry someone to convert? to believe for me? to cooperate in talking/not
talking about the faith? Any reasons'?
Have I raised my children like my parents/grandparents or in opposition to ~ hc
way they raised me? In what ways/ Did you succeed? Of what about my
cllildren/grandchilcIren am 1 glad'! What fears do they trigger in me?
Whcrc am 1 with thc John 8 question about the church building/membership
question as opposed to the church family question?
Envzn A. B~ese zspastor of Grace Lulhet urz Church, Nwgaru FalO, New York (LCMS),
and alw .wrves as adlunct professor of Practical Tlwology at Concordia Lutheran
Theological Seminary, Sr Catharines, Ontario.
5 The allusion to Ma~k 3'31-35 is intentional. Jesus encoulages us LO follow hi111 in napping oiit OUT spisitwdl
hnily.

ABRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT?
John R. Wilch
In Egypt, Abram passed off his wife Sarai as his sister (Gen. 12:13). Was he guilty of
lying according lo natural law, so that hc maliciously deceived the Egyptians (see
1218-19)? Or did Abram act n~dently according to the Bccdom of thc Christian lifc
7
that is oriented by the Gospel? L~kevery other believer, Abram was both a saint and
a sinner. But how should he be evaluated in this incident'! Most commentalors mince
no words in denouncing Abram's action in Egypt as a dcccption that broke God's Law.
However, Martin Luther is conspicuous in arguing that Abram did not con~nlit a breach
of Christian ethics--indeed, that he was even led by the Holy Spirit in his action!
Now, E. Edward Hackmann rejected the designation of "Christian ethics" on the
premise that "the Christian lire is not a lire oS ethics [i.e., according to a law-oriented
system] but a lifc of sanctification livcd in the fear and love of God, in faith in Christ,
through the power of the Holy Spii-it" [i.e., oriented by the ~ospel].~
1. ABRAM'S LIE
Luther stressed Abram's dilemma: God's Promise of eventual blessing for all
people groups (Gen. 123) had "been attached to his body. ... God must not he put to
the test. Thus he looks for every means of safcty or self-defcnsc ... Thc promisc must
not be wasted through negligence." On the one hand, Luther expanded on Abram's
rcqucst to his wife: "... if I must surrender my life ..., then the Lord ... will surely be
able to revive me after I have died. But I must not for this reason overlook some way
of saving mysell'. Iherefore, my dear Sal-ah, ... say thal I am your brother. Thus 1 shall
rcmain alive through your favor. But as for you, ... you shall experience the help of
the Lord, so that nothing dishonorable may befall you Franz Delitzsch quoted
Augustine's defense of Abram ("indicavit sororem, non negavit uxorern; tacuit aliquid
veri, non dixit aliquid falsi;" Faustum 22:3) and stated that trust in God docs not
preclude clever action4 $ee Matt. 10: 16). Bemo Jacob would pennit a "white lie"
whcn in dangcr of death.
I It may seem anachron~st~c to spcah of thc (Gnspcl and thc frccdorn of Ihc Chntian in thc Yamc hrcath a? Abratn.
how eve^, aa Luthei liked to point out, all Old Testament ramts believed In the Protevangelium oitien. 3:15 that
God would raise up a Saviour to defeat Satan Since Jesus Cluist fulfilled this Promise, all lhose who earlier
believed in Him were in esaeuce "Chrislia~~a" (WA 4:193; 24:99-100; 40/1:378. 355; 54:S5; AE 15:335,
26:239-240; see It'A 42147; AE 1: 197; J. Wilch: "Luther As Interpreter: Christ and the Old Tesrament,"
Consozr~ls IX:3 [3-91& 4 [l 1-20]). Because their life was propelled by faith in this Gospel, they were guided
by the Holy Sp~rit In sanctification (scc Luthcr, W4 54247. 251; AE 15:385).
2 "Ts Chr~man F.thics Possihlc?" Lcithei.a~z Thrological Revww 11:2 (1990): 20-21.
3 Al: 1 294.
4 Franz Delitzsch, Die Geriesis, (Leipzig: Dorffling c% rianke. 1852) 262
5 The Firsi Book of the Bihle. Genesis, trans. and ed. E.I. 6r W. Jacob (New Yolk: KTAV, 1974) 90. This 1s
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
Abrnm found himself in what ethicists call a "conflict situation.^^ He was
confronted by a "conflict of duties," whereby he had "an ethical obligation to do two
or more rnutually exclusive tlii~~gs ... incompatible acts."7 On the one hand, he was
obligatcd to tcll thc Egyptians the tmth but thercby put his own lifc and God's Promise
for all peoples into jeopardy; on the other handhe was obligated to employ a stratagem
to save his life but thereby tell n lie. Scri ture shows "that some duties (to \how love,
justice and mercy) outrank othcn .."'For Abram to tcll rhc wholc truth to thc
Egyptians at the cost of God's Promise would be cornparable to a youth in Nazi
Germany (who had beenforced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler) preferring to fulfil1
his loyalty to Hitler rather than to disobey a murderous order. Being faithful to Cod's
Promise had priority for Abram over being Lruthl'ul to an unjusl despot.
Wcmer Elert statcd that "citizcns arc no longer subjcct to public order which the
sulers thelnselves have ravaged."' Abram was therefore justified 111 expecting the
Egyptiansto want to do what Pharaoh then did: he ravaged the order of justice by
simply taking Sarai by force, both against her will and without the consent of her
"brotheru-guardian. Facing a conflict of duties, an "unusual venture" was necessary
for Abram to "dare the extraordinary" because the established secular order did not
pesmit him to practise his obedience to ~ od. l' Indeed, "concealment of truth does not
necessarily constitute lying. Man is not always obligated to reveal everything ... He
can even refuse to answcr [so Jcsus: Matt. 21:27; 26:63; 27:12, 14; Luke 23:9; John
19:9]. The Hebrew midwives (Exod. 1:19-20) and Samuel (l Sam. 16:l-2) did not lie;
they were not obligated to divulge infomnlion ... ,,l1
Several explanations havc bccn proposcd for Abram's stratagem to save himsclf
by identifying his wife as his sister, including the happenstance that, in Hebrew
language and culture, as his half-sister Snrai really could be called his "sister" (20: 12).
Further, a husband may well have to be eliminated in order to get his wife (see 2 Sam.
ll), but not a brother to get his sister.12 The best defense presented appears to be that
by Umberto Cassuto. Following the lead of some medieval comrncntators, hc notes
that Abrain was indeed attempting to protect Sarai as much as possible by claiming
to be her brothel-. For if he admitted to being her husband: he would be killed and she
suffcr disgracc. Howcvcr, as hcr brothcr hc could fcnd off hcr potential suitors through
the customarily extensive marriage negotiations until the famine subsided and they
on a Sabbath, it violated the Law of God for the Sabbath (see Shahbath 18:3, J. Wilch, "Why It Was Necessary
fur the Pl~uisees lo Oppobe Jeaua,' LTR 1 (Spririg 1983) 25.
6 Werner Elert. The Chriscim~ Ethos, tr. C. J. Schindler, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957) 259.
7 Ronold J. Sides, "Conflict of Dutles, Interest." Dictionary ofCh~.istian Ethics, ed. C. F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1973) 123.
8 Sidcr 123.
9 Llert 123.
10 Elett 257.
11 Ralph H. Alexander, "Lying," Diu~ioriuiy of Chrihriun Eflrics 401.
12 Jacub 89.

John R. Wilch: ABRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT? 17
13
could return to Canaan. This was the plan enacted by Simeon ;uid Levi against
Shechem in order to spare their sister Dinah (Gen. 34: 13-17); and the attempt of Laban
14
on behalf of his sister Kebeltah (2455). In the latter case, the plan backfired when
Kebekah frcclg consentcd to thc proposal of marriage on behalf of Isaac (24:58). In
Abram's case, his plan misfired when Pharaoh himself who. especially in ancient
Egypt, was the one person who could not be denied, bypassed lormal negotiations and
simply took Sarai to bc his wife.'' Thus it may bc prcsumcd that Abram hoped to be
able to prevent Sxai from actually falling into the hands of the Egyptians. That is,
humanly speaking, it was the hest clever scheme he could devise, li)r he lacked the
direct promise of a miracle from God. But as an alien in Egypt, Abram had no legal
rights ~ md so could not prevent Pharaoh's unjust taking of Sarai.
Whethcr Abram should tcll thc wholc truth to the Egyptians or whether he should
try to protect hin~self and Sarai, both alternatives involve some evil. The question is,
which is the lesser one? Our choices in lilt: are rarely black and white.16 Thus, John
Calvin generalizes that no action is so pcrfect as to bc absolutely frcc from all stain. 17
E. Edwxd Hackmaim likewise stated: "We cannot look to ourselves and say that
anything we do is good."'8 lather, too, identifies Abram's action as lying, but,
following Augustine's threefold definition of lies, as a "ministering lic." Such a lie is
defensible because it hinders the devil and preselves life, and therefore is not to be
19
classificd as a malicious lie. Dietrich Bonhoeffer agrees in principle, but objects that
a "ministering lie" should be called a lie at all. For a lie, properly understood, "is a
deliberate deception of another man to his detriment ..." 1f deception of the enemy in
warfare is included in this dcfinition, "the lie thercby acquires moral sanction and
justification ...lt It "is unwise to generalize and extend the use of the term so that it can
bc applied to every statement which is formally untrue. ,,20
Abram's critics accuse him variously that hc uscd a prcvarication, stratagem,
scheme or ruse, that he was guilty of duplicity, trickery, subterfuge or deception, that
A Comnlenta~y on the Book of Genesis: Part 11: From Nooli to Ahmhmr, tr. I. 4hvahains (Iclusalcm: Magncs,
1964) 350; see Bruce Vawter, 4 Poth TIuuugh Grnesis (Yew Yol-l

18 LLI'HEKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
he was craven or sinister, that he was at fault, that he lied, in short, that he cornrnitled
a grave sin.21 Some of them sympathize with him in aclcnowledging his dilemma, but
refuse ro excuse him. Thcy may explain his "fall" as a failure to be honest and to believe
that God would protect both him and Sarai from danger. Instead, similar to the later
occasion when he and Sxai tried to produce an heir through Hagar (Gcn. 16:l-21, he
herc took matters into his own hands instead of relying on God. A few com~nmentators
even claim that, in this case, Pharaoh was more righteous than Abram. Claus Westermann
ventured the ideal action of the belicvcr that, in such aperilous situation, a person
"can choose not to sacrifice something in order to buy life, not to submit to violence.
... to conquer rear of death through confidence that God knows a way out has always
been the extraordinary coursc ... , ,22
2. ABRAM'S FAITH
Somc highcr critics takc a more neutral stance in observing that the Biblical
account does not put any blame on Abram. John Skinner claimed that, for the ethical
code then in vogue, lying to one's advantage was cx~usable.~~ Gcrhard von Rad,
following Hermann Gunkel, believed that the narrator celebrated both the cunning of
the patriarch and the beauty of the matriarch, as well as God's timely aid.24
Luther, however, statcd categoricallj~ that Abram "did not lie" and "did not sin."
Hc argued that his opinion is "in agreement with Script~~re." That is, he likely had the
unnlogiufidei in mind, the Lestimony of Scripture as a whole: "Because Scripture often
presents Abraham to us as a bclicving father and a perfect model of faith [e.g., 2 Ch.
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;
Gal. 3; Js. 2:21-221, 1 prefer to decide in favor of the opinion that hcre, too, his great
faith is rcvcaled ..." Luthcr even referred to Abram's belief in the resurrection, as was
evidenced when he followed God's conlrnand to sacrifice Isaac (Heb. 11: 19).25
e.g., Nachmanidcs, ciled in Jacob 90): Jacub himself (134); John Calvin. Cornmclztarics on the Fiist Book of
Mosrs h-. J. King, (reps.: Grand Rapids: Baker. 1979K359-360; Car1 F. Kcil Tiw First Book of Moses,
Cornme~nary on the OldTestamenr by Keil &F. Delirzsch, tr. J. Mxtin (rcpr.: Grand Rapids: lierdmans, 1978)
197-198; PaulE. Kretzmann, PopuIar Conm?cnrary of t h Rihle: ~ T ~ Oiil'l'esfoment P
(St. Louis: Conco~dia, 1923)
28; Herbert C. Leupold, Expo.~zth nf(;rnr.~i~ (Columhus: Wwtburg, 1942)424-425; Derek Kidne~, Gena~is,
Tyridale Old Tr~rtlnwit Cornn~~nto~ws (Downers Grove: Inter-Vru-sity, 1967) llG; Bruce Vawier, 012 Genesis:
A New li'mding) (Garden Clty: Doubleday, 1977) 181-152; Walier R. Roehrs, Old Testanzent. Concorclia
Sey-Study Commenfaly by Roehs ad M. H. Franzrnann (St. Luuis: Concordia, 1979) 30; Claus Westermann,
Genesis 12-36. A Cornmentulv, tr. J. J. Scullion, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 163-167; Victor P. Hamilton,
The Book uf Genes&. Chupters 1-17, New Into-nntionul Conlmentary on the Old Testanz~nt (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. 1990) 380-385; and John C. Jeske, Genesis, People's Bible Commentmy (St. Louls: Concordia, 1992)
125.
Genesis: A P~.actlcal Comnientur:v, 11.. D. E. Green, '1L.xt nnd Intelptetatioti (Grand Rapids: Eedmans. 1987)
104.
A C~vtlral

John R. Wllch: ARRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT? 19
Luther also paid tributc to Sarai's faith as extraordinary, not only for obeying her
husband, but also "she was not disturbed by hcr own danger. ... in pure faith both of
them commended themselves to the mercy of God." He praised Abram as a most
considerate husband, for he "spcaks amicably to Sarah ... he entreats her; ... he adds
those words about her beauty. ... nothing tyrannical, nothing dictatorial; everything is
affectionate and lovely? the way it ought to be ...lt (see Ecclus. 4:30). Luther adds: "...
these are outstanding examples. ... sincc the Holy Spirit wanted this to be committed
to writing, the student or the Holy Scriptures will regard nothin as so insignificant
that it is not helpful, at lcast as a guide for our lire and conduct." 86
Since Abram's choice did put his wife into potential danger, it is similar to the
decision that any Christian may be called upon to make in a conflict situation:
"Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy o C Me" (Matt. 10:37).
Abram exhibited his faith, according to Elert, "daring against rcason, against appearances,
renouncing the finite ..." For "all works of daring are good works if they are
done in faith. "27
The Christian must not refuse to do the lesser evil in a conflict situation with the
excuse that he must stand on his self-righteousness, like the moralist or non-Chsistian.
The moralist presumes the fallacies that moral choice involves a simplc, rational issue
betwccn absolute right and wrong; that the central issue is the preservation of one's
own moral purity; and lhat virtue is always rewarded and truth always triumphant. For
the non-Christian, wliethel. Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, one's sclf-perfection is the
religious ideal and purpose of sanctification. In either case, this is essentially deism,
for both the inoralist and the non-Christian arc dcaling with an abstract concept that
has no reference to God. 28
To criticize Abram for sinning by lying, yet to praise him [or his fear of God, as,
for example, Calvin did, is rejected by Rousas Rushdoony. For that violates the unity
29
of life. The action must be considered as one indivisible deed: either he sinned or
he did not.
On the basis 01 Jolm 14:6 ("I am the Way, the Truth and thc Life"), John Murray
stated that the true is thc absolute in contrast to the relative, for it refers to the sanctit
of the being of God as the true God; thus, all truth derives its sanctity from God. 36
Similarly, Bonhoeffer defines Lhe lie as "primarily the denial of God as Hc has
evidenced Himself to the world." For "the lie is a contradiction of the word of God,
which God has spoken in Christ, and upon which crcation is founded. Consequently,
thc lie is the ... deliberate destruction of the reality which is created by God ... The
assigned purpose of our words, in unity with the word of God, is to express the real,
26 AE 2:295-296.
27 Elea 257-259.
28 Rushdoony 542-543,549.
29 Rushdoony 542.547.
30 Pri~zciples of Condi~ct (Grand Rapds: Eerdmans. 1957)123, 125.

20 LUTHhKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
as it exists in God ..."31 In this sense, then, Abram did not lie. 11 was rather thc
Egyptians who were hving a lie by their denial of the true God as the Creator and
Saviour (cf. Gen. 20:l l), while Abram's priority was to be true to the real as God had
revealed it to him. Thcrefore, Abram actually told the truh
3. TO DECEIVE EVIL PERSONS
Luther bcgan his defense of Abram by identifying his action as an "obliging lie"
(or, as Helmut Thielicke would describe it, a "lcgitimatc illegality"),32 which he
defined as being donc "for thc sake of someone's good ... It not only sesves the
advantagc of someone else, who would olherwise suffel. harm or violcncc, but also
prevents a sin. ... it is rather a virtue ..., by which both the fury of Satan is hindered
and the honor: life. and advantages of others are sesved." By contrast? it "is a lie whcn
,,33
our neighbor is deceived by us to his ruin and our own advantagc. Acknowledging
that Abrarn suffered a struggle with his faith and a conflict of conscience, Luther may
havc bccn thinking of his own experience when he pointed out that Abram, whcreves
he went. was a foreigner with "a new religion." Suffering under the "scandal of
par~icularity,"74 could he bc certain that he is "the only one who is holy ... the only
object of Cod's concern?" 35
Otherwise, Lulher is only concerncd about the possibility of criticizing Abram
"for having evil suspicions about the Egyptians ..." For every "suspicious person is a
slanderer in his heart ... Slander is a great sin" (see 1 Tim. 6:4; Matt. 7:l). "Every
suspicious person sets himsclf up as a judge over others and condemns them."36 But
on the othcr hand, Luther demonstrated that, because Scripture also plainly teaches
that "all men are by nature evil and thereforc arc all liars" (PS. 116:l l), Scripture
"demands that we not put our trust in a human being, for it can happen that he will fail
us." Against human reason, which "thinks that the good ... dcscrvc not only love but
trust," Scripture declares that "we should lovc all human beings equally ..." (Matt.
5:45), and should consider "not simply the conduct OS mother person but the Word
and the fear of Cod. Where we find these, the people arc no do~lbt pious ...u~' Thus,
Abram did not hate the Egyptians, but neither could he trust them, because not only
"nature per sc is evil ... [but] also Egypt is devoid oS the Word and thc truc religion."
Thus, "love ... (l Cor. 13:4,7) is not suspicious, but is hopeful even about evil things.
... those who are evil can improvc. ,,35
In short, because the Egyptians lacked the Word and true rcligion of God, Abram
could expect them to be lustful, unjust and tyrannical, that is, to kill him in order to
Bunl~uelTer 369-370.
l%eological Ethics, Vol. l: F~uizd~t~~~t.~,
tl.. .l. W. L)o/)esste~~l (Grand Eerdmans, 1979) 583.
AE 2292.
See Horacc D. Hummcl, /ha Wo~dGeco~niiig Flesh (SL. Louis: Concordia, 1979) 67.
AE 2:29R.
AB 2296.297.
AE 2:298-299.
AE 2:299-300.

lohn R. Wkh: ABKAM 1.U EGYPT. SINNLK OK SAINT" 21
take his beautiful wife and his possessions (see Gen. 12: 12). Indeed, because Pharaoh
regarded himself as god, he could neither know or rear Ihe true God, nor receive word
39
fro111 Him; only plagues could impress him (12:17). Thcrcforc, Abram had to takc
whalever measures were necessary to save his earthly life, since God's Promise for
all peoples was bound up with his body. Rut good may come out of evil (see 50:20),
SO he could hope that, although both he and Sarai could be in danger. the Lord would
40
so be able to influence the Egyptians that they would not come to har~n.
Of course, thc Clxistian is not to bear false witness against his neighbour, and one
is under obligation to God to tell the truth at all times where normal communication
exists. However, our neighbour may not be enlilled to the truth if it does not concern
him. Scripture warrants the conccalmcnt of tnlth from those who havc no claim upon
it (Prov. 11:13).~' As Bonhoeffer puts it, "'truthfulness' does not mean the disclosure
of everything that exists."42 Thus, it is correct for civil law to prevent the compelling
of a witness to testify against himself. No enemy or criminal has any right to knowled e
$3
which can be used to do evil; no one seeking to do evil is entitled to the truth.
Therefore, if a govcrnmcntal authority would use thc tnrth to do cvil, onc is not
obligated to disclose it; disobedience is then justified. It was in this sense that some
Christians disobeyed orders of the Nazi government in order to protecl hunted Jewish
persons.44 Robert Dabney argued that, as it is justifiable for a human government to
kill a murderer through capital punishment because his crime has forfeited his rights,
so an unjust and malignant aggressor forfeits his rights to the truth.45 A Christian is
obligated to God not to tell the truth if evil persons would usc it to steal, murder or
rape (PS. W1 X). Indeed, to so aid evil persons is to make oneself an accessory to their
offencc. 46
When Abraham sojouined later in Gerar, he again passed Sarah off as his sister
for rhe same reason as earlier in Egypt: "There is surely no rear ol' God in this place,
and they will kill me beca~lse of my wifc" (Gcn. 20:2, 11). Indeed, he was afraid that
wherever he would go, he could expect to be confronted with wicked evildoers who
lacoh 134.
Ahram's danger In Egypt and Ihc plagucs on Pharaoh and his court wcrc an went prophecy of thc suffei-ing of
the Israehtes in Egypt and the 'I'm Plagues (Jacoh YO; (lassuto 336; Wcnharn 291; Flamilton 386).
Rushdoony 543, 545. Thus, ~t is light for one's prrvate matters to be respected. inclnding mail and the
cunSesaional. If a person \~oultl inipropr~ly handle an Itern of tiuth so that it is falsified or misused, the11 one
should nor say it to that peraon at all (Trillhaas 301-302).
Bonhoeffer 372. A family has the right lo preserve its own secrets from others, so that the betrayal of a secret
ttuth may bc worse than the lie to preserve it (367-368).
Rushdoony 543-544; Trillhaas 302; Bonhoeffer 372.
[chard von We17sackcr. thc prcscnt Prccidcnt of Germany, In a spccch on thc occaslon of thc thousandth
;umiversary of the City of Potsdam In a hich hc cxtollcd tllc l~ad~tional I'1.ussian virtucs ot rcspcct for thc law.
loyally LO 111s Sellow citizen, and conscientio~~sness (whlch were taken advantage of by the Nazis?, expla~ned
Iivw such virtues rrlay lcad LU the cunacisnlioua denial oT obed~ei~ce lo authority; tl~~s
was actually p~actised
against Icing Fried~ich the Great, as well as ~gainst Hitler- by office~a oT the Ninth Potsdam Infantiy Regiment
(Dcirache Pi.cssc, I4 July 1993, Toronto).
Cited by Rushdoony 548.
Rushdnony 544.

22 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
may try to kill him (20:13). As noted above, Luther could sympathize with someonc
called out or idolatry who could imagine that he could scarcely expect to meet up with
any other believers in the true God. In this case, Abraham was surprised to find that
King Abimelech, in slark contrast to Pharaoh, was at least some kind of "God-fcarer"
(20:4-6) who could receive God's word, so that he in effect apologized to him
(20:9-13).~~
Likewise, Isaac also sojourned in Gerar--this time becausc of a famine and through
the cxprcss direction and promise of blessing from the LORD (26:l-6). Here, too,
Isaac claimed that his wife Rebekah was his sister because he feared for his life (267,
9). Again, Isaac could well have had good reason to believe that, with many years
intervening and a different King Abiinelech in Gerar, the present Philistines were not
so "God-fearing" as before. Indeed, this seems to be thc case, with no mention of such
intimations until it became too obvious to them that Isaac's God was richly blessing
him and it would be to their distinct advanta e to negotiate a non-aggression pact with
such a powerful sheikh (26:12-16,26-29). 45
Abram was certainly not the only Biblical believer who resorted to a "nrinistesing
lie." Luther mentioned Michal, who helped David escape from Saul and then claimed
that David had threatened to kill hcr (1 Sam. 19:ll-17), Hushai's bad advice to
Absalom that enabled David to quell his revolt (2 Sam. 15:34; 17:7-16), and the lie of
the woman at Bahurirn which saved the sons of Abiathas and Zadok from Absalom's
search party (17:17-20).~~ But there are many other masters of the "legitimate
illegality:" According to the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, Moses' parcnts werc
heroes of the faith along with Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, David and, of
comsc, Abraham and Sarah (l 1:8-1. l, 20-21,23, 27, 31-32). This they were, not just
for being saved by faith in the Gospel of the promised Saviour, but for acting
courageously according to their tmst in the Lord. Jochebed risked her own lik by
hiding the baby Moses in violation of Pharaoh's edict (Ex. 1:22-23).
Likewise, some Christians violated laws of Adolf Hitler's totalitarian oppression
to hide Jews, which involved lies, deception and falsified docuinenls. Thielicke
understood thern as being in a "borderline situation" where they could employ "the
eschatological c~rrective."~~ For, "frce in Christ to disobey the orders of this fallen
age, they belonged already to the coining age, sustained by Divine fo~~iveness."'~
These were heroes of the faith against the tyranny of the Satanic forces of evil that
were attacking thc pcople of God--both the physical members of the Old Covenant
and the spiritual members of the New Testament Church.
47 Jacob 133-134.
48 Whe~eas higher crilical commentators try to identify different sources for thc thrce accounts of rnatnarchs'
danger, Cassuto explains them as a natural progression and rcpctitinn for the sake of emphasis according to
oriental narrative conventions (341-344).
49 AE 2:225, 292.
50 Thiclicke 378, 578.
5 1 S. W~ich; "'I he Use and Misuseof Scripture inEt11ics." Consen~u~, XI:3 (1985): 22; Thielicke 379-381.579-580,
583, 588, 590.

John R. Wilch: ARRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT? 23
We likewisc praise thc courage of Rahab of Jericho who risked her life 10 deceive
her king by lying to his soldiers about the Israelite spies hiding in her house (Josh.
2:l-7). Similarly, Jehosheba hid Prince Soash [or six years against the vengeful Queen
Athaliah, and Jehosheba's husband, High Priest Jehoiada, organized a conspiracy
against the lyrarltlical queen at the Temple on the Sabbath for the sake of God's people
and thc truc religion (2 Kn. 1 1 : 1 - 1 X). The Israelite Ehud deceived King Eglon of Moab
by hiding a sword under his clothing, drawing it out unsuspectedly with his left hand
to assassinate him (Jdg. 3: 16-30). One of the "worst" deceptions was perpetrated by
Jael, who took advantage of hcr family's friendly terms with King Jabin 01' HUor to
entice his fleeing general, Sisera, to rest in her tent, but then murdcrcd him in his
sleep--which sinister deed was rorelolcl by the LORD and praised by the prophetess
Deborah (4:9, 17-21; 5:24-27).
David saved his skin from the Philistines when he in desparation had fled to them
from King Saul by acting as if he were insane, so that they let their enemy go (l San.
21: 10-15). King Solomon deceptively threatened to dividc a surviving baby in two in
order to reveal its Lrue mother--a ploy that was recognized by all Israel as proof of
God's blessing of wisdom (1 Kn. 3:24-28). Queen Esther deceived Harnan by luring
him to a dinner with King Xesxes, only to unmask him as the enemy of hcr Jewish
people (Est. 578; 7:l-h).
As the prime minister of Egypt, Joseph dcccivcd his brothers by not revealing his
identity Lo them. He proceeded to increase their agony and that of their aged father by
secrctly returning their money into their sacks of grain, by requiring them to bring
favourite son Benjamin back with thcm, and by having his silvcr cup planted in
Benjamin's sack (Gen. 42:7-38; 43:23-44:17). Israel's midwives defiantly countermanded
Pharaoh's ordcrs to kill newborn baby boys of Israel and deceived him by
claiming that the Israelite mothers were so healthy that they gave birth bcfore the
midwives could arrive. They thereby earned the reward of the LORD (Ex. 1:16-21).
Abram sprang a surprise attack at night from at lcast two sides on the camp of the
Ihm kings who had defeated Sodom and taken captives, including Lot and his family
(Gcn. 14: 15). For such a good purpose, Abram did not flinch at using such a sneaky
manoeuvre to outwit the stronger evil foc. That this subversive device met with the
LORD'S approval is made clearly obvious, particularly by Abram's being blessed in
the Narnc of "God Most High, the Creator of heaven and earth" by Melchizedek, Lhe
king of Salem and the "priest of God Most High" (14:18-20, see v. 22). Gideon
similarly deceived a gigantic Midianite army by surrounding it with his mere 300 men
and driving thcm into a panic by waving torches and blowing trumpets in [he middle
of the night, so that they killed each other or were cut down as they tried to flee--an
operation against Tsrael's and God's evil enemies that was initiated and carefully
prepared by Divine guidance (Jdg. 6:ll-7:25).
With [he LORD'S approval, Joshua deceived the asmy of Ai with an ambush in
ordcr to defeat them (Josh. 8:4-27). When Moah revolted against Israel, the LORD
assisted the combined army of Israel, Judah and Edom by instructing them through

24 TLJTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the prophet Elisha to dig trenches in the desert, which He filled with water from a flash
flood. When the rising sun's rays shone on the water making it look like blood, the
Moabites were tricked into believing that the confederates had killed each other and
they only had to sally forth to plunder the spoils. Instead, they lurched into defeat (2
Krl. 3:4-25). After all, "one is not obligated lo divulge military inlenlions." 52
Admittcdly dcbatable was thc deception by Rebekah and Jacob in order to obtain
Isaac's blessing for Jacob. For Isaac planned to give it to Esau, in clear violation ol'
the 1,ORD'S directive that it should belong to Jacob (Gen. 2S:23-26; 27:s-27).
Rebekah and Jacob were driven to take desperate action bp Isaac's stubborn resolve
to disobey the LOKD. Later, both the repentant lsaac and the LOKD Hi~riself
confirmed the blessing on Jacob (28: 1-4, 12-22). Indeed, Isaac is remembered as a
hero of the faith for properly blessing Jacob and Esau (Heb. 11:21).
The LOKD HirnselS is no1 above resorting to deception: He lured the Egyplians'
crack chariotry into thc Red Sea whcrc Hc could drown thcm all but savc Israel (Ex.
14:23-3 1). Once, when the Arameans were invading Israel, the LORD kept their amy
From recognizing where they really were; enabling Elisha to lead them right into
Israel's capital city Samaria (2 Kn. 6:18-20). Again. the LORD deceived another
invading Aramean army by making them hear at dawn what sounded like a great
approaching army of Assyrians, so that they fled in panic (7:5-7).
Inspired by the LORD, an unnamed prophet disguised himself as a wounded
soldier and told an imaginary story lo deceive King Ahab as a sel-up to condemn him
(1 Kn. 20:37-42). Likcwisc, thc LORD inspircd thc prophct Nathan with a fictional
story to trick David into condemning himself (2 Sam. 12:l-7). When Samuel was
afraid to go to anoint a new king because Saul wnuld kill him for it, the LORD directed
him to lie about his intentions (1 Sam. 16: 1-2). The LORD also inspircd the hcathen
prophet Balaam to deceive King Balak of Moab thee times by blessing Israel instead
of cursing them, as he had heen hired to do (Nurn. 225, 17, 20,35, 38: 235, 11-12,
16,25-24:2,10). The LORD even commanded Moses to deceive Pharaoh no less than
eight times into believing that Israel only wanted to go into the desert for three clays
to worship the LORD, instcad of leaving Egypt for good (Ex. 3:17-18; 5:1, 3; 7:16;
8:1, 20, 26-27; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 9, 25-26). Pharaoh rightly suspected their mischief
(1O:lO-1 l).
Perhaps most questionable of all was the event when thc LORD comrnissioncd
one of His ministering spirits to inspire the prophets of King Ahab with lies so that he
would he enticed to altack [he Arameans at Ramoth Gilead, where the LORD could
dircct an archcr's arrow to strikc Ahab with a mortal wound (1 Kn. 22: 19-23,34-38).
Thus a false king was deceived by his false prophets.53
Should we absolutize truth-telling as a Platonic idea or universal above God? God
alone is absolute and truth-telling must be in relation to Him. 54
52 Alexande~ 401.
53 Rushduuny 548.
54 Rushdoony 548.

John R. Wilch: ABRAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT'? 25
Or could we imagine that ethical aclion for God and His faithful in the Old
Testament pcriod is to bc distinguished from that of the New Testament period?
I-lardly, for St. Paul deceived his enemies in Damascus by letting himself be lowered
from the city wall in a basket a1 night to escape them (Ac. 923-25). He later wrongly
to be on trial for preaching the rcsusscction of thc dead in order to instigate a
disrupling debate between his Pharisee and Sadducee accusers of the Sanhedrin,
resulting in thc Roman commander's rescuing him from them (23:6-10). Even our
~ord Jesus Christ was not above misleading people by somehow disguising Himsclf
from recognilion, Sor example: by Lhe people of Nazareth who wanted to kill Him (Lk.
4:29-30). Aftcr His Resurrection, Hc was not easily recognized by Mary Magdalene
(Jn. 20:14-16), the disciples on the way to Ernmaus (Lk. 24:15-16), and by seven
disciples on the beach (Jn. 21 :4). Indeed. one of His great stratagems lhroughoul His
ear.thly ministry was "the Messianic secret:" He successfully disguised Ilimsclf as the
promised Christ from most people until after His Resurrection (see Mark 1:40-44;
3: 11-12; 8:29-30; 9:9; 11:33; I,uke 24:26-27,44-48; John 12Z-41).
IVhat lessons do we learn from this? First, in such cases as those of Jesus'
"Messianic secret," His disguising Hirnself Crom Mary Magdalene and certain disciples,
and the dcccptions by Joscph of his brothcrs, of the two mothers by Solomon,
and oP David by Nathan, they were pedagogical lessons to lead those involved to a
dceper recognition of God's will. Secondly, in most other cases, such as of our Lord's
disguising IIimself from the would-be executioners of Nazareth. David's fcigning
n~adness before the Philistines of Gath, St. Paul's escaping from Damascus, and
Rahab's hiding Isracl's spics, it was the necessity of secretive action in order to prevent
ham to God's faithful who were being critically threatened by enemies of both
themselves and God. Similarly, the rnilitmy schemes of Abram, Joshua, Ehud, Jael,
Gideon, etc., wcrc ncccssary to savc God's pcoplc from His and their enemies. They
were ulti~nately doing battle with the forces of evil.
Augustine declared: "We must never al a11 tell a lie " I'or i Twe always tell the truth,
55'
God will always make a way of escape (1 Cor. 10: 13). But that is misusc of Scripture,
hr lo tell the lr~~th to an enemy and expect God to deliver one is "demonic theology."
Indeed, it is the Satanic temptation, testing God (Matt. 4:7). No one may impose a
requirement upon God, expecting Him to deliver oneself when one refuses to do so
oneself. 56
Can it bc, then, that thcrc arc two scts of norms for the Christian--two ethical
systems? The one would follow natural law and God's Law strictly, not allowing any
deception whatsoever, as long as there is a situation where one can reckon with juslice
and fair play. But the other system would allow for dcception in word or dccd whcn
one is confronted by an enemy of God and of justice. Is the one norm that of the Law
and thc other that of freedom from the Law? Dr. Hackmann rejected every ethical
system for the Christian as a system of law. because the Christian is freed bp Christ
55 1)e Mer~rlncio, Nicerre rindl'ost-~Vrcene Pnfhn-S, first ,Yurres, 111, 42-43, pp. 476-477; ct. Jeske 125.
56 Rusiidoony 544.

26 LLTHERAN THEOLOGTCAT, REVIEW
Srom the Law to live according to thc Gospel.
Similarly, Dr. Luther did not resort to the Law or an ethical system when he
exhorted Christians to live a sanctified lice. Rather, because Christ has won forgivcncss
and everlasting lifc for Christians, they have bccn freed from worry about any of their
personal concerns and for love and service to God and their- neighbours. When
Christians are confronted by a situation demanding action on behalf of a neighbour,
their primary question is not: What does the Law say? But they rather ask: How can
we serve God and help our neighbour in need'?
S7
This includes the secondary question:
If necessary, what injustice must bc overcome in order to serve God and help our
neighbour? This is the Christians' principle of serving God and preventing harm to
their neighbour by deed despite injustice and despite the danger they may incur for
thcmsclves. Acting by this principle, for example, Israel's midwives disobeyed and
deceived Pharaoh, risking punislment for themselves while saving the lives of baby
boys; the Apostles disobeyed the orders of the. duly constituted authority of the
Sanhcdrin by continuing to preach the Gospel ublicly (Acts 4: 18-21; 5:21,28); some
Christian pastors preached against Nazi evilsp md some Christian laymen hid Jews
from the Nazis.
Likewise, Abram misled the Egyptians intentionally because he knew of the
treachery praclised hy them (Gen. t2:12). Tn order to save his own lifc hc had to rcsort
to dcccptive strategy. He did this not for his own sake, but, as the context indicates,
for the sake of God's plan to bring the salvation oTHis blessing LO all the people groups
of mankind (1 2:3). As we have seen in an~lnlber of Scriptural cases, God has no qualms
about deceiving His enemy who, ultimately, is Satan, the arch-deceiver (see Gen.
3:l-5; Jn. 8:44). Considering how God Himself employed deceptive tactics against
His Satanic focs in human form, that Abram's stratagem was inspired by the Holy
Spirit as Luther intimated would certainly not be an unreal possibility. Allhough
Abranl knew that Sarai would be endangered, he did not yet know for sure that Cod's
Promisc would be fulfilled through her as well as through himself (not until Gen.
17: 16). Neither did Abrarn act without trust in God's help. The best he could do initially
was Lo ensure his own safety. From thcn on, he had to leave everything--including
Sarai-up to God. The LORD did not let him down, but plagued Pharaoh's household
to save them both (12:17). That God did not judge Abram guilty of sin and that he
acted rather in sinccrc faith is indicated by his and Sarai's leaving Egypt safely with
many gifts (12: 16,20).
In conclusion, there are no holds barred when dealing with "the fathcr of lies" and
his human hcnchmcn who allow themselves to become his instruments of treachery
and tysanny.39~l~e Cluistian must be sure that he is being led by his conscience as it
57 Sec Cother, 'Ihr F~wdnrn ofn C'lil-istion, AE 31.344-5, 349,364-371.
58 li.g., Hermann Sasse (''Die Kixhe und die politiaclle~i Mvlacl~le Jer Zeil" 119321, in: 112 Sratu Coifessiorzis, ed. F.
W. Hopf, Berlin: Ve~lag die Spur, 1975, 251-264) dnd Paul Schneider (Der P~mligci' von Buchcrrwuld, ed.
Heinrich Vugel, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstdlt, n.d.).
59 Hummel434: There really is no "abstract 'evil' apart from embodiment in evil pcoplc ..."

Jolul K. Wilch: ABKAM IN EGYPT: SINNER OR SAINT9 27
is directed by God's Word as to whether he in a particular situation is really being
confronted by Satanic rorces and may resort to a deceptive manoeuvre in order to be
faithful in his service to God and in protecting his fellow mcn--that is (referring again
to E. Edward Hackinann), in his "religious living," his "life of sanctification lived in
the fear and lovc of God, in faith in Christ, through the power oT he Holy Spirit."
In their life of sanctification, the Apostles broke thc Fourth Comrnandmcnt in thc
sense of disobeying and dishonouring civil and religious authorities. Christians in
Rome rejectcd thc demands of the authorities to offer sacrifices in the name of Caesar.
Martin Luther spurned the authority of his bishop, the pope, the vicar of the
Augustinian order and the emperor when he insisted on pursuing his evangelical
reformation. Certain Saxons reneged in thcir divinely rcquired duty to thcir duly
authorized aulhorities in ch~~rch and state by fleeing their homeland to settle in
Missouri in 1539. Somc Christians deceived and disobeyed the authorities in Nazi
Germany in order 10 save the lives of persecuted Jews. All these conscientiously
claimed to "obey God rather than men" (Ac. 5:29). So, too, Abram in Egypt.
The question to ask about a Christian's action is not the ethical one: was it good
or bad? It is rather: could that have been an act springing from faith in Christ and from
lovc of God?
John R. Wilclz is pvofessor ofE~egefica1 Theology at Cowcordia Lutheran Theologirnl
Seminary, St. Catharirzes, Ontarzo

AUGSBURG CONFESSION IV AND V:
JUSTIFICATION, MEANS OF GRACE,
OFFICE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY
INTRODUcrl'ION:
THE STRUCTURE OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION
The contemporary debate on the Office of the Ministry has Socussed a lot of
attention on the SiSth arlicle of the Augsburg Confession [AC]. While thcsc discussions
have looked at this articlc's relatiomhip to both the fourth and fourteenth articles, we
are concerned here with the fosmer. It is often noted [hat AC V is concerned with how
one oblains the justification described in AC IV; but the mcrc juxtaposition of AC V
with AC IV does not yet explain its purpose or content. We need to discover the
unifying theme which holds both articles together and foims the hcart of each. In this
way AC V will not only be cxplained by IV, but also the reverse--that is to say that
our understanding of the article of justification itsell' is tied to the meaning of AC V!
There are lour clues which suggest that articles four and five arc intimately mated
with cach other. (l) The standard introductory foi-mula "It is further taught" [Weiter
wird gelehrt; Item docent], present in one form or another at the start of most articles,
1
is lacking in AC V. This suggests that AC IV & V together are considered as a single
articlc of faith, needing only the one introduction found at the start OS AC TV. Tn the
doctrinal section (AC I-XXI) this omission occurs only twice morc. The two articles
on the church (V11 & VIII) arc joined simply by "Item [likewise]". The church is
defined in AC VII, yet the apparently contradictory definition of the church as thc
"assernbl y of saints" and as the place of Word and Sacrament needs further explication.
"Thc purpose of this article [VIII] is to make it in~possible for anyone to accuse the
evangelicals of Donatism. The negotiators at the diet were well awarc that fcars of
such an attack were not without grounds. . . ."2 Thus AC V111 serves as a sort of added
3
note to AC VII. The third instance of this omission deals with a real accusntioil
levelled against them. AC XX "Of Faith and Good Works" begins: "Our [teachers]
are falsely accuscd that they forbid good works". This, too, is a sort of added note, to
1 All cilaliu~is oC 11ic Augsbuig Confession are based on the best critical edition: Die Bekeizntiz~ssclirft~iz clrr
e~~i~~~grli.v~h-l~itI~t!~'i~rche~i
KII.C/IE (BKS), 10th ed. (Gottingen: Vandcnhocck & Ruprecht, 1986). English translations
are by the present author.
2 Leif Grane, The Airgsbzrrg Coi;fessioii. A (loininmtory, tram .lnlin H . Rasmussen (h'hneapolis: Aupburg,
1987) 99- 100.
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
LiKS h1 -62. Schwabach Article XI1 (1529) un Lhe chu~ch leflecrs only AC VII, and is tracedby BK,S to Luther's
"G~eat Confessioii" (1528), which also I-eflects only AC VII. AC V111 must have been a. late addition to thc AC,
fui even Ihr early draft of the AC identified as "Na" in BKS contains but onc articlc on thc church (see helnw
for a discussion of all of these documents).

Thornay M Winger 4lJGSBlJRG CONFESSION IV & V 29
be understood as an expansion of AC VI, or as a defence of the entire doctrine of
4
justification by faith. These parallel structures suggest that AC V is to be taken as an
"added note", an apology and explanation of AC TV.
(2) An indication that AC IV was not to bc considered complete in itself is given
by its lack of any "condemnalion" paragraph. Perhaps the collde~nnahns given in AC
V were meant to serve for bothIV and V as aunit. If this is the case, it would strengthen
the link between the two, and bear implications for understanding AC IV in relation
to the Anabaptist heresies condemned in V. This structure is paralleled again in AC
V11 and VIII, whcrc condemnations fall only at thc cnd of thc lattcr articl~.~
(3) The strongest connection is made by the introductory phrase "in order to obtain
such faith" [Solchen GInr,~bc~i zu erlungcn; Ut hancf?dem ronseqim~~u~-1. This plxase
indicates that AC V describes the means by which justification through faith (AC IV)
is applied to the individual. The qualification or raith as "suchhhis Saith" poinls 10 an
antcccdcnt in thc prcvious article. The connection might bc cxprcsscd in this way: AC
1V describes the nature of justifying faith and its object; AC V explains how one
obtains rhi\ faith. "Such Saith" provides the bridge belween the articles. and carries
through even to AC VI.
(4) Finally, one inmediately notices the verbal parallels between the articles in
spcakina of justification. In fact, AC V within itself summarizes the entire content of
G :
AC IV. Th~s occurs as it describes what the "Gospel" teaches its hearers: "that not on
account of' our merits but on account of Christ does God justify those who believe
thenxclvcs rcccivcd into gracc on account of Christ" (Lat.). AC V prcsupposes the
fuller exposition of these statements given in AC IV? and teaches that it is this very
justification by faith which it promises to deliver.
These observations raise several questions which we will address. What sort of
"necessiLyW does AC V ascribe to its contents? IT AC V refers Lo the "Orrice of the
Ministry", in what way is this "necessary for salvation"? If it refers only to the Means
of Grace, why the references to the Predigtamt in the title and body of the text? Can
the Means ol' Grace and the Ol'f'ice of the Ministry ever be allematives'! In order 10 go
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,
P~~hlishing House 1987) 106: "hc [Mclanchthon] composcd Art. XX m order to~~fute theallegations concel-nmg
the pemicmi~s ettects of the doctr~ne of justification through faith and tn demonstrate how nzcessary and
benefic~al ~t is for etlhancing Clmst's glo~y, renewlog people's consciences, and promoting 11 ue aelvicz to God.
111 short, .4rl. XX must be regdrded ds a delinite apology UI dehae of he doclrir~e uShilh." Beck (22) iderllifics
arl. V111 and XX as idditions in reaponse to Eck's articles.
However. in both cases the condemn~~tions seem to fit better only with the articles to which they are attached.
Further doubt is rnised by the fact that condcmnntion paragraphs arc frcqucntly ahscnt in the AC. It sccms that
whcrc thc contrary posltion is an ancicnt hcrcsy or aplcscnt ~ad~cal "Anahaptist" group ~t is directly condcmncd;
where the contmry positmn IS pnmanly I

I ,UTHERAN TI IEOLOGICAL REVIE&
beyond the barc structural exegesis pcrformcd above we must delve into the various
sources for the production of the AC and the extant dral'ts ol' ils creation. We must ask
whether the apparent str~~cture is retlected in these sources, and what alternatives were
poscd at each stage. Furthermore, the original context of certain phrases will help tc
understand their meaning in their new setting.
THE "VISITATION" DOCUMENTS (1527-28)
Perhaps lhe earliest direct source [or the AC is the articles drawn up for the
visitation of Saxon parishes. Due to thc explosive expansion of the Reformation,
enormous areas had been left without adequate oversight. Cominissions composed oi
jurists and theologians were sent out into the parishes, in Saxony during the ycara
1526-30, using these documents as norms of doctrine. Because of this use, these
documents can be considered as one of the earliest evangelical "conlssions", fol
which reason they were drawn upon for the AC.
The first collection of Visitation Articles was produced by Melanchthon in Latin
7
in 1527. Justification is discussed under the first asticle, entitled: "First: what faith
8
is". Mclanchthon cannot rcfcr to "justification by faith" apart from an evangelical
definition of faith. This lies behind the constant qualification in the AC: "such Saith",
He begins with this definition:
Now this is faith: to believe that God forgives our sins on account
of Christ, and that he forgives sins, is near, guides and governs us
and intends to save [us]. Moreover, mcn must be taught that faith
is not only to believe the remission of sins, but also that it is proper
to draw near by this [IBith], so that we might believe that after the
forgiveness of sins wc arc defended and guidcd by God.
Having thus stressed the meaning of faith, Melanchthon teaches justification in words
very sin~ilar to what will appear in the AC.
Therefore it must also bc taught that our sins arc forgivcn not on
account of our merits, but on account of Cluist, . . . . Likewise they
must be taught that even ir we should have merits and good works,
nevertheless thcy would not bc ablc to appease God, according to
this [passage]: "Say, 'We ase useless servants"' [Lk. 17:10];
likewise, "No one living will he justified in your sight" [PS. 143:2].
But we are justified by Christ-s satisfaction.'
The Holy Spirit is introduced, as the article continues:
7 Artiruli visitatinnrs. I'xceipts are prov~ded with some articles in BKS. The 1~111 iexi is in C ~~pu~Re~ot-mut~
I'hilrppr Melcmchthonis upel-cl qiroe sirprrsii~~t omiiicr [CR], ed. Kd Gottlizb Brelbclmeider and Heinrich Ems
Bindseil, 28 vols. (Hdllt: 61 Brau~lscl~weiy, 1834-60) 26:7-28.
S Prirnum quid sitfides. CR 26: 10-12. The citations below come from this article.
9 This language, including the Luke quotation, is picked up in AC VI.

p
Tlloma~ M Wmgei: AUGSBURG CONFESSION IV & V 3 1
In this way, thcrcfore, Christ is diligently shown to the people,
wherefore the Father will have mercy on them, so that he certainly
makes sati\laction Ibr our sms, and that on account of Chlst the
Holy Spirit is givcn to thosc rcccived into grace, by whom the
believ~ng elect are sanctified, guided, and watched over.
Though the Holy Spirit is tied to justification, He appears as a gift rather than as
the moving cause of its reception. Shot-tly aftcr this, however, the acquisition of faith
is said 10 occur through hearing the Gospel, as in AC V.
Under thc guiding hand of Luther, Melanchthon reworked these articles into
Gennan, published in 1528 as the Instriiction for the Visitors to the Pastors i17 the
Elector~~te oj'~axt,ny.10 'I%e visilations which have already taken place have unearthed
a disdain for the Law and repentance.
Concerning Doctrine. Among other things we find that the chicf
defect in leaching is that while some do preach conceniing the faith
by which we arc justified, nevcrthclcss the manner in which we
attain that faith is not made sufficiently clear, and so almost all
neglect the one article of Christian doctrine withuul which nu one
can understand the true naturc of faith. . . . But, at the prcscnt time,
many speak only of the forgiveness of sins and have little or
nothing to say concerning repentance. Yet there can be no forgiveness
of sins nor understanding of the naturc of such forgiveness
without repentance. l l
The problcm is a wrong understanding of faithbtrue justifying I'aith is only
attained by the road of repentance.
The "Instructions" remind us that the means cited "to obtain such faith" is dictated
somewhat by the error being combattcd. In this case, "repentance" is that without
which I'aith cannot be obtained. "Therefore when preaching about faith the people
must continually be instructed where true faith can exisl and how we may attain to it,
for true faith cannot exist where there is no true rcpcntance."12 Thc right use of the
Meany of Grace is hardly neglected, however: there is constant emphasis on Confession
and Absolution before receiving Communion. Though there is no separate arlicle
on the Office of the Ministry, the entire document prcsumcs thc need for pastors to
preach the Law and administer the Means of Grace as the solution to the crisis.
10 liilte~richr der I4siturol-rz an die Pk~rhef-rr )nl Ku

32 LUI'HEKAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEL
LUTHER'S GREAT CONFESSION (1528)
It should not be necessary to repeat here the circumstances of Luther's gre;
writing Confession Conceunif~g Christ's Supper (1528).13 According to 1,ulher'
express intent, the third section of this work was to be his confcssion from which h
would not stray until death. Therefore it served as a major source for the AC.
Justification is discussed under [lie second article of the confession's "Trinitarian
structure. The "officc of pricst" is citcd as an institution established by God, but, lilc
the estates of mail-iage and civil government, it is not a cause ul' salvation for thos
who hold it.
Bcllold, all of thcsc arc callcd good and holy works. However,
none of these orders is a means of salvation. There remains only
one way above them all. viz. faith in Jesus Chsist. For to be holy
and to be saved are two entirely different things. We are saved
tl~ough Chsist alone . . . . 14
All the glory in salvation is ascribed to Christ and His work alonc. "And it i
impossible that there should be more saviours, ways, or means [wege odder weise] h
be saved than through the one righteousness which our Saviour Jesus Christ is and ha
bestowed upon us, and has offcrcd to God for us as our one mercy seat, Roman
3[:25]".15
Under the third arlicle Luther discusses the conlplen~entary roles of Christ and th~
Holy Spirit in justification.
[Because of the Fall] the Son himself subsequently gave himsell'
and bestowed all his works, sufferings, wisdom, and rightcousness,
and rcconciled us to the Father, in order that restosed to life
and righteousness, we might also know and have the Father and
his gifts. Rut because this gracc would bcnefit no onc if it remained
so profoundly hidden and could not come to us, the Holy S i~it
comes and gives himself to us also, wholly and completely. I ff
Chr~at attains justification and thc Holy Spirit bcstows it on men. This hc
accomplishcs through means:
He does this both i~iwardly and outwardly --inward1 y by means of
faith and other spiritual gifts, outwardly through the gospel, baptism,
and the sacrament of the altal, through which as thsough three
means or melhods ht: comes to us and inculcates the sufferings of
1'1 Van? Abe17dmnliI C'hristi, Ueke~rriinis. U;;i 26:241-509=AE 37:153-372.
14 WA 26:505~~-'~=~~ 37:365.
15 WA 26:504~"~~=il~ 37:364. Schwabach Article V11 speaks in similar terms of thePrcaii~mmt, as the
or path" ta justifying faith. See below.
16 AE 37:366=WA 26:505~~-506~.

Thornas M. W~nge~. AUGSUUKC CONFESSION TV M V
Christ for the benefit of our salvation. '
Faith is inner, yet it comes orily from outside by the woi-k of the Holy Spirit through
external means. This twofold discussion of the acquisilion of justification and its
applicalion foreshadows the relationship of articlcs IV and V in the Augsburg
Confcssion.
THE SCHWABACH ARTICLES (1529)
Thc most direct precursor ol' LIE doctrinal articles in the AC is the Schwnbach
~rticles," so called because thcy wcrc submitted as a basis of union by the Saxoris at
a conference with southern Germans at Schwabach, 16-19 October 1529. Though
rejected at this confcrcnce, they were picked up in he earliest negotiations at Augsburm
in May 1530.'' The Schwabach Articles prefigure the AC in their subdued polemics. 28
Maurer dwells at length on the differences between these articles and Luthcr's
Confession (1528), and lancnts the loss of the Trinitarian outline. 'lhis he attributes
to Melanchthon's "abstract approach".21 Though "abstract" is less than accurate, the
articlcs certainly show Melanchthon's systematic thinking, presenting for the first time
a distinct article on justification.
The older of articles surrounding that on justification suggests thc logic of this
docurncnt. At least the first ten articles are co~mected by an introductory phrase which
picks up on something in the preccding article. Justification (art. V) is connected to
the previous article on original sin by the phrase: "Since now all mcn are sinncrs . . .
it is impossible that a man worlc out by his own powers or good works that he again
become righteous and godly."22 Justification is continually described as beyond Lhe
powers within inan to aLPain. In fact, the harder man tries, the worse it goes for him.
. . . but that the only way [weg] to righteousness and to deliverance
from sin and death is as one without all mcrit or work believes in
the Son of God, whv suffered fos us, etc., as we have said. Such
faith [solcher glnwh] is our righteousness, for Gocl is pleased to
AE 37:3hh=WA 2h:~~lh'~'~. The nature of these "other spiritual gifts" is not explained. Luther is conce~ned only
with faith. The "internal-exrcmaI' [bst~r~caon is explained further below, inconnection virh the hkans urGrace.
CC'A 3011':81-91; some articles are in I1KS; trans. in Reu "40-"44.
On the baais of the dale of the Schwaback meeting, scholarv plw~ously assumed that these were a reworking of
the Marburg Articles; ~esemcll has denio~lst~ated, however. that they had been In production already during the
summer of 1529, and thus were llle fo~e~u~lne~ of the Ma~burg Articles. See the ~ntl.odnction in WA 30"':81;
also Granc 15; and Wilhelm Maurer, Histor-ircrl Cornrtw~1ii1-v o~i the Aiq~Dur-R Con$ession, rrans. 11. Cieorge
Andersnn (Philadelphia: Fomess. 1986) 4, 9 10.
blmrer 21: "'l'hc scvcntccn Schwabach Articles depend on Luther's private confession [l5281 but lhcy are less
cumprel~ensive. That stems frnln Ihc grcatcr rcstraint they maintain toward both the enthusiasts and the
L~aditionalists.'
Maurer 24. Maurer's predilection for Luther over Melanchtlron is evident ultimately from the fact that at the
end of his commentary on Lhe AC he appends his personal suhzcription not to the A(:, hut only to Luther's 1528
Confession (419).
All rcfcrcnces to the Schwabach Articles are translaled by the presenl author fiom WA 30'":87-88.

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVTEW
reckon and regard as righteous, god1 y, and h01 y, to forgive all sins
and give eternal life to, all who havc such faith [solichenn glnwben]
in His Son, that for His Son's sake they should be Laken into
grace ancl be His children in His kingdom.
Schwabach Article V is at pains to cxplain that the faith which justifies is that faith
which holds to an object outside of man: the Son of God who suKered lor us. "Such
faith" can be considered as righteousness becausc it is intcrchangeable with its
object. 23
Article V1 contains elements of AC V and VI. It emphasizes "that such faith [Das
.so/ichcr glawb]" is not a human work but is "God's work and gift which the Holy
Spirit, given through Christ, works in us". This stresses the role 01 the Holy Spirit in
giving such faith; even Saith is not "something in man" but is a gift from outside.
However, it then adds to thc definition of "such faith" the fruits and good works
produced before God, and for the neighbour. This progression OS thought runs thc
danger of subsuming good works under justification. Thc order of thcse articles will
continue to shift until settled in the AC.
The seventh article coins the familiar phrase to be picked up in AC V: "In order
to obtain such faith [Solicherzn glcxzrhen zuer.lalzngerz]", further qualified by the
marvellous phrase, "or [rather] to give [it] to us ~iien". This means is further expounded:
God instituted the Prcaching Officc or oral Word [daspr.edig ambt
oder murltlich ~lort], namely the Gospel, tl~ough which He causes
Lo be preached such faith and its power, use and fruit, and givcs
also through thc same, as through a means, faith with His Holy
Spirit, how and where He desires. Otherwise there is no other
mean5 or manner, neither ways nor paths [weder. wege noch stege]
to rcceive faith, for thoughts outside or before the oral Word,
however holy and good they appear, Lire certainly vain lies and
errors.
This differs from AC V in two significant ways. First, as noted, it includes the
fruits of faith under the definition of "such faith" which is givcn. Secondly, it speaks
only of the "oral Word" in apposition to the "Preaching Office", without mention of
the Sacraments.
The Sacrame~its appear in the next article: "With and bcside this oral Word God
also institutcd cxtcmal signs, namely Baptism and the Eucharist, tlxough which,
beside the Word, Cod also offers and gives faith and His Spirit and strengthens all
who desire Him." What definition of Predigtnmt docs this suggest? One could argue
that it spcaks of thc "preaching office" in abstract as the oral Word in any ram.
However, the separation of Word Srom Sacraments could simply bc bascd on the
23 Scc Rcclc 70-75.

Thornas M. Wmger: AUGSRllRG CONFESSION IV & V 35
understanding of the Word as comprehending also Lhe Sacraments, so that the
Predigtunzt can be spoken of simply according to the Word. The Sacraments are then
added in article V111 in furlher explanalion, and to introduce the articles on each
Sacrament which follow. Perhaps Mclanchthon rccognized the potential danger in tllis
separation, combining Scl~waDach V11 and V111 into AC V so that it is clear that the
Office of the Ministry, including both Word and Sacrar~ient, is intended. Finally one
must note that the real issue is the externality of the Word. Faith comes by the oral
[nzuntlich] Word. What is rnuendlicl? requires a concrete Mund "mouth"; thus he
speaks of the "Preaching ~ fficc".~~
THE MARBURG ARTICLES (1529)
At the Marburg Colloquy, 1-4 October 1529, Iduther adapted (apparently) the
seventeen S~~h~~ubach Articles into fourteen Ma~hztrg Articles, adding a treatment of
the L,ord's ~ up~er.~' On the surlhce the Mu~b~trg Articles appear to abandon the neat
linkiug of articles achieved in their prcdc~cessor. However, by pawing over the
numbering of the articles and the stock phrase "Gleuhen wir [WC belic~c]", one finds
the same intimatc conncctions. The linking word again is "such". Article V "Vom
C&dwn [Of Faith]" follows on the discussion of original sin.
Fifthly, we believe that we are delivered from such sin and all other
sins, together with eternal death, as we believe in this Son of God,
Jesus Christ, who died for us, etc., and apart from such faith,
through no kind of work, stat~on, or order, etc., may we be
delivered from any sins, etc. 26
"Such faith" is defined according to its external objcct: Cln-ist and His work.
Good works find no place in Lulher's discussion of justifying faith--a dccidcd
inlprovement upon the Schwabach Articles. In l'act, with the hits of faith moved to
article X, Luther is able in articles V-V111 to alternate between justification by faith,
and thc means of obtaining this faith. Hue we find repeated emphasis on the external
At Augsburg in May 1530 the Schwabach Articles, hither10 kqx sfcrel, appeared in an ~llic~t printing under thc
trtie, I;IR Hdwmtilis c/zr.or/lcher Lehl-r cind c/zr.isrlic/~cn Glaubms ["A Confessiuli ol Cluistian Doctrine and
Clu.ist~an I'a~th.'] (WA 30"': 172-182), ascribed to Luther. Three Roman theologians reapundetl wiilr dztailed
rel'ulatio~~, Gegrri die brkni7ntnri~ iMnr.tini Lut1ie1.s . . . ["Against the Confession of Marlin Luthrr"] (CV,4
30'": 186-93). Iulespome to V they nrgue that 'fmth aionc" is ~nadcquate. Instead, pl.ecedingdiv~negraceallous
one to bring onesell LU furtbe~ grace, tlumgh which good works arc dccmcd rncritorious. Faith which works
through love is necessary. The lea1 issue is not so lnilch "faith alone" vs. "faith and works", but more whether
anything in man contributes to his aalva~ion. Faith alone points only to what 1s outside. Therefnrc, on V1 thcy
ohjcct that in Baptism faith and virtues are poured in, so hi, So~~nrd by divms love, faith does mcr~torious
wo1.k~. In crltic~zing V11 they so dilute the preached Word lhat it becomea only a lrleluis of iilstruction and
enlightenment 111 thosc who already have faith poured in. Grane (71) discusses their Cundarrienrally dilkrent
undrrslandi~ig of proclamation.
W7A 30'11:92-171; some a~ticles are in HKS; tmnslation in AE 38:XS-89. and Reu *44-4'47. The historical
background is discussed ii~ Maurer Y c! 26
Marbusg ,bticles V-V111 ale hund in WA 30'": 162-65.

36 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
means of salvalion.
Sixthly, that such faith is a gift of God, which we can neither
acquire by any p~eced~ng work or merit nor produce by our own
power, but the Holy Spirit gives and creates the samc in our hcarts
where He desires, when we hear the Gospel or Word of Christ.
For the acquisit~on of faith we are agam direcled outside of ourselves to the
external work of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel of Christ. This givcn, cxternally
directed faith is counted as righteousness and justifies.
Seventhly, that such faith is our righteousness before God, since
on account of this God reckons and rcgards us righteous, godly,
and holy, without any work and merit, and through this He delivers
from sin, death, and hell, Lakes [us] into grace, and saves [us] for
thc sake of His Son, in whom wc thus believe, and thereby enjoy
and are partakers of His Son's righteousness, life, and all goods.
By a faith wh~ch trusts in Chr14t's work, we \hare in all the spoils of His victory
as a gift.
The external means then receive further exposition. The work or the Holy Sp~r~t
15 repeated in an expl~citreatment of the externality of thc Word:
Eighthly, that the Holy Spirit, to speak of proper order [or-dentlich
ziiredden], gives no one such faith or its [His?] gist withoul
preceding preaching or oral Word or Gospel of Christ, but through
and with such oral Word He works and creates faith, where and in
who111 He desires.
ln the next article he cites Baptism as also institutcd "for such faith. One notes
that in place of thc Sclzwnbaclz Articles' "dos yr-edig ambt oder. muntlich wort
[Preaching Office, or oral Word]" Luther offers "P~digt oder murrt1ic.h wort oder-
Eumgelion Christi [preaching or oral Word or Gospel of Christ]". This is one solution
to the possible confusion the Schwabach Articles allow: not the entire Oflice, but the
"preaching" aspect thereof is identified wilh the oral Word. These central articles are
unified by the thcmc: "such faith".
AN EARLY DRAFT OF THE AUGSRURG CONFESSION (NA)
On 8 May 1530 the cmpcror rejected thc Schwabach Articles, sent by Elector John
in preparation for Augsburg. Until this point new theological work had Iocussed on
abuses (producing the Tor-guu A~.ticles), with the intention that the Schwabnch Articles
would serve as thc doctrinal confcs~ion.~~ Their rejection gave need for an improved
confession. Melanchthon and the other theologians and lawyers began work in the last

Thomas M. Winger: AUGSBURG CONFESSION TV & V 37
third of May 1530, and by 31 May the Nurnberg delegates wcrc able to producc a
nearly complete copy of the Latin text, which they sent home to Niimberg on 3 June.
On 10 June this text was translated into German for their city council, and this
translation is available today, identified in BKS as " ~ a " . ~ ~
Becausc of the rejection OF the Srhwahuch Artklcs, it is not surprising that Na
differs significantly from them.2g Schwabach I-IV arc rearranged in Na 1-111 so that
the soteriological articles follow directly on Christology, rather than on original sin.
Thereupon follows an interesting twist on the order oT Schwaharh V-VII. "Version
Na places statements about the Holy Spirit immediately after the christological article
and considers them as presupposilio~is Sor the bestowal of salvation through Word and
~acrament."~~ The a~.ticlcs procced in this ordcr:
Fourthly, that the Holy Spirit is given through the means of thc
Word and the Sacrament, as Paul says: "Faith comes Trom hearing"
[Rom. 10:17]. Here arc rcjccted thc habaptists and the like, who
despise the Word and Sacraments, and think that the Holy Spirit
is obtaincd through human preparation.
Fifthly, that we may not obtain forgiveness of sin and justification
before God through our own work or satisfaction, but rather we
receive frccly, sheerly for nothing, as we believe that sin is
forgiven us through Clxist and we are taken into grace. For this
reason Christ came into the world, that all who believe on Him
should not perish. Jn 3. Through such faith in the Gospel or
promise of grace we receive the Holy Spirit, as Paul says in Gal.
3, that we receive the promise of the Spirit through I'aith.
Sixthly, that this faith brings good works with it, or that of
necessity nlust do good works, for the reason that God desires to
have thcm, although one does not thereby merit forgiveness of sins
and righteousness before God, but they are given to us frccly, as
we believe that the Father receives us into grace for Clrrist's sake
and we are justificd, just as thc ancient teachers say, such as
Ambrosius, the Epistle to the Corinthians: "This is resolved by
God, that whoever believes in Christ, is saved without works and
freely receives the forgiveness of sins through faith."
By numbering the asticles strictly and rearranging their order, Na loses the neat
28 See Maurer 13-14. Na is prinkcl d~licle by article with Lhe 4C iliBICS, and as 'The Oldest Form of the Augshurg
Confession, May 31, 1530" in Reu "166-"303.
29 Subsequent revisions drew more heavily upon the Schwabrzch Articicv as the evangelicals fuund the amusphere
m m congcninl than expected. Thus the final form of AC shows a return to the Sclzwabuch A~.ticles. See below.
30 Manrer 72. 1 Ic sccs thls as a rcturn to thc Trinitarian format of Lulher's 1528 Confession, thus placing greater
emphasis on Pneurnatology.

38 LU I HEKAN 7 HEOLOGICAL REVIEW
connections which the Schwabach Ar.ticles made between each article. Na 1V removes
the rel'erence to the Prcdigtamt which was present in the Schwabnch Articles. Pcrhaps
that is because of thc Trinitarian structure noted above: the article speaks of the Spirit
working directly through the means. Never~heless, the theologians must have found
this unsatisfactory, for the Pvcdigtumt is retumcd in AC V. Thcy cannot say Means
of Grace without Office. Na V removes the connection with original sin, and seems
out of place when co~mecled with Pneumatology. The AC rectifies this by placing
justification after Christology. Na V also lacks Schwabach's strong statement that
"such faith is our righteousness", which returns in AC IV. The order 01 Na lacks the
aclive role 01' the Holy Spirit in giving faith; instead, the Holy Spirit is Himsclf the
gift. Thus faith and the Means of Grace are not cleanly presented. Na takes a positive
step, though, in moving good works akr justification, which leads into AC V1 with
little change. These great changes, not surprisingly, have left Na a little rough. 3 1
THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION (25 JUNE 1530)
The preceding investigation has equipped us to identify what is significant in the
structure of the final form of the AC, presented to the enlperor on 25 June 1530. 32
First, a negative conclusion: the re.jection of the Anabaptists probably docs not apply
to both AC IV and V, since in its first appearance (Na) it comes before the justification
article. The lack of a condenmation paragraph in AC 1V would suggest that the
contrasy error is Roman. The other three clues discussed in the introduction, howcver,
have gained strength.
The sources demonstrate that the distribution of introductory phrases like "it is
further taught" is not accidcntal. Absent in all sources up to Na (31 May 1530), they
appear in the first original Gernlan formulation of the new confession, sent to Niirnberg
on 15 June ( NI).~~ 'I'his document lacks this phrase in the same three placcs as the
final AC. The only altcsnate reading for the start of AC V appears in Spalatin's copy
of a working version (Sp), which reads: "Weiter wird in unscrcn Kir-chcn gclchl-t lrnd
gcpr-edigt . . . [It is further taught and preachcd in our churches . ..
Maurer dates
Sp bcfore 15 June, since it appears less complete than ~ 1 The fact . that ~ Sp ~ includes
the introductory phsase befure every doctrinal article suggests that the authors had a
puipose in removing it where thcy did--or perhaps that Spalatin himself added it.
3 1 Maurel- (33) notes: "All of these observers lead to the conclusion that whenever Na goes beyond its prcdcccssors
the formulations are not yet completely polished. Thc author has clca~.ly concentratctl lnorc on the composltlon
as a whole than on rndlvitlual ideas." PyIaurcr 288-89 has a mqor disclrssion ot Na's rearrangement of the
Schwahach Articlcs.
32 No original maooscnpt exists from th~s presentatioi~. BKS follows ~11z 1580 Gern~anBook u/Cuilcur.ci in placing
[he greatest weight on the rnanuscnpt Mz for the Gel.~nan Lest; he Lati~~ tzxl iri BKS I'ulluws the manuscript
group I

Thomas M. Winser: AUGSBURC CONFESSION IV Rr V 39
The connecting phrase "to obtain such faith", taken from thc Schwabach Articles,
carries with it all the fi-eight we have discovered concerning the content of "such faith".
"Faith" is the unifying thcmc through AC TV-VT. As the Roman objections have
de~nonstrated, the issue was not whether a man need "only believe" over against
"bclieve and do world. Rather the entire dehitiori oSl'aith was dil'krent. For Kome,
faith was a quality in man (although poured in by God), which was viewed as
meritorious when formed by love and works.36 For the Reformers, "faith" was a gift
of the Holy Spirit, and was interchangeable with its object: Christ and his work. The
real dichotomy was between justification depending on "something in man" and all
of justification "outside of man". AC V describes the means by whicl~ faith comes
from the outsidc.
In the early draft Na, "justification" phrases were removed from the discussion of
thc Means of Grace. The new order in the final form OS the AC allowed them to be
inserted again. Thus AC IV-V1 is tied togcthcr by thc repetition of justification "by
grace, fix Christ's sake, through faith".
THE MEANS OF GRACE
Clearly, AC V e~nphasizes the Means of Grace as the way to obtain justification
by faith, in opposition to the Anabaptists "and others". Rut why are the Means of Grace
the necessary way? This question can be answercd by turning to Luthcr's grcat work
against the Srhwiki-mu-: Aguirlsl /he Heuvenly Prophets, in the Mattel. of Irrlnges and
Sne-arnent (1
Accordiug to Luther, Karlstadt and his followers claim that God speaks directly
to them, informing their tloctrine.38 This is in line with Karlstadt's constant emphasis
on internals.
His iusole~lce leads llim to set up a contrary order and, as we have
said, seeks to whorriinate God's outward order to an inner spiritual
one. Casting this order to the wind with ridiculc and scorn, hc
wants to get to the Spirit first. . . . But should you ask how one
gains acccss to this same lofty spirit they do not refer you to the
outward gospel but to some imaginary realm, saying: Remain in
"sell-abstraction" [dcr lung weyle] where I now am and you will
S6 Heck (39) cxpla~ns how tlccp the difference was as he describes Eck's objection: "If Chistians would accept
that hth alone 1s sufficient and no ~vork? arc ncccssary, they would not do good worlts and consequently would
not acquire mel-its. Wilhout Inerrts, howevel., they would not ohtain calvation. Tf Christians would presume that
pdith aluue juslifies and for th~s leason would disregard love and works, theu tmth would remain ineflcctivc and
lhey wuuld not be justiSied; Sol-ouly the hit11 whichdoes good works on account of love is ahle to juztity, lwm
Eck's perspective, 'fdilll alone' and ik sequels theaiened the co~e of 'Catholic' sute~iolugy."
37 WI&T die i7in7miisclici1 Proplieten, v011 deii Bildem ~ind Sncr'ornenf. W.4 18:62-214=AE 40:73-223.
40:lU: WA 18:138'=~~ 40:l48.
38 WA 18:lN2'=;l~

LUTHERAN TIIEOLOGICAL REVIEW
have the same experience. A heavenly voice will come, and God
himself will speak to you. 39
In this way Karlstadt actually rernovcs any way for thc Spirit to come to men:
With all his mouthing of the words, "Spirit, Spirit, Spirit", he tears
down the bridge, the path ancl the way [steg und wcg], the ladder,
and all the means by which thc Spirit might come to you, namcly
the outward order of God in the material sign of Baptism and the
oral [mundliche~i] Word of God. He wants to teach you: not how
the Spirit comes to you but how you come to the Spirit. 40
Luther responds with the proper order of the Spirit's work, by distinguislling that
which is outsidc from that inside.
Now as God sends forth his IIoly Gospel he deals with us in a
twofold manner, Grst oulwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he
deals with us through thc oral [mindliehe] Word of the Gospel and
tluough material [leypliche] signs, that is, Baptism and the Sacrament.
Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit and Saith,
together with other gifts. But whatcvcr thcir mcasurc or order the
outward factors should and must precede. And the inward comes
aftcr and through the outward, since he [God] has determined to
give the inward to no one except through the outward. For he wants
to give no one the Spirit or Sailh outside or the outward Word and
sign, which hc has instituted for this . . . . 41
The Means of Grace are stressed because they are external; they direct man to
God for the savlng laith which God gives.
Luthcr dcscribcs justification thc samc way. Karlstadt directs one to the cross
through inwa~d med~tation. Luther responds:
Christ on [he cross with all his suffering and death do not help,
even if, as you teach, they are "acknowlcdgcd and mcditated upon"
w~th the utmost "passion, ardour, heartfeltness". Something else
must always be there. What is it'? The Word, the Word. the Word. 42
Karlstadt not only makcs cvcrything inward, but also confi~ses Christ's earning
of justification with its application to the individual.
We treat of the forgiveness OS sins in two ways. First, how it is
achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and givcn to us.

Thomas M. Wingcr: AUGSBUKG CONFESSION IV 6( V
Christ has won it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed
or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the Supper or
Sacramcnt. But there he has distributed and given it through the
Word, as also in the Gospel, where it is preached [pedigt].. . . If
now I desire to have my sins forgivcn, I must not run to the cross,
for I do not find it distributed there. Nor must l hold to the suffering
of Christ in knowledge or remembrance, as Dr Karlstadt trifles,
for T will not find it there cither. But [I must hold] to the Sacrament
or the Gospel. where I find the Word, which dislributes, delivers,
offers, and gives 10 me such forgivcness which was won on the
43
cross.
This analysis can now be applied to AC IV and V. First, it shows Luther pointing
to what is exkernal. Thur AC TV directs faith to its external object, and AC V leads
one to an external mcans for obtaining that faith. Secondly, the distinction between
Christ's acquisition of salvation, arid its delivery to the individual, suggests the same
distinction in AC IV and V: AC IV dcscribcs the nature of justifying faith and the
salvation won by its object, Christ; AC V describes how such Faith is ohtaincd by thc
individual.
THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY
If the stress in AC V lies on the Means of Grace for the acquisition of faith, why
does it speak first of thc instit~ition of "dns Pr.edigarnt [the beaching Ol'fice]",
"ministerium docendi evangelii etpol-rigendi sacmrncnti [the Ministry of tcaching the
Gospel and handing out the Sacr.aments]"? Is the titlc given to AC V, "Vorn Predigmmt;
DP minisfe~io ecclesinstico", really "misleading" as is so oSten asserted'! 44
Such an assertion separates the Means of Grace Prom the Office of the Ministry.
A question which pith the Means against thc Officc is wrongly put. Thus Eugene Klug
poscs the false alternatives of a "high church" "episcupal" interpretation of AC V,
and a "functional'; "Means of Grace" reading4? Klug opts for thc latter based on his
CVA 18:203~~-204~=A~ 40:211- 14.
See The Book of Conco~~l, cd. I'heodore Tappelt (Philadelpl~ia: Furiress, 1959) 31 n. 4: "This title would bc
m~slcading it it were not obse~ved (as the text ufthe arlicle makes clear) that the Reformers thought of 'thc office
of the mmistry' in other than clerical tarnis." Tappert has not done justice to the corresponding nntc in HK,S SS
11. 1, which, by the exprcssiun 'nicht klerikal', merely denies any hierarchicalism. The reterences BKS cites
show llial Luther thought of the Predigtiimt :IS parallel to thc othcr dwinely ~nstitnted orde~s: nlmiage and
govamment. The Ministry is not a "hlgher order", but lt ic an nrdct, an otfice. Tappert 27 11.2 notes tIraL~11c tillts
were added "in and after 1533"; cf. BKS 50. 'l his would 1-efel to the ocluvo edition of the German AC
(Wittenberg. 1533). Cf. CR 26:723. Printcdundcr hlelanchthon's superrisiun, thia litle must be a Fair assessment
of its contcntq.
Eugene F. Klug. ".4~1gshnrg V. Intent and Meaniug ol Lbe Confessors on 'Ministry'", Concordia Journal 17.1
(Jan. 1991): 30.31. Klug argues that AC V u~usl be speaking of a "broad" use of rmrzisteri~mz, clsc thc. 'valid~ty"
of the Meaus uf Grace would depend on llwr being done by clergy. "Validity" is a Law question, and as such
misses the point. The Gospel qucation asks whether or not God has givcn the Office ot the Minist~ y to adnli~lisler
the Means of Grace for our benefit.

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
reading of Holstcn Fagcrbcrg. Yet Fagerberg merely stresses that the Confessions
view the Office according to its functions. Against Rome's view that ordination places
the priest into a higher class, ignoring the Means of Grace, the Confessions emphasize
that the Office has been instituted for the sake of thc Mcans of Grace. Therefore, for
apologetic reasons, they never talk about the Office apart from its functions. 46
Against this background we can now understand AC V. This
article says more about the Word and sacraments than it docs about
the office of the ministry, because the Holy Spisit comes to man
though thcsc and not through the office. When Melwchthon
formulated AC V, he did not exclude the special office of the
ministry, but he was anxious to give expression to its new meaning
as an instrument for thc Word and the sacraments. As a result, he
shilled the emphasis from the ministry to the means of grace. 47
The Office cannot be discussed apart from Lhe Means of Grace, nor can the Means
be discussed apart from the Office, for "To be effective, the gospel must actually be
preached and the sacraments ~nust be administered. But these are precisely the
functions the symbolical books attribute to the incumbents OS the sacred
Divorced from the Office of the Ministry, thc Mcans of Gracc arc just an
ab~traction.~~ As we have noticed, the purpose of the sequence AC IV-V1 was to point
man ootsidc of himself for his salvation. Just as Christ is the external object of' faith,
and the Means of Grace are the external delivery points, so also thc Officc of the
Ministry is the instrument for keeping the Means external. One cannot preach to
oneself, baptize oncsclf, commune oncsclf (alone), or absolve oneself.
Cannot one have those [objective, external] means of grace without
ordained clergy'! The unexpressed premise, however, is that
the ministerial office is necessary to prcaching and sacraments.
The word of God communicated orally and sacramentally does
not retain its true life-giving character a\ God's word, not ours,
unless it is offered by ministcrs who stand over against the con-
46 Holsten I'agcl.hct.g, A New Look at the Lutheran Corfcssions (1529-1537), trans. Gene Lund (St. Louis:
Concordia, 1972) 226-50: especially 233.
47 Faperbelg 246.
48 Arlliu~ Car1 Piepkorn, "The Sacred Ministry and IIoly Ordination in the Symbolical Books ot thc 1,uthcran
Church", in Lutherctn.~ und Cu/holic~ in Diulu~ue IV: E[lririi~-ist utld Mitristry (U5.4. National Committee of
the Lutheran World Federation and the Bishop's Cornniilkz Ivr Ecurrienicdl and Inle~~eligious Arfairs, 1970)
104.
49 Cf. Dawd Trucmpcr, "Church and Ministly in the Lutheran Symbols: Serving the Gospel to the Priestly People",
in Chiirri~ end A4uzistr.y: Chosoz Race, Royal Priesthood, Holy Nation, God's Own People, ed. Daniel C.
Urockopp, Brim I.. f lelge, and Llavrd G. Tiucmper (Valparaiso, IN: Institute of Liturgical Studies, 1982) 67:
"The Augsburg Confession know3 nothing ot an ahstract function of ministry apart from its concrete occurrence
iri iricuniben~s of the office of the miu~stry. This parallels the notion that the gospel may not he ahstractcd from
its concrete saying and doing in preaching and aacrauients."

Thnmas M. Wlngcr: ArGSBLRG CONFESSION IV & V
gregation, whose authority comes from God rather than human
beingj, who represenl . . . not Ihemselves, but "the person of
Christ" (Christi personam). . . . The inseparability of office and
function explains, in turn, the declaration that "God ~nslituted the
preaching office (Prrdigtnmt)." The office is needed for prcaching
ad sacramcnts, and these actions in turn, are needed for justifying
faith . . . . so
The Office of the Ministry is necessary for thc extm nos of salvation.
Finally, of what sort is the "necessity" of the Office of the Ministry? Is it
"absolutely essential" to obtain juslil'ying laith? The Office of the Ministry is essential
because God gave it, as AC V asscrts. It is neccssary because of and for the sake of
the Means of Grace it admini~ters.~' "It is therefore because of its indispensable
inslrurnen~al or serving role that the ministry is dr iure divino and ncccssary to thc
church."52 Thc samc sort of necessity is dcrivcd from the definition of the church.
To be "signs" or "marks" of the church the word ol God niust
obviously be proclaimed and applied and the sacrarncnts administcrcd
at concrete times and in concrete places. Since this proclamation
and application of the gospel and this administration of the
sacraments is precisely the task of the sacrcd ministry, thc sacred
ministry itself becomes a "mark" or characteristic of the church. 53
The church is known by the presence ol the Office of the Ministry because of the
Gospel and Sacraments which thc Officc administcrs. This point is pushed too far,
however, through assertions which go beyond the purpose of these articles, such as
Truemper's dangerous thesis: "The olke of the ministry is not optional, nor merely
beneficial to thc church's bcing, but absolutely necessary, in the only sense in which
anything is necessary in the church, viz., necessary for ~alvatiou."~~ This stalernent
neglects to point out that it is for the sake of the Means of Gracc that the Ministry is
css~ntial.~~ Whether the Means of Gracc can work salvation apart from the Office-
Avcry Dullcs and Gcorgc A. Lindheck, "Riuhops and thc Ministry ot the Gospel", in Confessing Otte Faith: A
.loi~~t Conmenfory on tile A~~gshur-g (.'nnf~worr 17)~ I~rthe~nrr nrrd Culholic T/rrolo,oiuws. ed. George Wolfgang
Forell and James 1'. McCue (R.li~meapolis: Augsburg, 1982) 156.
One might argue thal III tlir case of life-and-death elnergeiicy, Lhe Means of Grace ;ire ultimately necessary for
salvation, even apalt from the Office. In the same way the Word producing faith gains priority over Baptism,
md Baptism over the Lwd's Supper--in an emergency. However. AC V is not discussing cxccptions and
emergencies. One would hesitate to say that the Office of the Ministry is "unncccssary" as much as to say that
the Lord's Supper is "unnecessary".
Dulles and Lindheck 156.
Ikpkorn 107. Luthcr himsclf madc this point in Von den C'onciliis uwil Kirchrrt ["Or [lie Councils and the
Chmch" (15?Y), WA 50:632~~-633'', AU 41. 154 f.
Truemper 72. His earlier for~nulation is much nlole congenial: "IC Gud gwts forgiveness only through the
gospel, then people's salvation depends upon thal gospel being proclaimed and sacramentally enacted" (69).
Maurer 350: the Office starts the chain which points to the following link, Word and Sacrament, which then
lead to the next link, faith. Edmund Schlink, Theology of r/zc Lutheran Cor~fewolw, trans. Paul F. Kochncckc

44 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
bearer is not a question which the AC deigns to discuss.
The kick is always to hold juslil'ication, the Means of Grace, and the OfSice of the
Holy Ministry togcther as an inseparablc unit.
That these things be done flows from (ut) Article 4, Justification.
What is conkssed in A~ticle 4 is conl'essecl as given oul by the
ministry of preaching (Predigtarnt). When Gospel and Sacraments
are given out they are the meaiis by which the Holy Spirit works
faith in those who hear the Gospel. This faith is the "such faith" at
the beginning of the Article. faith given the gifts confessed in
Article 4, the forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God for
Christ's sake. Thc faith that rcccivcs thc gifts as thc gifts they arc
is worked by the IIoly Spirit. The way, means, instruments He uses
are the Means of' Grace, the preachinglteaching ol' the Gospel and
the giving out of the Sacraments, whose instrumcntality is the
ininistry (Predigtumt) instituted by God. Article V is concerned
with the gifts and their being delivered. This happensby way of
the means of grace, and so that they might be going on, God has
instituted the ministry (Predigrurnl).
56
In this way one highlights all of the instruments which God has providcd for
effecting the redemption of His people.
CONCLUSION
This investigation of the sources behind the Augsburg Confession has demonstrated
that our initial observations aboul the s1ructur.e and purpose of arlicles IV and
V arc confirmcd by thc cvidcncc. Thc unifying thcmc in AC IV-V1 is faith. AC IV
stresses the nature of justifying faith and its object, Jesus Clu-ist and His work. AC V
describes how "such faith" is obtained. AC V1 shows that "such faith" will not remain
fruitless, but that these fruits arc riot in any way meritorious for salvation. At each
point the externality of salvation is at stake, whether from the side of the Schwiirmer
57
or from Romc: Both want salvation to bc bascd on something in man. Thc proper
exposition of justification, the Means of Grace, and the Office of the IIoly Ministry,
points man o~dside of himself to his Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Thornas M. Wingeu is assi~tant pastor of Grace Lutlzer.an Chuuch, St. Cathniines,
Ontarzo.
and Herbelt J. A. Bouman (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1961) 246 n. 16 refers to the fonu~ilatiori of Th. Ha-nack,
Die Kidzr, ihr Arni, ihr Rrgimr111 52: "The cliinch possesses ao olfice not bfcauac it liaa believir~p or spiritually
endowed persons, but because il has [lie rrlearia ol grxc and he mandate ol its Loid.'
56 NomanE. Nagel, "The Office of the Holy Ministry in the Confessions", Coizcoi.dia Joumal (July 1988): 289.
57 Grane (63) points out that the decrees of Trent concentrate "on the psychological, i.e., what happens 'inside' the
pcrson during justification."

Bruce G. Schuchard, Scripture Within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form
and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John, SBL
Th~rtation Series 133 (Atlanta: Scholars Presu), 1992.
Roger J. Humann
Thc very first issue of this journal conhined the sludy, "The Funclion and Form of the
Explicit Old Testament Quotatiom in the Gospel of John" (LTR I: l, 1988189). The
twenty-three page article, which rcflcctcd studics undcrtakcn some years previously,
sought to answer two questions: what Sunclion do the thirteen explicit Old TeslomenL
quotations have within the structure of the Gospel? and what is the significance of the
form in which they appear?
That study concluded that the quotations were incorporated by the evangelist at
key points where they served the apologetic function of explicating Jesus' rejection
by IIis contemporaries, and where they were introduced in such a way as to focus upon
the hour of Jcsus' glorification as the fi~lfilment of the Father's purpose in sending the
Messiah. Tt further obsemed that while the text form of these citations did not
consistently reflect a single Old Testament text tradition (e.g., MT, LXX) the form
was always appropriate to its Gospel context. John reflected the MT where the
significance of the quotation demanded it, and other times the LXX was quoted
verbatim where this was appropriate. Frequently he cited in such a way as to indicate
thc fulfilment or application of the Old Testament to the current situation; or again,
the wording may simply have reflected his own style and vocabulary.
A NEW STUDY
Now we have a recently published monograph which examines the same data but
in significantly greater detail and depth and which brings the discussion very much
up to date as some of the recent dates on bibliographic entries would indicate (e.g., no
fewer than 45 entries, out of nearly 300, dated between 1988-90!) Scr.iptur-e Within
Scriptur-e is a PhD. dissertation submitted to Union Theological Seminary in Richmond,
Virginia, and published by the Society of Biblical 1,ileralure in ifs Dissertalion
Series. The author, Bruce G. Schuchard, is a 1976 graduate of Concordia Theological
Seminary, Springfield, Ill., and presently serves as pastor of St. Jamcs Luthcran
Church, Victor, Iowa.
The goal of Schuchard's investigation was to exarnine the use of the Old Testament
in the Gospel of John, specifically to characterize "the interrelationship of form
and function in the explicit Old Teslarnent citations" in the Gospel (p. xiii). He limits
his investigation to those thirteen explicit Old Testament citations which are identified
by a formula. I
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
738, and 42; 17: 12, and 19:28 since in these instances no dlsc~ctc Old Tcstamcnt passage i~ cited; ncithcr is
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
As he examines each citation in turn, Schuchard considers its Johanriine context,
parallcl trcatmcnts of similar subjects, parallel references to thc same Old Tcstameilt
passage, and the identifying formula. He moves on to investigate the Old Testament
passage cited, the form of the citation (does it rellect the Hebrew? Old Greek [OG]?~OS
somc othcr sourcc?), and thc hypotheses of other scholars with respect to the textual
foi-m. He then offers his opinion as to which hypothesis seems to have the greatest
merit. He concludes by suggesting how the form of the citation reflects "the rolc that
John as editor would have this citation play in the context in which he places it" (p.
xvi).
Schuchard acknowledges his indcbtcdness to M.J.J. Mcnkcn, particularly in the
methodological scheme he has adopted. Menken, however, in his various studies, has
dealt with only hall'of the citations, and Schuchardnntinfrequenlly arrives at different
conclusions.
SCHUCHARD'S CONCLUSIONS
What was John's Vorlage? Schuchard concludes that the evangelist used one and
only one textual tradition, the Old Greek (OG) which he Srequenlly modified or
redacted in keeping with procedures well-established in first-century Judaism. This
means that John might import into his citation materials from the immediate context
of the Old Testament passage cited, or Srom analogous con~exts.~ Although the
evidence would indicate that John kncw of thc Aramaic and Hebrew Scriptures of the
Jews, he consistently cited the OG because that was the Old Testanlent of his audience.
Why does .lohn cite the Old Testament? Schuchartl states that the citations
"consistently touch on the identity of Jesus and assert that the details of Jesus' life and
especially his death on the cross fulfil1 Scripture" (p. 154). "Thus, John employs Old
Testament citations as discrete, concrete illustrations of his Gospel's largcr scheme to
convey John's conviction that the entire Old Testament testifies to Jesus (5.39,45-46).
Jesus, therefore, has fulSilled all of Scripture and is himsell its ultimate signil'icance"
(p. 156).
AN EVALUATION
There can be little argument when Schuchard concludes that "John has carefully
adapted his citations consistently to their eventual literary and theological context" (p.
152). This concurs with earlier study that "the corm is always apprupt-iate to its
Gospel context" (LTR I:l, p. 49; cmphasis original). What may be questioned is his
festal g~eeting derived from PS. 118.
2 Schuchard uses OG (Old Greek) rather than LXX to "refer to the first Greek translation of the Bible" (p. xvii.
11.28). In this he folluws L. Greenspoon, "The Use and Abuse of the Term 'LXX' and Related Terminology in
Recent Scholarship," Bulletin of the Irztcrnntional Orgatzization for Septuagint and Cogrrattr Stuiires 20 (1987):
21-29.
1 Therc is evidence which ~uggcsts that Jcsns cngagcd in thc same procedure when I le imported a line frnm Ts.
5X:h into His synagogue reading of Is. hl: l F. (Luke 4:lX)

Koger J. Humann: SCRIPTURE WITHIN SCRIPTURE 47
conclusion that "there is in John's citations tangible evidence I'or the use of one and
only one textual tradition, thc OG:" (p. 151; emphasis mine). Although it is an
attractive hypothesis and cogently argued, it appears lo be an over-state men^ on the
basis of Scbuchard's own evaluation of the various citations, for in the case of 7 of
the 13 citations thc cvidcnce of an OG tcxtual basis is at best 'tentative.'
In a number of instances he indicates the inconclusive nature OS the evidence with
statements such as: "This investigation: however, has failed to establish whether the
influence of a spccific tcxt~lal tradition is evident in this citation" (p. 32; re: John 2: 17).
"What little evidence there is ...p oints tentatively in the direction of the OG" (p. 57; rc
John 645. See a practically identical statemcnt on p. 84 rc: John 12:15). "It is not
possible to ascertain precisely the Old Testament referent of John 15:25." (p. 123).
In three instances Schuchard concedes initially that the evidence points more to a
Hebrcw Voilage. He states that a "Hcbrew Vodage explains much of the constn~ction
of John's citation" in 12:40 (p. 96). He is inclined to an OG basis, however, because
he sees John substituting two expressions from analogous Isaiah (OG) passages for
4
term in the Is. 6:10 citation. Again, Schuchard uses a possible, but highly tenuous,
reference to 2 Sam. 20:21 to try and bring the citation in John 13: 1 X into the OG orbit.
This is after he has noted that "several fcaturcs of John's citation go against the OG
and appear to indicate that John translates a Hebrew Vor.luge" (p. 108).
The least successful attempt to establish an OG textual basis is for the citation at
John 19:37. Schuchard admits that scholars "are generally unanimous in theii- judgment
that John does not recall Zech. 12:10 OG" (p. 143). Still he points to what he
sees as ".lohn's consistent use of the OG" elsewhere in the Gospcl to suggest that "here
too John recalls a Greek version of Zech. 12: 10 rather than a Hebrew one" (p. 149).
What might that version be (since no existing version wi I1 suffice)? He is left to suggest
a "corrected version" to which John had acccss (or pcrhaps John recalled a "marginal
reading" from the OG): or "a tradition shared with Theodotion" (p. 149).
AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
Even if one is unable to share Schuchard's conclus~on with iespect to a smgle OG
textual bas~s Tor John's Old Teitament citations, he nonetheless seems to have notcd
most of the factors which might lcad to a morc satisfactory resolution of the questlon.
The OG is the Old Testament of Jolul's comnlunity. One might
naturally expect thal he would draw on this for his citations
(p. 154).
Although he wrote in Greek, Jolm thought in Aramaic and he knew
the Aramaic and Hebrew Scriptures of' the Jews (pp. 153-4).
John may, on occasion, appropriate citation procedures current in
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;
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
first-century Judaism (pp. xv, and 152).
John's Gospel was produced in "a culture of high residual orality";
therefore one m~ght expect John to c~le the Old Teslament Irom
mem y (pp. xvi. and l5 1).
John cites in keeping with his christologically motivated authorial
intent (pp. xiv-xvi, and 154-56).
Thus the data which Schuchard so ably prescnts may also be inte~pretcd in the
following way: John cites the Old Testament in the manner which best f~~rthers his
authorial purposes in bearing witness to the Christ. His first (and natural) inclination
is to cite the Bible of his community (OG). But there are occasions when the OG does
not represent the Hebrew in a way suited to his purpose and consequently he makes
his own translation. In other instances, since it is the scriptural content and not the
wording which serves Jolm's pui-pose, one may not be able to detect a specific textual
basis. And all of this was undertaken by one relying largely (albeit accurately) on his
memory, a Jew at homc in thc Grcck-spcaking world but who has not forgotten his
thoroughly Palestinian roots.
This const~~~ction may not be so neat and tidy as that which points to a singlc
textual source, namely the OG, for John's Old Testament citations. On the other hand
it may more accurately reflect 111e data and hence the reality of the situation.
A 'GOOD READ' FOR PASTORS?
Scrlptwe Within Scripture is obviously a book which ought to be of interest and
of valuc to the specialist, to the onc intcrcstcd in Johanninc studies, or in the ways in
which the New Testament makes use of the Old. But is it a book for pastors? With all
of the various parish demands upon his Lime, why might a pastor choose to read this
book (or one of a similar scholarly nahlrc) instcad of thc latcst "how to" papcrback?
'I'here are several reasons.
A pastor is committed to working with the Word. A study such as this one engages
him with that Word in the languages in which the Holy Spirit saw fit to give it. It gives
him an opporlunity to sharpen his critical faculties as he engages in scholarly debate
with the author. Such activity kccps him thinking biblically and hcncc theologically,
and this can have positive carry-over into all areas of his ministry.
In working through a book like Schuchard's one always ericounlers new ideas thal
piquc thc scholarly interest. Consider, for example, that the subject of the first two
lines of John 12:40 (a citation of Is. G) may not be God, as one tends to assume ("He
blinded their eyes..."), but rather the reference to Jesus' "report" (akoee) in the cilation
of Is. 53: 1 which immediately precedes. Why were the Jews unable to believe? It was
"because the content of Jesus' proclaniation blinded their eyes and hardened their
hcarts" (p. 100). Such an understanding accords with the Old Testament context of
the citation where "it is the content of the prophet's proclamation that causes offence
and thus 'blinds' the peoplt: of God" (p. 101). 01ie may not be immediately convinced

Roger J. Humann: SCKIP'I'URE WITHIN SCRIPTURE 49
of this interpsetation, but it is a new idea which is worth a little critical thought.
The Holy Gospels (series B) for Pentecost 11, 12, and 13 are all from John 6, thc
location of two old Testament citations. Schuchard does a fine job of taking one
through the content of Jesus' discourse in that chapter. There we germinal ideas here
for at least three good scrmons. Indccd, since the Old Tcstamcnt citations are scattered
at a number of key locations in John's Gospel, this study throws considerable light on
the Gospel as a whole. There are more exegetical resources than Lenski! For some
ncw idcas try Schuchard.
POSTSCRIPT
This is not a criticism of Schuchard's exemplary study, and it may be scholarly
heresy to say so, but theie is the risk for all of ua, who from the distance ot two millenia
attempt to interpret the motives and methods of ancient writcrs, on occasion to be too
clever by half. The data can usually be identified but the interpretation 1s somewhat
less than an exact science. A Pcan~~ts cartoon from over twenty years ago may help
instill a healthy dose of that scholarly agnosticism which on occasion can serve us
well.
Charlie Brown is qtanding with Linus and looking at a drawing Linus has done.
FIRST PANEL. Charlie Brown: "This is a very nice drawing of a
man, Linus."
SECOND PANEL. Charlie continues: "I notice, howcvcr, that
you've drawn him with his hands behind his back."
THIRD PANEL. Charlie concludes: "You did that because you
yourself have feelings of insccurity."
FOURTH PANEL. Linus responds: "I did that because I myself
can't draw hands! "
Koger H. Humuntz is u~soriatr profisror of Exegetical Theology at Concordin
Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontano.

THE KINGDOM OURS REMAINETH
St. Matthew 4:l-11
Mawin M. Meitz
0 Holy Spint, enlcr in, ~lnd in our henrts Your work hegin and
make our hem-ts Your dwelling. Amen.
In the name of our victorious Saviour, Jesus Christ, dear fellow redeemed:
It was not too long ago, although I am not sure of the cxact Sunday, but it was
during a Communion Service, while standing at the altar, that I was suddenly very
moved at the whole wonder that was happening in our midst. Our Lord and Saviour,
who had so freely and willingly given Himsclf into death for our sins, was here offering
to us the fruits of His death in this Blessed Sacrament. How to understand and grasp
it'? Here He stood before us according to His Word and Promise giving us His very
Body and Blood brokcn and shed for us. What grace is this! As the hymnwriter said,
concesning the Sacrament: In my heart I fitld ascending, Holy Awe with rapture
blending. . .And while such thoughts were filling my mind and heart, I happened to
turn and glance to my right out of the window here at the altar, and then it struck me:
Kristen French was not only abducted within the shadow of our church walls, but she
was takcn and abducted just within fcct of our altar. This thought has not left me. What
a fearfully Satanic thing this was that happened. How it seems as if the evil one himself
is leering and laughing at our God who seems so powerless and hclpless that even
within fcct of His holy altar such a thing could and did happen.
How real this stiuggle between Lhe Corces of the prince or this world and the hosts
of God really is. How it is the ongoing battlc of our times and of our livcs, even though
we so often overlook it. How Satan works in the world so that people might believe
God is powerless, or that God isn't truthl'ul when He promises every care and
protcction. How Satan uses cvcry insinuation and every bold maneuver to imprison
people in their fears and sins. "There is no hope," he says. "Give yoursell' over Lo
despair. The world is out of control. Your God can't hclp you. All is chance. Some
crazy gcnc or some excess of hormones was the reason for all the horrible crimes one
inan coinmitted." And the tactic is to deflect attention Irom the cosmic battle that rages
behind thc sccncs. Is this not what Matthcw points out to us in his Gospel? Our Lord
Himself is attacked by the Satanic suggestion, "Shouldn't Your God, Your loving
Father, led You? You trust in Him, and He brought You here to this barrcn place.
Command these stoncs to bccome bread. Feed Yourself, 0 Son of God, for Your Father
is powerless. He cannot help You. Nor does He even care." What a temptation to
despair Satan launches against Christ. What temptation to despair Satan launches
against all believers, whenever we come to the end of our resomces, to the desest times
in our life.
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
live by the Word that proceeds from the mouth of thc Lord, that is, wc live by the
gracious will of our God, who leads us, even when we do not see Him. Jesus is not so
much pointing to Script~lre in these verses as rather showing Himself ay the One who
will trust in God and do the will of the Father in all circumstances. Even when that
will seems to be hunger, seems to be abandonnienl. . . In this confsontatiorl betweer1
Christ and Satan, we see a foretaste of that final abandonment by thc Fathcr of the Son
that would take place upon the cross. And as our Lord Jesus holds in faith to the will
of the Father in spite ol'all the evidence of His hurnan senses, He wins approval from
God for all humankind. For it is for us that Hc suffers, and it is for us that IIe submits
Himself to the will of God in every deep and dark circumstance. Jesus meets the
attempt of Satan to launch Him into despair by clinging to the will of the Fathcr. Wc
begin to see and understand the action of Cod in the world, or the seeming nonaction
of God in the world, only by looking to our Lord Christ and how lie acts here in our
tcxt with Satan, how Hc acts at thc inomcnt that He offers Himself upon the trcc of
the cross.
Asaph, the psalmist, a man not too different from ourselves, says in Psalm 73 that
he became full of despair and doubt as he saw the evil and violence in the world. When
he looked and saw [.he ease and the good I'urlune OS the wicked in the world, he began
to doubt and hc could not understand it, it made no scnsc to him, until hc wcnt into
the House of the Lord. Then he undesstood, and thenhe saw the doomed slippery paths
of the wicked, how (heir lime in this world passes like a dream, and eternal destruction
is their fate. Are wc not liltcwisc to scc and understand? Only as we stand inside this
House of God looking out can we begin to understand anything at all of what happened
to Kristen French. Only from inside the House of God can we understand anything at
all of what is happening in our world. For as we stand at the altar of God and look out
upon the world we begin 10 see Irom God's perspective. As we stand before Lhe altar
of God at the moment when He givcs His Body brokcn for thc world, as we stand
before the altar at the moment when He gives His Blood shed for the world, then do
we begin 10 understand things from God's pelxpeclive. This Jesus whom we adore:
this Jesus whom we worship, this Jesus whom we receive with our lips and hearts is
the One who gave Himself into death so that the evil one might be clelealecl, su that
Satan and all his seeming power would come to naught.
This Jesus is well familiar with Satan. He has heard the same voice speaking to
Him that comes arid speaks to us in the night, and that comes and speaks to us in our
day to day living. This Jcsus who hung upon thc cross heard Satan's voice behind the
curses and oaths of the soldiers who gambled for His gasments. He heard Satan's voice
and saw Satan's I'ace staring al Him horn the crowd that gathered beneath His cross
and jeered at Him with blasphemy and rage, "If You are the Son of God, why do You
not save yourself'? You saved others, You camlot save Yoursell'."
But Satnn twists it all around. God is not helpless, nor is Hc indiffcrcnt. Jesus
could have saved Himself, but He does not; so that we might we saved. He does not
save Himsell'; so that we might be rescued. He allows Himself to be taken, to be beaten,

52 LU I HEKAN 1 EIEOLOGICAL IiEVIEW
to be nailed to the cross, to die, so that all our enemies of sin, death, and the evil one
could be overwhclmingly crushcd and defeated. And as we stand here at the altar of
the Lord and see the broken Body and also the Blood shed for us, we can look out into
thc evil of thc world that lurks just the other side of the window and understmd.
"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Job said thosc words. He said them about
his God. "Though He slay me, yet I will tsust in Him." Job lost a daughter too, three
of them, in fact, and sons, as well as everything else he had. But Job knew that his
Kedeerner, his Vindicator, would stand at the Last Day upon thc carth; and Job said
that although skin worms would destroy his body, yet in his flesh he would see God.
That Redeemer is Chsist our Lord who cvcry bclicvcr asserts is "my Redeemer, my
Lord."
What elsc can we say about a young woman, a baptized child of God, who went
to a Catholic school, who was taken betwccn two churches on Holy Thursday, the day
the Church remembers the betrayal of our dear Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning
of His Suffcrings? This young woman who was taken so close to the altar ol' God. .
.what else can we say?. . .if this is not evidence that Satan is alive and wcll and still
seeking to defeat our Lord? Is this not evidence indeed that the evil one who attacked
our Lord in the desert, who attackcd Him on thc cross, fights against Him still? But
we are not to fear and be afraid, for by means of this very broken Body and shed Blood
our Lord has won, overcome, and obtained the victory. Here in this House where the
Word of God sounds forth, where the waters of forgiveness flow, where thc Sacrament
is eaten and received, Gocl builds His eternal Kingdom and He gathers His children
and they are upheld and supported so that they do not fall or become despondent, hut
they are reminded in our Lord's own words, "Be thou faithful unto dcath and I will
givc thcc a crown of life." 1 suppose we don't really like to think of it, but as Christian
parents who pray for our children's salvation, must WC not consider a martyr's crown
the highest honour, greater than any trophy the world could bestow? And did not this
woman, Kristcn, that very name heavy with meaning, die a martyr's death? "And this
is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith."
0 IzttlcJloclc feu1 not he Foe
Who nzadl)~ seeb your o~erthrow;
DI eud not his rage, hl.7 power
Whnr thozigh yoni- courugc wrrulirnc fumts,
His seeming triumph o'er God's saints
Lusts OLLL CL litlle hour. Amen
Mar-virz M. Mcitz z s seniot puslol- of Grace Lutheran Church, St. Catlzarines, Ontario.

REMEMBRANCE DAY 1993
John R. S tephenson
Among Margaret Thatcher's rnirior achievements i.; lo be included her having delivered
this morning's preacher from growing cynicism about Remembrance Day. My
middle daughter's second name was given in honour of HM the Queen, but she is
rialiied in I'irst place al'Ler Lhe great stdtesman of out. time who still dwarfs craven
politicians and spinclcss technocrats as Britannia, Elizabeth I, and Winston Churchill
all rolled into one. Peter Mansbridge didn't know what hit him on Monday evening
when Baroness Thatcher afforded him the sort of trcatmcnt she used to give Argcntinian
battlcships. For twenty blessed minutes? airwaves routinely polluted with
mendacious mediocrity were puril'ied by well-founded convictions comm~~nicatcd
with clarjty and courage. Brief exposure to Lady Thatcher made one realise that there
are political and cultural values worth fighting and dying [or; so we do well to
remember with reverent gratitude the valiant fighting men of this Dominion who died
in frccdom's cause bctwccn 1914 and 1918 and 1939 and 1945.
If Margaret Thatcher had been queen of the south, King Solomon would gladly
have switched roles and sat at her feet; but not cvcn Baroncss Thatcher can dispel all
the cynicism that gnaws at my heart in connection with Remembrance Day. It used h
be customary, at eleven o'clock in the morning of this eleventh day of November, to
observe two minutes' silence in honour of thc Commonwealth's war dead, at which
juncture some words written by Laurence Binion were ol'len pondered.
They shall not grow old a\ we that are left grow old. Agc shall not
weary them, nor thc ycars condcmn. At the going down of the sun
and in the mor~ling, we shall remenlber tlie~n.
Uttered at Lhe right time arid in the right place, these lincs are apt to soar to the
loftiest heights of rhetoric; but when chccked out against hard reality, they ring sadly
hollow. For one thing, we do not remember those who died to secure our liberty. For
anolher, they would undoubtedly have considercd the onset of old age a blessed
possibility. It is uncthical to romanticise as heroes conscripted, frightened men, who
in many cases, had no idea for what they were fighting. However green and welltrimmed
their lawns and howevcr bright their rows of crosses or stars of David,
military cemeteries are the most melancholy of graveyards. No gleaming Victoria
cross can assuage the heartbreak of widows and orphans. While the notion of thc just
war may be a nice theory, it simply fails to fit the facts of the vast majority of armed
conflicts. Worst of all, you usually couldn't pass a lie detector test when you say or
the fallen that they did not die in vain. The war to end war that endcd at clcven o'clock
on the morning of November 11,1918 fuelled yet more war. Four years after the Beslin
wall came down, you have to be tern~inally stupid to believe there is going to be such
a thing as a peace dividend. Along with the poor, war and the nlmour of wars will be

LUTHERAN TIHEOLOGICAL REVIEW
always with us. All the horieyeci rhetoric in the world cannut relieve one-thousandth
of the miscry which war will continuc to bring. It is so unfair that, at any rate bcfore
he moved outdoors to join the animals, Nebuchadnezzar had all the powes; that the
Pharisee basked in all the prestige; and that the hreast-beating tax collector has been
such a marginal figure in human affairs. even though he was vouchsafed more wisdom
than Nebuchadnezzar and the Pharisee combined. Yes, one can grow cynical when
one considers how, if it had suited his purposes, Ncbuchadnezzar would have pinncd
a poppy to his lapel and sombrely laid a wreath on the tomb of Babylon's unknown
soldier.
But ... we have more than thc indomitable Margarct Thatcher to rescue us from
cynical despair. All the cultural and military and political battles of this life take place
in the context of a higher warfarc. God became Man to fight and prevail for us against
our enemies. The Word became flesh to give all the baptised a commission in IIis
army. God took our nature upon Him so that He might lead us into battle with the
powers of hell and givc us victorics which will stand forcvcr. Laurcacc Binion's prose
starts Lo look less than adequate when it is changed from the plural to the singular and
applied to our Lord Himself.
IIe shall not grow old as we that are left grow old. Age shall not
weary Hmi, 1101 the years condemn. At the gomg down of the sun
and in the morning, WC shall rcmcmber Him
Remembrance Day awakens painful memories even when we limit its scope to
those who I'e11 in a just cause. Should we extend its compass to include also those who
died as instruments of tyranny, we stir up a hornet's nest. Bcttcr by far to remcmbcr
our blessed Lord, because on Calvary He purified the memory of God of all the bad
things which He would otherwise remember 01' us. Jesus was not trapped between the
rock of conscription and the hard place of the deserter's firing squad; He willingly
accepted conimand ol' the hosts of God in order to reconcile us with our Maker and to
reclaim His own crcation. Of Him it cannot bc said that He died in vain, for His death
defeated hell and opened heaven. He never got a headstone, because His grave was
so soon emptied. And for the hest part of' Iwenty centuries He has been rnasterrninding
and leading a rclcntlcss scrics of assaults against every pathetic holdout where Satan
presumes to plant his flag as he retreats headlong toward the lake of fire. Sweet sounds
of victory are heard already as Neb~~chadnezxairs move hack indooss to rejoin mankind
and beat their breasts and submit to the gentle reign of God. Those sounds grow in
volume when the children ol' God get their lives together to His glory and go onto the
offcnsivc for what is true and right in education and politics and along the whole
battlefront of the life issues. And there will be no perfunctory two minute silence but
only shrieks of anguish ;md deafening shouts ol' triumph when our Lord reappears in
glory and the saints of God chase the enemies of Jesus down thc boulevards of hell.

John R. Stephenson: REMEMBRANCE DAY 1993 55
What will then be remembered is how the justest of wars was fought by the best of
men against the worst of enemies, nor will that memory ever grow dim.
.John R Stephenson is nssociate professo~ of Historical Theology at Concordin
Lutheran Theologiccd Senzirzal-y, St. Cathnl-i~zes, Ontarzo.