Concordia Journal

CONCORDIA JOURNAL

Volume 32 October 2006 Number 4

CONTENTS

EDITORIALS

In Memoriam ...... 366 Theological Observer ...... 368

ARTICLES

Recte Administrantur Sacramenta: “Sacraments Administered Rightly” according to Augustana VII James Alan Waddell...... 371 Reflections on the Death of God David R. Maxwell ...... 381 If Jesus “Came Down from Heaven,” Where Does That Leave Me? Justin Rossow ...... 388

SHORT STUDY

Still a Place for Our Confessions? John Frederick Johnson ...... 396

GRAMMARIAN’S CORNER ...... 401

HOMILETICAL HELPS ...... 404

BOOK REVIEWS ...... 433

BOOKS RECEIVED ...... 455

INDEX ...... 456

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 365 Editorials

In Memoriam

†George Stiegler Robbert† (1925 – 2006)

The Lutheran Church, Concordia Seminary, and the larger church catholic are bereft of a fine Christian man, a knowledgeable theologian and church historian, a colleague who was gracious, affable, and a humble servant of Christ. On August 1, 2006, the Lord called to Himself in heaven the soul of George S. Robbert, professor emeritus at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. He was eighty-one years of age. Born in Dallas, Texas on January 24, 1925, Dr. Robbert was educated in both public and Lutheran schools. He earned the following degrees from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis: the Bachelor of Arts (1946), the Master of Divinity (1948), and the Master of Sacred Theology (1949). In 1951, he received the Master of Arts degree from the University of Cincinnati, and he earned the Ph.D. degree at Indiana University in 1964. Dr. Robbert specialized in the life and theology of Martin Luther, and in the history of the medieval church. From 1957 to 1962, he was assistant to the executive director of the Center for Reformation Research, St. Louis, Missouri, working under the late Dr. Ernst Schwiebert. In 1975, he was called to the faculty of Concordia Seminary as associate professor of historical theology. Advanced to the rank of professor in 1985, Dr. Robbert completed twenty years of service to the seminary in 1995 when he re- tired. As professor emeritus, he taught courses until his seventy-seventh year. Prior to his ministry at Concordia Seminary, Dr. Robbert had taught at Texas Technological College (now Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas), 1962-1975, where he was named the first full-time professor of European history. Also, he served Lutheran parishes, the first full-time pastor of Worthington Lutheran Church (now Gethsemane) in Worthington, Ohio, from 1954-1956, and for many years as assistant pastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church, Lubbock, Texas, during his tenure at Texas Tech University. In seminary classrooms, Dr. Robbert discovered fulfillment in forming aspiring pastors. Not only did he explain the position taken by theologians in the past, he did so with implications for the church today, her crises, discussion and debate, and resolution of present concerns. About the church’s life, past and present, he emphasized how the Gospel of Jesus Christ is foremost, a Lutheran confessional approach. In regard to his specialty, the life and work of Martin Luther, George Robbert was impas- sioned with accurate representation of the Reformer on the basis of the larger corpus of Luther’s works with which he was familiar.

366 Recognized for his scholarship and teaching, Dr. Robbert taught as guest professor at Eden Seminary. He served as president of the St. Louis Chapter of the Archaeological Institute of America, 1983-1985. He was welcomed as an active participant in the community. He served on the governing board of the Rotary Club of Clayton, Missouri. He had served as a member of the Board of Directors of Lutheran Village Church in Ladue, Missouri. Dr. Robbert is survived by his wife of forty-five years, Louise Buenger Robbert, his son, George Harold Robbert of Fort Collins, Colorado, and several cousins. He was a family man. To family and friends, George was a delight, a Christian gentleman blessed with a temperament of steady cheer- fulness, springing from his childlike faith in his Lord Jesus Christ from the day of his Holy Baptism. Though sinner was his plight, George’s pedi- gree was of the saints, in Christ! He lived as a man en Christo humbly and joyfully. We who knew George well, prayed with and for him through years of fragile health. His stalwart faith and positive outlook, commending all to our heavenly Father, proved strengthening to his friends. In the latter months of serious and grave illness, George showed resolute courage. Firm was his faith-grip on that indomitable peace of God through Christ Jesus. So he lived, so he died, in the Lord. And thus he rests until the Lord’s day of resurrection. Rest, dear friend, George! Requiescat in pace! Richard H. Warneck

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 367 Theological Observer

Broken Teeth, Bloody Baths, and Baby Bashing: Is There Any Place in the Church for Imprecatory Psalms?

“Break the teeth in their mouth, O God!” (Ps. 58:6). “The righteous will be glad when…they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked” (Ps. 58:10). “Blessed is he…who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” (Ps. 137:8b-9). How did such barbaric words make their way into the prayer book of God’s people? Are these texts really part of the same tradition that admonishes the faithful to “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44), “turn the other cheek” (Luke 6:29), “walk the extra mile” (Matt. 5:41), and “bless, and do not curse” (Rom. 12:14)? The sentiments of broken teeth, bloody baths, and baby bashing are not confined to a few psalms, in fact thirty-two of them fall under the ominous title, “imprecatory.” They are often categorized into these three groups: imprecations against societal enemies (58, 94), imprecations against national enemies (68, 74, 79, 83, 129, 137), and imprecations against personal enemies (5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 28, 31, 35, 40, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59, 69, 70, 71, 104, 109, 139, 140, 141, 143). It is one thing for someone to pray these prayers, but it is an entirely different matter for the compilers of the Psalter to incorporate them into Israel’s hymn book. Who appointed this Commission on Worship? Or were the doctrinal reviewers taking a nap? Or—horror of horrors—perhaps the editors of the Psalter are telling us that they worshiped a different God from the New Testament and were governed by a pre-Christian ethic! Marcion was right all along! But before we accuse the Old Testament of such atrocities, we have to face the fact that in the first book about the Christian church, and this in its first chapter, Luke records an event when Peter quotes from both Psalms 69 and 109—two of the most notorious of the imprecatory psalms. The apostle goes on to quote from these two psalms with the words that these texts “had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas…” (cf. Acts 1:16, 20; Pss. 69:25; 109:8). Does this mean that the imprecatory psalms—all thirty-two of them— were inspired by the Holy Spirit? How did this state of affairs come about? The answer is in Genesis 12:3. Here Yahweh promises Abra[ha]m, The “Theological Observer” serves as a forum for comment on, assessment of, and reactions to developments and events in the church at large, as well as in the world of theology generally. Since areas of expertise, interest, and perceptions often vary, the views presented in this section will not always reflect the opinion of the editorial committee.

368 “the one cursing you I will curse.” “I will curse” comes from the Hebrew word rao=aI’ which is an imperfect qal verb. When the same verbal form— rra—appears in Israel’s cursing texts (e.g., Deut. 28) it is a qal, passive participle (rWrïa I’). This use of rra is revelatory. Yahweh curses in the active aspect of the verb (rao=aI’); Israel curses in the passive aspect of the verb (rWrïa I). This grammar and theology are summed up when Yahweh says in Deuteronomy 32:35 (cf. Rom. 12:19), “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Yahweh’s vengeance arises out of a cultural milieu in which cursing was an integral part of life. Ancient Near Eastern texts are filled with treaty curses, inscriptional curses, and incantations to undo curses. Often these blessings and curses were employed to ensure a vassal’s loyalty to his sovereign. While the sovereign played an important role in either be- stowing favor or calling down curses upon his subject, most of these texts indicate that it was the god’s duty to execute either blessing or curse. And it is out of this understanding that the imprecatory psalms are prayed. When psalmists call down curses, it is because enemies have been disloyal to Yahweh’s covenant. As a consequence, the covenant breaker deserves Yahweh’s covenant curses. So when Israel’s God enacts vengeance, “his sword is all blood, it is gorged with fat” (Is. 34:6), but this is because he is “contending for Zion” (Is. 34:8). Without vengeance upon Israel’s enemies there can be no salvation for Israel (cf. Is. 35:4). Paul makes it clear in Galatians 3:29 that the baptized “belong to Abraham’s seed, [and are thus] heirs according to the promise.” As heirs of Abraham through Christ we are heirs of Yahweh’s promises of blessing and cursing. It should not surprise us, therefore, that the theology of imprecation appears in many places in the New Testament (cf. e.g., Acts 8:20; 13:10-11; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 5:12; 2 Tim. 4:14; Rev. 6:9-11; 14:19-20; 18:4-8, 20; 19:1-3, 15). The classic example comes in Galatians 1:8-9 when the apostle invokes an avna,qema upon the enemies of the Gospel. The word avna,qema is lexically and theologically equivalent to the Hebrew word ~r,xe( which appears in Israel’s holy war texts and means utter annihilation. Standing in the same tradition, Jesus also uttered prayers of imprecation upon his enemies (e.g., Matt. 11:20-24; 23:13-39; Mark 11:14). To be sure, love and forgiveness are the Church’s opus proprium or major key. But what has happened to her opus alienum or minor key? Just look at any Christian hymnal that includes psalms and see how many of them are imprecatory. And this is not just a theological observation; it is a pastoral one as well. The baptized continue to be victims of violent and unthinkable acts of hatred. There are countless Christians—even in the West—who are suffering horrific atrocities. Pastors who minister to those facing sustained injustice, hardened enmity, and gross oppression must teach the b aptized to pray imprecatory psalms. They are God’s gift so that sufferers are able to hold fast to their human dignity while at the same time endure hard- ship nonviolently. Luther puts it this way: “We should pray that our en-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 369 emies be converted and become our friends and, if not, that their doing and designing be bound to fail and have no success and that their persons perish rather than the Gospel and the kingdom of Christ” (Luther’s Works, vol. 21, The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and A.T.W. Steinhaeuser [St. Louis: Concordia, 1956], 1000). A war is going on, and it is a war of opposing powers with eternal consequences. In this war the baptized experience casualties, traitors, and triumphs. Our weapon is the “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17), and this weapon is not one of sweet passivity, but of life and death. It is a weapon that includes both “the kindness and the severity of God” (Rom. 11:22). In times of acute and ongoing distress we must in- voke the severity of God as expressed in the imprecatory psalms. It is our way of coming before the Lord and throwing the sword to Him, for “the battle belongs to the LORD” (1 Sam. 17:47). Reed Lessing

370 Articles

Recte Administrantur Sacramenta: “Sacraments Administered Rightly” according to Augustana VII1

James Alan Waddell

I. Introduction

In the rough-and-tumble of the “worship wars” many arguments are presented, either to uphold historic liturgical traditions or to defend the use of contemporary forms. While it is healthy for a church body with such diverse practices to discuss its differences freely and with complete open- ness, it behooves all of us to engage the discussion with care, accurately representing the sources from which we derive our arguments—Scrip- ture, the Lutheran Confessions, historic writings, customs and traditions. After all, in the end it is “the truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:5) that the Holy Spirit will use to persuade those who hold divergent views on liturgy, and not arguments crafted on the basis of human opinion. One particular phrase that is repeated in various ways in the confessional witness warrants careful consideration. What does the phrase “sacraments... administered rightly” (recte administrantur sacramenta)2 mean? Determining the precise meaning of this phrase is crucial for gaining clarity in the church’s discourse on liturgy. This phrase is occasionally used to defend the church’s use of historic liturgical traditions. While defending the church’s use of historic liturgical traditions is a good thing (let the reader understand), does the phrase recte administrantur sacramenta according to Augustana VII actually refer to such traditions?

II. The Problem of Methodology and Asking the Right Question

Everything must be understood in its context. When examining the sources on liturgy, we must attempt to cite all sources in their historical, literary, and theological contexts, in order to avoid, as far as possible, the 1 This article contains a slightly revised version of material previously published by the same author in The Struggle to Reclaim the Liturgy in the Lutheran Church: Adiaphora in Historical, Theological and Practical Perspective (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2005); used by permission. 2 AC VII.1, Latin. The Reverend James A. Waddell is Pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Albion, MI and an adjunct professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Concordia University in Ann Arbor, MI.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 371 persistent problem of the proof-texting hermeneutic of fundamentalism. While proof-texting can have value in simpler catechetical contexts, in more developed theological discussions proof-texting does little more than demonstrate that we are able to manipulate texts into saying whatever our human opinions require texts to say. Reading sources in their historical, theological, and literary contexts is far more demanding and yields results which challenge us to confront our hermeneutical and theological assumptions and ultimately our self-understanding as the church in the light of God’s revelation of Himself in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, we must always be open to what the sources have to say to us, even when the sources go against the assumptions we hold so near and dear. The immediate context of recte administrantur sacramenta is the great confession of Augustana VII. This is the Augustana’s explicit articulation of the external identifying marks of the church. With respect to catholicity, or the unity and orthodoxy of the church, Augustana VII is quite clear.3 Here it is confessed that “it is enough (satis est) for the true unity of the church to agree concerning the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments.” According to the satis est of Augustana VII these are the only criteria for recognizing the catholicity and orthodoxy (una sancta ecclesia) of the church.4 “It is not necessary (nicht not) for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere.” Augustana VII makes this assertion with reference to the una sancta, the one holy Christian and apostolic church. This is a confessional assertion about the unity of the church. There are other assertions we may make about the unity of the church. It must be acknowledged, however, that these would be tertiary assertions which move beyond the marks of the church defined by Augustana VII and which run in the way of human opinion.5 They touch on the subject of what the Confessions refer to as the practice of externals or adiaphora, “ceremonies, instituted by human beings.” The Latin version of Augustana VII reads: “The church is the assem-

3 See Hermann Sasse’s “Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in the Present Crisis of Lutheranism, Letters to Lutheran Pastors, No. 53, April 1961,” in We Confess the Church, We Confess Series, Volume 3, trans. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986), 40-68. Sasse (42) commented: “Whatever else it may mean, this article is the Magna Charta of the Lutheran Church. We will do well to study it thoroughly, so that we will be up to the tasks which lie before each of us.” 4 See H. Sasse’s comments related to this in “Article VII of the Augsburg Confession in the Present Crisis of Lutheranism,” 48-49. 5 For the very helpful distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary authorities which norm the church’s faith and practice, see the papers delivered at the Four- teenth Annual Theological Symposium of Concordia Seminary 2003 published in Concordia Journal 30.3 (July 2004). The primary norming authority in the church is Scripture. The secondary norming authorities are the Lutheran Confessions. The tertiary norming authorities are all the other things to which appeal is made to justify the church’s practices.

372 bly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly” [recte administrantur sacramenta6]. The question immediately arises: Does “sacraments...administered rightly” refer to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy? If it does, then the logical conclusion would be that Augustana VII uses language of rightness and wrongness with regard to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. Running with such a distinction, the church should then be able to determine what is right and what is wrong for liturgy—historic traditional forms are right for liturgy; contemporary forms are wrong—and here is the confessional hard data. However, such an interpretation of the phrase “sacraments...administered rightly” only begs the question. The use of this phrase elsewhere in the confessional witness will not allow us to draw such a conclusion about recte administrantur sacramenta or about liturgy. Besides, it would render the theology of Augustana VII internally inconsistent. One should think that the sentence from Augustana VII [Latin], “It is not necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by human beings be alike everywhere,” would be sufficient for resolving the issue. In the present context it is not. The phrase “sacraments...administered rightly” is on occasion referenced to humanly instituted historic liturgical traditions.7 There- fore it is necessary to look elsewhere for its meaning. This is clearly a question of methodology. Arthur Carl Piepkorn wrote: “Where the author of a Symbol or a passage thereof is known, his private writings can legitimately be used to clarify the intention of passages and concepts in the symbols which require such clarification. Such a procedure should be employed with due caution, however, since authors of public documents of the church may have been restrained from expressing in such documents opinions which they felt at complete liberty to voice in their private writings. Such parallels from private writings ought likewise to be drawn as far as possible from documents roughly contemporaneous with the symbolic passage in question.”8 While Piepkorn refers to the private writings of the authors of confessional documents, his assumption may be applied to more formal documents “roughly contemporaneous with the symbolic passage in question.”

6 This phrase is paralleled in the German by, die heiligen Sakrament lauts des Evangelii gereicht werden. 7 See, e.g., John T. Pless, “Toward a Confessional Lutheran Understanding of Lit- urgy,” LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology II.2 (Eastertide/April 1993): 9-12; see esp. 9-10. Cf. also how John W. Fenton refers to those who interpret the satis est of AC VII in this way in “Liturgy in the City,” Shepherd the Church: Essays in Pastoral Theology Honoring Bishop Roger D. Pittelko, eds. Frederic W. Baue, John W. Fenton, Eric C. Forss, Frank J. Pies, and John T. Pless (Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary, 2002) 45- 58; see esp. 47-48. 8 “Suggested Principles for a Hermeneutics of the Lutheran Symbols,” CTM XXIX:1 (January 1958): 6.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 373 III. Recte Administrantur Sacramenta in Context

In the months leading up to the confession at Augsburg in the late spring and early summer of 1530, certain documents were crafted in prepa- ration for meetings aimed at bringing about unity among reformed groups who differed on particular points of doctrine. In the spring of 1529, shortly after the imperial diet in Speyer at which Emperor Charles V required reforming parties to submit in obedience to papal authority, Landgrave Philip of Hesse and Elector John of Saxony sought to form a political alliance with other German principalities against the Emperor’s express intent to roll back the tide of Luther’s reforms. Luther and Melanchthon opposed such a political alliance which was not first founded on theological agreement. The result was the formulation of the Schwabach Articles in the late summer of 1529.9 The Schwabach Articles contain the Wittenberg theologians’ confession of the church, the Twelfth Article:

There is no doubt that there remains and is on earth one holy Christian church, until the end of the world. As Christ says in Matthew 28[:20]: “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” This church is nothing other than believers in Christ, those who hold to the articles and parts [of Christian teaching] mentioned above10 and who believe and teach them and who are persecuted and martyred in the world because of this. For where the Gospel is preached and the sacrament rightly used, there is the holy Christian church. It is not bound by laws and external practices to places and times, to specific persons and observances.11

Clearly “where the Gospel is preached and the sacrament rightly used” is an early formulation of the sentence that was included in Augustana VII (Latin): “The church is the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly.”12 The phrase “those who hold to the articles and parts mentioned above” defines the boundaries for their use of the terms “sacrament rightly used” (die Sakrament recht gebraucht), “external practices” (äusserlicher Pracht) and “observances” (Gebärde).

9 See William R. Russell’s “Introduction” to the Schwabach Articles in Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, eds. Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 83. 10 Here the Wittenberg theologians referred to the first eleven articles on God, the Son of God, original sin, the righteousness of faith, the office of the ministry, the Sacra- ments, Baptism, the Eucharist and private confession. 11 Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 86-87. 12 The German version of AC VII.1 (in translation) reads: “[The Christian church] is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel.”

374 The Ninth Article confesses Baptism. It only refers to water and the Word as the essence of the Sacrament and the Scriptures from which the church’s teaching on Baptism is derived. No external practices or observances (such as exorcism, renunciation, chrism, etc.) are mentioned. The Tenth Article confesses the Eucharist. Here is mentioned only the true presence of the true body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine, the Scripture from which the church’s teaching on the Eucharist is derived, and faith that receives the Sacrament. Again, no external practices or observances are mentioned in the definition of the Sacrament. In the Twelfth of the Schwabach Articles the phrase, “sacrament rightly used” (die Sakrament recht gebraucht), refers specifically to having a proper understanding of the essence of the Sacraments and the Biblical sources. It does not refer to “external practices” (äusserlicher Pracht) and “observances” (Gebärde), that is, humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. The Schwabach Articles address humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in the Seventeenth Article. In this article the Wittenberg theologians wrote:

We also abolish the ceremonies of the church (die Ceremonien der Kirchen) which oppose God’s Word. We allow the others to be free to be used or not (zu gebrauchen oder nicht), in accord with love, so that we might not carelessly offend without reason or disturb the general peace unnecessarily.13

This statement is an early formulation of Augustana XV Concerning Church Regulations. “Concerning church regulations made by human beings, it is taught to keep those that may be kept without sin and that serve to maintain peace and good order in the church....” Again in response to the Diet of Speyer, Landgrave Philip of Hesse invited Lutheran and Reformed theologians to his castle at Marburg, to discuss theological points of agreement and disagreement. The delibera- tions of this meeting led to the formulation of the Marburg Articles in October of 1529. The one theological point over which the two, Luther and Zwingli, could not agree at this meeting was the article On the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. In this article the two parties stated the following:

Regarding the Supper of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, we all believe and maintain that we should make use of both kinds, according to the institution of Christ [and that the Mass is not a good work with which a person attains grace for another, alive or dead]. Also the Sacrament of the Altar is a sacrament of the true body

13 Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 87.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 375 and blood of Jesus Christ and the spiritual reception of this body and blood is particularly necessary for every Christian. Similarly the use of the sacrament (der Brauch des Sakraments), like the Word, is given and ordained by God Almighty so that weak consciences might be moved to faith through the Holy Spirit. Although we have not at this time agreed whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily in the bread and wine, each side is able to display Christian love to the other (as far as conscience allows). Both sides are praying diligently to Almighty God, that he would confirm us in the right understanding through his Spirit. Amen.14

According to this source, the “use of the sacrament” (der Brauch des Sakraments) refers to the communicant’s reception of both kinds. It is not a good work by which the communicant merits grace, and it is to be received by every Christian. The “use of the sacrament” results in faith. The absence of any reference to specific adherence to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy with regard to the “use of the sacrament” is notable. On the 11th of March 1530 Emperor Charles V invited the German imperial estates to Augsburg to bring unity to the Roman Catholic Church in the political context of an impending threat of war with Islam. Between the 11th of March and the 25th of June, when the Augsburg Confession was presented to the Emperor, the Wittenberg theologians labored over several drafts of what later became known as the Torgau Articles.15 The Fourth Article, On the Mass,16 begins with criticism of the Roman Catholic position on the mass as “a work, through which the one who observes it obtains grace, not only for oneself but also for others.” It criti- cizes the buying and selling of masses, and the teaching of the mass as a sacrifice. The article points to the grace, comfort and forgiveness of sins received in the Sacrament through faith. Then it reads:

Those people who sell masses do not talk about this faith. They boast only in their works. They want to save others with their works, even though Christ has done this once and for all.... Fur- thermore, the words in the holy sacrament also teach us its right use [den rechten Brauch]: “This is the cup of a New Testament” [Luke 22:10]. Now that which is called the New Testament is not our work; rather, it is the work of God, who offers and bestows something upon us, as one is accustomed to do in the making of a

14 “The Marburg Articles,” trans. William R. Russell, Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 91; see also Russell’s “Introduction,” 88. 15 Cf. William R. Russell’s “Introduction,” Sources and Contexts of the Book of Con- cord, 93. 16 “The Torgau Articles,” trans. William R. Russell, Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 93-104; see esp. 98-100.

376 testament. Thus grace and the forgiveness of sin are offered and bestowed. If now this is promised, says Paul, we must receive it by faith [Rom. 4:13-16]. Therefore the Mass is not a work that merits something for another person. Rather, to the person who uses it [sondern wer es braucht], grace and the forgiveness of sins are offered. These things people receive as they believe that through Christ they receive such things. The Mass is instituted for the exercise and awakening of faith in those who use it [in denen, so es brauchen].

The article then reiterates its criticism of those who buy and sell masses and refers to the apostle Paul’s warning about those who use the Sacra- ment unworthily being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27). The article then continues:

On account of this, My Most Gracious Lord has mass celebrated for the congregation so that other people [in addition to the priest who conducts the mass] who are prepared to use the sacrament may receive it. This is its proper use [ist solchs der recht Brauch], for Christ instituted it so that it should be celebrated in the church with others who are prepared to receive it.... And, in order that the sacrament is not shown any disrespect, the people are often instructed as to why one ought to use it, and they are admonished to use it in this way.... The people are diligently taught that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are present and that they are given there, that faith is strengthened through it, so that we may receive the comfort that Christ desires to be ours and to help us, etc.

In this Fourth of the Torgau Articles, On the Mass, the “proper use” of the Sacrament entails its public observance with the gathered church, not the buying and selling of private masses. It also entails the receiving of the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, the comforting of consciences and the strengthening of faith. It is not a work whereby the communicant merits grace for oneself or for another. There is not a hint that the “proper use” of the Sacrament refers to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy Augustana XXIV is the church’s confession of the mass. Here it is confessed: “For after all, all ceremonies should serve the purpose of teaching the people what they need to know about Christ.”17 Article XXIV then describes the historic context of the error it corrects, namely, the use of the mass as a sacrifice, and then it reads: “Meanwhile faith in Christ and true worship of God [rechten Gottesdiensts] were forgotten.”18 This estab-

17AC XXIV.3. 18 AC XXIV.23.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 377 lished the context for the theological correction of the mass. “That is why instruction was given, clearly of necessity, so that everyone would know how to use the sacrament properly [wie das Sakrament recht zu gebrauchen wäre].”19 Augustana XXIV then outlines three points to define recht zu gebrauchen. First, the Sacrament must not be viewed as a sacrifice for original sin or for any other sin.20 Second, “the Mass is used for removing sin and obtaining grace and all benefits from God.” It is not to be used as a work by which the user merits grace.21 Third, rather than a sacrifice for sin, the Sacrament was instituted “to awaken our faith and comfort our consciences...[for] the sacrament makes them aware that they are promised grace and forgiveness of sin by Christ. That is why this sacrament requires faith and without faith is used in vain.”22 The confession itself defines the recht zu gebrauchen of the Sacrament as a rejection of the notion of the mass as a sacrifice, and instead holds the mass to be a re- moval of sin and a reception of grace, as well as an awakening of faith and comfort for consciences burdened by sin. No mention is made of humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. Another reference to the great confession should be made. Augustana XXIV.35 reads: “Thus, the Mass remains among us in its proper use [Also bleibt bei uns die Mess in ihrem rechten Brauch], as it was observed for- merly in the church. This can be demonstrated from St. Paul (1 Cor. 11[:23- 33]) and from many writings of the Fathers.” Here the confession makes clear that the “proper use” of the mass is located in the form given by the apostle, not humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XV, addresses human traditions in the church. It can not be accidental that the Apology’s Article XV follows the Article on Ecclesiastical Order, in which it is stated: “We have clear consciences on this matter since we know that our confession is true, godly, and catholic. For this reason, we dare not approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. We know that the church exists among those who rightly teach the Word of God and rightly administer the sacraments (recte administrant sacramenta)....”23 Here the catholicity and orthodoxy of the church are defined in terms of the right teaching of the Word of God and the right administration of the Sacraments, reflecting the satis est of Augustana VII. More than forty years later, the Formula of Concord would address with its own article the issue of adiaphora in the church. The Epitome of

19 AC XXIV.24. Cf. the discussion above, regarding how the fourth of the Torgau Articles refers to the “right use” and “proper use” of the mass in this specific sense. 20 AC XXIV.25-26. 21 AC XXIV.28-29. 22 AC XXIV.30. Cf. also how faith is the primary entailment of dann recht gebraucht werden at AC XIII. 23 Ap XIV.3-4. See also Ap XII.3.

378 the Formula of Concord, Article X, paragraph 7, reads:

5. We also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has [dass kein Kirch die andere vordammen soll, dass eine weniger oder mehr äusserlicher, von Gott ungebotenen Zeremonien dann die andern hat; quod ecclesia alia aliam damnare non debeat, propterea quod haec vel illa plus minusve externarum ceremoniarum, quas Domi- nus non instituit], when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments [wie auch im rechten Gebrauch der heiligen Sakramente; et in vero sacramentorum usu], according to the well- known saying, “Dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith.”24

The phrase, “no church should condemn another” is certainly not a reference to Roman Catholicism condemning Lutheran churches, but to Lutheran churches condemning other Lutheran churches in the wake of the Adiaphoristic Controversy, since the Formula of Concord was formulated for the purpose of restoring unity among Lutheran churches at odds with each other over, among other things, the doctrine and practice of adiaphora in liturgy.25 That this is so is underscored in the above paragraph by the words: “...when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments ...” (rechten Gebrauch der heiligen Sakramente). This clearly would have been impossible between Roman Catholicism and the Lutheran churches in 1577.26 Moreover, references to Roman Catholicism in both the Epitome of the Formula of Concord Article X and the Formula of Con- cord, Solid Declaration Article X make mention of “enemies of the gospel,” “enemies,” “enemies of the holy gospel,” “opponents,” “enemies of God’s Word,” “idolaters” and “papists”—not the church.27 The point, however, is that the phrase, “proper use of the holy sacraments,” could not have been used with reference to humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy, because here the two are clearly distinguished. Otherwise this paragraph would make no sense. As a second-

24 FC Ep X.7. See FC SD X.31. See also Luther’s comments related to this in his Formula Missae of 1523 (AE 53.30-31). 25 Cf. FC Ep X.1; FC SD X.1. 26 See FC SD, Rule and Norm 7. 27 Cf. FC Ep X.2, 6, 11; FC SD X.2-3, 10, 14, 16, 19, 25, 28, 29. See esp. FC SD X.19, which is a direct quote of the Smalcald Articles: “We do not concede to them (the papal bishops) that they are the church, and frankly they are not the church. We do not want to hear what they command or forbid in the name of the church....” See SA III.XII. See also FC SD, Introduction 1-2 for an explicit description of Rome’s position on the Refor- mation. See also Ap IV.400 and Ap XII.66-67.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 379 generation confessing evangelical catholic interpretation of the Augustana, the phrase in the Formula of Concord, “proper use of the holy sacraments” (rechten Gebrauch der heiligen Sakramente), echoes the Augustana’s theology of “sacraments . . . administered rightly” (die heiligen Sakrament lauts des Evangelii gereicht werden / recte administrantur sacramenta).

IV. Conclusion

The catholicity and orthodoxy of the church are marked by the Gospel preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and the Sacra- ments administered in accordance with the divine Word (Augustana VII). This is how the historic confessional witness has consistently borne witness to the essence of the church. The confessional witness clarifies how these divinely given marks of the church are to be distinguished from humanly instituted rites and ceremonies in liturgy. The confessional witness does not reference “the sacraments...administered rightly” to humanly instituted liturgical ceremonies and traditions. In the confessional witness this phrase refers to having a right understanding and theology of the Sacraments as opposed to having a wrong understanding and theology of the Sacraments—putting it simply, gift given for the forgiveness of sins, the awakening of faith and comfort for consciences burdened by sin, as opposed to a sacrifice as a work by which one merits grace and forgiveness. To say that Augustana VII defends historic liturgical traditions on the basis of recte administrantur sacramenta is untenable. Historic liturgical traditions should indeed be defended. The authoritative sources of the church’s confession, however, do not allow us to make this defense on the basis of recte administrantur sacramenta. In the Augustana the church is not defined liturgically. The church is defined sacramentally.

380 Reflections on the Death of God

David R. Maxwell

From the beginning, the church has confessed that God Himself died on the cross. In the early second century, Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the “passion of my God.”1 In the late second century, Melito of Sardis proclaimed starkly, “God has been murdered.”2 Yet, in Lutheran theology, we are more accustomed to hearing such statements with a qualification attached. God (or the Son of God) died “according to the human nature.”3 What does this qualification mean? It may easily be heard to mean that only the human nature of Christ died. If that is the case, then the statement, “The Son of God died according to the human nature” turns out to mean, “The Son of God died, but not really.” What is the point of that? I will attempt to shed light on these issues first by reflecting on what we mean when we say that God died and why it is important to say that. Then, I will turn my attention to what qualifiers like “according to the human nature” are intended to protect. In doing so, I will be drawing on the resources from the Theopaschite Controversy of the sixth century. This controversy forced the church to hammer out more precisely what statements about God’s suffering and crucifixion mean. Finally, I will offer some recommendations about how to speak of God’s death without confusing people in a congregational setting.

What Does It Mean to Say God Died?

One way of misunderstanding statements like “the Son of God died” is to imagine that the Second Person of the Trinity ceased to exist. This view may lead to odd and incomprehensible questions like, “Does that mean that between Good Friday and Easter, only two-thirds of the Trinity was in existence?” If that is what we mean, then it would be very difficult indeed 1 Epistle to the Romans 6.3. For an excellent treatment of theopaschite language in the early church, see Paul Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialec- tics of Patristic Thought, Early Christian Studies (Oxford University Press, 2004); Werner Elert, Der Ausgang der Altkirchlichen Christologie: Winw Unrweauxhung übe Theodor von Pharan un seine Zeit als Einführung in die alte Dogmengeschichte, Wilhelm Maurer and Elisabeth Bergsträßer, eds. (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957); Werner Elert, “Die Theopaschitische Formel.” Theologische Literaturzeitung (1950): 195-206. 2 On Pascha 96. 3 The Formula of Concord uses this language. Cf. FC SD 8.20, 42. Dr. David R. Maxwell is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. This article is a significantly re- worked version intended for a different audience of an article published in the Winter 2004 issue of Pro Ecclessia under the title “Crucified in the Flesh.”

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 381 to defend the statement that the Son of God died. Even in the case of human beings, however, we do not equate death with ceasing to exist. The church’s traditional teaching is that the body and soul are separated. The body is planted in the ground and the soul goes to heaven (or hell) to await the resurrection on the last day. This traditional teaching reflects an important Scriptural witness concerning death. Death is not a cessation of existence, but first and foremost a separation from God. This separation from God is a fitting punishment for the fundamental sin of the human race, the attempt to usurp the place of God. One can see various attempts on the part of humanity to usurp the place of God in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. In each case, God’s response to it enforces some sort of separation which foils the attempt. Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because they thought that by doing so, they could become “like God.” What actually happened was that God cursed them with death and banished them from the garden.4 Later, Cain took upon himself the divine prerogative over life and death by killing his brother Abel. Again, God’s response was banishment, both from the soil and from His own presence.5 After the flood, the human race attempted to build a tower “with its top in the heavens,”6 once again attempting to violate the barrier between God and His creation by trying to live where God lives. God confused their languages and scattered them over the earth to prevent them from drawing near to Him on their own terms. The common thread in these primeval accounts of sin and punishment is that sin results in separation from God. This picture comes into even sharper focus in the New Testament. There, Jesus often describes hell as a separation from God. Most often, this takes the form of expulsion from a royal banquet or a wedding banquet. In many of these passages, those who are condemned are cast into “outer darkness,” a phrase which vividly captures the sense of exclusion and emptiness experienced by those who are not allowed into the kingdom of God.7 This separation from God brings with it another kind of separation: the separation of body and soul. Though this way of describing death is not very prevalent in Scripture, it is perhaps implied by God’s curse that Adam will return to dust.8 Adam is not just dust, but only comes alive when God breathes His Spirit into him.9 When Adam returns to dust, presumably something else happens to his spirit. Ecclesiastes, at least, describes death

4 Gen. 3:23-24. 5 Gen. 4:14. 6 Gen. 11:4. 7 Cf. Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:12; 25:30; Luke 13:28. 8 Gen. 3:19. 9 Gen. 2:7. I do not mean to suggest that Adam’s spirit is identical with the Holy Spirit. I am assuming that though this passage refers to God breathing His spirit into Adam, the result is the creation of a human spirit. I assume this on the basis of the passages cited below which refer to a human spirit.

382 as a departure of the human’s spirit.10 Matthew’s description of Jesus’ death, “Jesus cried out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit,” would seem to corroborate this picture.11 If we think of death this way, primarily as separation from God and derivatively as the separation of body and soul, it is easier to describe what we mean when we say that God died. First and foremost, it means that the Son experienced hell, that is, separation from God, on the cross. Lutherans traditionally interpret the cry of dereliction, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” to express this experience of separation.12 Secondarily, the Son underwent the same disintegration that other humans do when they die. His body and soul were ripped apart at His death. In this way, the Son of God bore the full consequence of our sins, experiencing not only the death of the body but also the death of abandonment by the Father to hell. If we say that the Father forsook the Son, however, that raises questions for the doctrine of the Trinity. I have personally heard Lutherans accused of being heretics regarding the doctrine of the Trinity because we introduce a separation into the Trinity. My response would be that any Trinitarian theology is going to have to grapple with a question similar to this, even though not as starkly put. Christianity is monotheistic, but it is a kind of monotheism that allows for a distinction in the one God. We use the term “person” to refer to what is distinct in God. After all, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. However, from the point of view of a strict monotheism like that of Islam that allows for no distinctions within the one God, Christianity seems to be introducing a plurality of gods. In response, Christians simply must maintain that the revelation of Father, Son, and Spirit in the Scriptures does not contradict the equally Scriptural teaching that God is one. That unity must be understood in a way that allows for some type of distinction. In the same way, that unity must be understood in a way that allows for the cry of dereliction. Ultimately, the question boils down to whether we want to impose our definition of what unity has to entail upon God or whether we adjust our definition of unity to what God has revealed about Himself in the Scriptures. If we hold to the most rigorous philosophical definition of unity, then not only the cry of dereliction, but the doctrine of the Trinity itself has to go. Lutheran theology, however, is willing to push the limits of God’s unity, so to speak, by affirming that the Father forsook the Son. The reason for

10 Eccl. 7:8; 8:8; 11:15; 12:7. 11 Matt. 27:50. 12 Norman Nagel traces the interpretation of the cry of dereliction in “Heresy, Dr. Luther, Heresy!” in Peter Newman Brooks, ed., Seven-headed Luther: Essays in Com- memoration of a Quincentenary 1483-1983. (Oxford: Clarendon Press [Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1983]), 25-49. Nagel credits Luther as the first to come clean on the cry of dereliction by interpreting it as the Father forsaking the Son. Even though many patristic sources, like Cyril of Alexandria for example, speak confidently about the death of God, they stop short of saying that the Father actually forsook the Son on the cross.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 383 this is primarily soteriological. The Second Person of the Trinity suffered in our place the full separation and disintegration of death that we de- served because of our sin. The Formula of Concord cites Luther’s classic statement on the matter:

We Christians should know that if God is not in the scale to give it weight, we, on our side, sink to the ground. I mean it this way: if it cannot be said that God died for us, but only a man, we are lost; but if God’s death and a dead God lie in the balance, his side goes down and ours goes up like a light and empty scale.13

Qualifications on God’s Death

Given that confessing God’s death is vital for confessing the Gospel, why would the same article of the Formula of Concord which lays such stress on this point also append qualifications to statements of divine suffering? Why is it that we read that the person of the Son of God “is crucified according to his humanity”?14 Why do we confess that “the Son of God himself suffered (according to the human nature)”?15 Taken by themselves, these qualifications may easily seem to be a kind of theological backpedaling, an attempt to avoid fully confessing the death of God. They seem to say that God suffered or died, but what we really mean is that only His human nature suffered or died. That is not, in fact, what the statements mean. Such an interpretation of the qualifiers is explicitly ruled out by the Formula when it condemns the error that “only the human nature of Christ, with which the Son of God can have no communion in suffering, has suffered for us and redeemed us.”16 Clarifying what something does not mean, however, does not yet tell us what it does mean. For that, we begin with a grammatical observation. Let us take the statement: “God (i.e., the Second Person of the Trinity) died according to the human nature.” In this statement, “God” is the subject, while “according to the human nature” functions adverbially. “According to” (or secun- dum, as it is usually expressed in Latin) is a preposition that makes the whole phrase it modifies adverbial. Therefore, any interpretation which would remove “God” as the subject of the sentence and replace Him with “human nature” is misconstruing “according to the human nature” as a noun construction rather than an adverbial construction. To highlight the adverbial force of the qualification, we might paraphrase the statement as follows: “God died humanly.” This can be more clearly seen by imagining the statement as a con-

13 FC SD 8.44. 14 FC SD 8.42, emphasis added. 15 FC SD 8.20, emphasis added. 16 FC SD 8.93.

384 versation. Our imaginary conversation starts out with a startling statement (by speaker A): God died. This shocker prompts a clarifying question from the conversation partner (speaker B). Speaker B can react in one of two ways. He can either reject the statement “God died,” or he can accept it. If he rejects it, the conversation goes like this:

A: God died. B: No really. We know that God can’t die. What really died? A: According to the human nature (=only the human nature died).

The first thing to notice about this conversation is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The prepositional phrase “according to the human nature” is being pressed into service awkwardly as a noun designating the true subject of the sentence: the human nature died. The second thing to notice is that B’s clarifying question does not take the original statement seriously. In fact, it flatly denies that God could die. So in this interpretation of “God died according to the human nature,” God did not die at all. We might call this a Nestorian interpretation since it is designed primarily to sequester God from the experience of suffering by making a sharp division of the two natures in Christ. The other possibility, the orthodox interpretation, would imply a conversation like this:

A: God died. B: How could God die? A: According to the human nature (=by means of the human nature).

Here, B’s clarifying question accepts A’s startling statement but asks how it is possible. The human nature of Christ, then, is brought in not as a substitute subject for the sentence, but as an explanation for how it is that God could die. In the Nestorian interpretation, “according to the human nature” functions as a subject answering the question what died. In the orthodox interpretation, “according to the human nature” functions as an adverb answering the question how did God die? In the orthodox interpretation, “God” remains the subject of the sentence.17 A second way of conceiving of the qualification, which also leads to an orthodox interpretation, is to imagine that the divine nature of Christ relates to His human nature like a human soul relates to a human body.

17 This description of qualifications such as “according to the human nature” or “in the flesh” is a restatement of the way such qualifiers were described by the parties in the Theopaschite Controversy in the sixth century. Advocates of the language of divine suffering proposed the formula, eventually approved at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.” See David Maxwell, “Crucified in the Flesh: Christological Confession or Evasive Qualification?” Pro Ecclesia (Vol. XIII, No. 1): 70-81.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 385 This comparison was common in antiquity.18 One can even find it in the Athanasian Creed.19 For the sake of clarity, let us formulate the statement this way: “God suffered in the flesh.” This is very similar to “God died according to the human nature.” The question we want to ask here is whether God is being isolated from the suffering by the locating of the suffering “in the flesh.” The analogy of soul and body helps us at this point. If you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is correct on one level to say that the pain is located in your thumb. You didn’t hit your soul with the hammer. In fact, it would be a category mistake to talk about hitting your soul with anything because the soul is not a material entity. So the pain is in your thumb. Yet, on another level, it is true that the soul experiences the pain in your thumb. The hammer hit your thumb (proximate subject), but that experience was perceived by your soul (ultimate subject) because your thumb belongs to your soul. To say that the pain is “in the thumb” is not to say that the soul does not experience it, but rather it merely specifies that since the soul is not physical, this kind of pain cannot be “located” in it, but rather it is located in the thumb. In the same way, the nails pierced Christ’s hands. They did not pierce His divine nature. It would make no sense to speak of piercing the divine nature. So this physical suffering is located “in the flesh.” That does not mean, however, that God is aloof from this experience. Precisely because the Word made the flesh His own, He also made the sufferings of the flesh His own and He is Himself the ultimate subject of all the experiences that happen to Him in the flesh. “In the flesh,” then, does not separate God from suffering, but merely specifies that the divine nature is not physical. But why do that? Why not just say “God died” and leave it at that? What is the purpose for adding this qualification? The qualification is intended to maintain divine impassibility. The church has traditionally main- tained that God is impassible (unable to suffer). Even where the suffering of God is most pointedly confessed, as in article 8 of the Formula of Con- cord, divine impassibility is asserted at the same time.20 This fact may seem rather odd at first glance, and many theologians today call for abandoning the notion of divine impassibility altogether. The reason for confessing divine impassibility comes clear, however, when one

18 Cyril of Alexandria, for example, relies heavily on the image of soul and body to discuss the relation between the Word and the human nature of Christ. Cf. John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 198-201. 19 The Athanasian Creed states, “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ…” (Lutheran Worship, p. 135). 20 This is not unique to the Formula. Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century asserted both divine impassibility and divine suffering. A group of monks from Scythia in the sixth century was advocated a “theopaschite formula” which asserts both in the same sentence: “One of the Trinity was crucified in the flesh.”

386 considers the nuances of the words for “suffer” in Greek and Latin. Both the Greek word pascho and the Latin word patior mean not only suffer in the sense of “feel pain,” but also “be passive.” One can see this in the fact that when the church fathers list things that count as “suffering,” they include not only items that would be intuitively obvious to us such as pain and failure, but also hope and success!21 Anything that happens to you from the outside is considered “suffering.” The reason the fathers wanted to maintain that God is impassible, then, is that they wanted to say that nothing happens to Him from the outside, or put another way, nothing happens to Him against His will. If something were to happen to God that would imply that God is under the control, at least to some degree, of outside forces. To say simply that the divine nature suffered would imply that God is subject to the necessity of suffering.22 To subject God to necessity would be tantamount to saying He is not really God. The function of qualifiers like “according to the human nature,” then, are to make it clear that when we say that God died, we do not mean that being subject to death is a property of the divine nature. In that case, God would not be God. Instead, we mean that God experienced death humanly, that is, He made the properties of the human nature, including suscepti- bility to death, His own. By means of the human nature, God Himself died.

Recommendations

When it comes right down to it, qualifications like “according to the human nature” are inherently vague. They admit of an orthodox interpretation, but they also admit of a Nestorian interpretation. In my judgment, they are more likely to be heard by the laity in a Nestorian way. If the pastor says that God suffered or died “according to the human nature,” I think most people will assume that God was untouched by suffering and death after all. This is the opposite of the intention of the formulation. In order to be faithful to such formulations of divine suffering and death, I would recommend asserting divine suffering without qualification. God suffered. God died. Period. If, in the manner of the conversation example explained above, someone were to ask how it is that God can suffer, then the pastor could go on to explain that God suffered not because suffering is something inherent to the divine nature, but because the Word made the human nature—with all its weaknesses and sufferings—His own.

21 Gregory of Nazianzus, Third Theological Oration 4 in Edward Hardy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers, Library of Christian Classics: Ichtus Edition (Philadel- phia: Westminster, 1954), 177. 22 This point is made already in the third century in a treatise by Gregory Thaumaturgos addressed to a disciple named Theopompus: De passibili et impassibili in Deo, in J. B. Pitra, ed., Analecta Sacra pt. 6 (Farnborough: Gregg, 1966). It is the earliest treatise we have that is devoted explicitly to the question of divine impassibility.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 387 If Jesus “Came Down From Heaven,” Where Does That Leave Me?

Justin Rossow

“Pastor, just where exactly is heaven?” The answer to that question is more than an exercise in ancient cosmology, for the heart of the matter is not only “where” heaven is, but also why do I care? What difference does it make in my life? How does the way I imagine heaven shape how I think or hope or pray? Whenever we join in confessing the Nicene Creed, we proclaim “one Lord, Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven.” On a surface level, the meaning of that important phrase seems to tell us where heaven is—Jesus was up in heaven and then He came down. Heaven is up; we are down. But what does this “coming down” of the Lord imply? What is the significance of descent from heaven for my faith or my prayer life or the way I view my world? Does the Nicene Creed intend us to confess anything more than the cosmological worldview that heaven is “up” where Jesus was before He came “down” to be with us? As we try to capture the ancient intent and current implications of this creedal phrase, we will look first at the evidence of creedal statements from the time of the formation of our Nicene Creed that help flesh out what “came down from heaven” intended to convey. The implications of the historical data will then drive us back to the Scriptures as a whole to see how such an understanding of “came down from heaven” fits with the broader Biblical witness. Finally, we will explore briefly how confessing that Jesus “came down from heaven” can challenge the way we, as prod- ucts of our contemporary culture, tend to understand where we are in the story of God’s mighty acts to save His people.

The Context of the Fourth Century

The Nicene Creed confesses one Lord, Jesus Christ, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. Though J. N. D. Kelly notes that “the circumstances of its composition and promulgation, as well as the course of its history, are far from clear,” he can nonetheless confidently call what we have come to know as the Nicene Creed, “by far the most influential creedal product of the fourth century.”1 The Council of Nicaea, from which the Creed draws both its name and basic structure,

1 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 1972), 296.

The Reverend Justin Rossow is Assistant Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Affton, MO. He is also a graduate student at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

388 took place in 325, while Constantinople convened in 381 and expanded this basic creedal structure (at least according to popular belief dating as far back as Chalcedon in 451).2 If we are looking for what “came down from heaven” might have con- noted for the framers of the Creed, the place to look is other creedal material from just before, during, or just after the span from 325 (Nicaea) to 381 (Constantinople). Such an investigation yields the following results. St. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria from 313-328, in a letter at the outbreak of the Arian controversy, includes an expression of how the church at Alexandria understood orthodox Christianity. At the place where our Nicene Creed puts “came down from heaven,” Alexander confesses: “Who at the consummation of the ages for the destruction of sin sojourned among the race of men.”3 Likewise, the “formula of St. Macarius,” who was born in 300 and died in 390, asserts the “Catholic faith of the Church” and confesses the Son, “Who at the consummation of the ages for the destruction of sin sojourned in the flesh.”4 Both Alexander and Macarius have quoted the Greek of Hebrews 9:26 exactly: “He has appeared once for all evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn eivj avqe,thsin th/j a`marti.aj (at the end of the ages to put away sin) by the sacrifice of himself.” At Nicaea in 325 the Creed contained only the phrase, “came down” (katelqo,nta)5 without further elaboration. But all four creedal statements associated with the Dedication Council at Antioch in 341 are more detailed:

1: “who in the last days...came down.” 2: “who in the last days came down from above.” 3: “who...in the last days came down.” 4: “who in the last days because of us became man.”6

The Apostolic Constitutions (late fourth century) confess: “Who in the last days came down from heaven,”7 while Constantinople (381) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 392-428) both agree with the Creed as we still employ it: “who came down from heaven.”8 The creedal material from the time period surrounding the formation of our Nicene Creed understands the coming down of the Lord Jesus, however else that coming is described, to entail the inauguration of the last days, the consummation of the ages. We can say He came down from heaven

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 189. 4 Ibid., 191. 5 Ibid., 215. 6 Ibid., 265-272. 7 Ibid., 186. 8 Ibid., 187. Theodore’s catechetical lectures survived only in Syriac, so they cannot be used to examine exact Greek verb usage.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 389 or from above. We can say He became man or sojourned in the flesh. But no matter how we phrase it, this coming means one thing: in the coming of Jesus we see the coming of the last days.

The Worldview of the Nicene Creed

“Pastor, just where is heaven?” Though we began by asking where the Creed locates us in the story of God’s mighty acts to save His people, phrasing the question in those terms might be pointing us in the wrong direction. The Creed wants us to ask not, “Where are we?” but rather, “When are we?” To say Jesus came down from heaven tells us less about whence He came and more about when He came, setting up a dichotomy not of space but of time. The Nicene Creed locates us not so much down as opposed to up, but rather after the beginning of the last days and before the coming again of the One who came down. St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386), in a catechetical sermon on the Second Coming, captures what seems to be the basic worldview of the Nicene Creed. The opening paragraph deserves a lengthier citation:9

We preach not one coming (parousi,a) of Christ, but a second as well, far more glorious than the first…. In general all things are twofold in our Lord Jesus Christ. His birth (ge,nnhsij) is twofold, one of God before the ages, and one of a virgin in the consummation of the ages. His descent (ka,qodoj) is twofold, one lowly,…and a second, His manifest coming (evpifanh,j), which is yet to be…. In His first coming (parousi,a) He “endured a cross, despising shame”; in His second He will come (e;rcetai) in glory, attended by a host of angels. We do not rest, therefore, in His first coming (parousi,a), but we look also for His second. Just as we said of His first coming: “Blessed is he who comes (o` evrco,menoj) in the name of the Lord,” so shall we repeat the same at His second coming, saying with the angels in adoration, as we meet our Master: “Blessed is he who comes (o` evrco,menoj) in the name of the Lord.”

Like the Creed, which details the eternal begotteness of the Son, Cyril notes the dual origin (ge,nnhsij) of the Christ: one in eternity and one at the consummation of the ages. Also like the Creed, Cyril locates our present time between this first “parousia” (the coming down from heaven) and the second (the coming again to judge the living and the dead). In both cases, Jesus is referred to as the Coming One, o` evrco,menoj. The Creed would have us confess one Lord, who came down and is coming again. The Creed would have us see the first last-days coming in

9 The English translation is from McCauley, Leo P. and Anthony A. Stephenson, (1970) The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Vol. 64. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1970.

390 terms of the second last-days coming. The Creed would have us “look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age (aivw/noj) to come.” The Creed is not concerned with where we are so much as with when we are.

The Worldview of the New Testament

This emphasis on understanding our world in terms of time instead of spatial location is consistent with the worldview of the New Testament taken as a whole. As Jeffrey Gibbs puts it, “Living in hope means that we understand not primarily ‘where’ we are living—‘down’ as opposed to ‘up.’ Rather, Biblical hope teaches us ‘when’ we are living, in the ‘now’ time, during the overlap of the ages, after our Lord’s eschatological resurrection victory and before His final return in glory.” 10 In an attempt to capture the full sweep of this basic New Testament worldview, David Wenham employs a modified version of a diagram used by George Eldon Ladd:11

Jesus, Messiah, Son of God ministry, Adam’s death, Jesus’ sin resurrection return

Humanity and Abraham Prophets NEW AGE of God’s rule & righteousness, healing, Resurrection creation in faith, father look life, love, “in Christ,” a new humanity, people of God Enemies fellowship of people forward defeated, God with God of God all in all, Creation (Faith, baptism, restored and eucharist unite the believer with Jesus)

Law comes in

OLD AGE of sin, Satan, wrath, disease, death, weakness, flesh

In this diagram, we can see the whole salvation story in terms of the dichotomy Old Age / New Age. The Old Age of sin and death is ushered in by the sin of the first Adam. But even in the Old Age, faith looks forward to the promise of God’s decisive victory. Already in the Old Testament, the Day of YHWH included hope for a New Age. “The Old Testament prophets looked forward to the Day of the Lord and a divine visitation to purge the world of evil and sin and to establish God’s perfect reign on the earth. We find, then, in the Old Testament a contrast between the present order of things and the [future] redeemed order of the Kingdom of God.”12

10 Jeffrey A. Gibbs, “Regaining Biblical Hope: Restoring the Prominence of the Parousia,” Concordia Journal 27 (October 2001): 322. 11 George Eldon Ladd and Donald A. Hagner, eds., “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament,” in A Theology of the New Testament, Revised edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 713. 12 Ibid., 42.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 391 “In Israel the coming good age is linked from the beginning to a person who is responsible for the restoration.”13 When Jesus, the second Adam, comes down from heaven, this Old Testament hope is fulfilled: “Christians confess that in Jesus the day of Yahweh has dawned and the expected Messiah has come…in the coming of Jesus there has come, and will come, a new age. The kingdom of God is here now, and will some day come in its entirety.”14 For those between the ages, the New Age continues to be present but hidden in the life of the community of those baptized into the end-times death and resurrection of Jesus. In the now-time, we already enjoy the ultimate salvation that is not yet, and we wait with eager expectation for the time when Jesus comes again, the dead are raised, God’s reign is fully manifest, and creation is restored. Wehnham’s diagram does a good job of locating us between times, after the coming down but before the coming again. According to the Bib- lical witness, our lives are to reflect this understanding of reality. We are to count ourselves already dead to sin and resurrected to God.15 We groan inwardly with all creation as we currently long for the final victory.16 Our focus on the future return of Christ inspires us to live here and now in a different sort of way.17 How we imagine our relationship not only to God but also to sin, death, creation; and each other is shaped by the understanding that the Coming Age is already here but not yet present in its finality. If our living, hoping, and praying are to be shaped by the witness of the Bible, then we will live, hope, and pray with reference to when we are: after the beginning of the end but before the final victory. Our concept of ultimate salvation will not be as closely related to getting up to heaven as it will be to Jesus coming down for us. But that is a hard vision to catch in a culture that works with a different set of presuppositions. If the way we talk is any indication of how we perceive reality, it would seem the way our culture understands the world (and the world’s future) is in direct conflict with the way the Bible and the Nicene Creed understand it.

13 Elmer A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, 3rd ed. (Richland Hills, TX: D. & F. Scott Publishing, 1998), 159. 14 Ibid., 168. 15 See, for example, Romans 6, the whole chapter. Verse 11 summarizes: “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” 16 Romans 8:23, “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoptions as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” 17 2 Peter 3:11-12a, “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.”

392 The Up and Down Worldview of Our Contemporary Culture

George Lakoff and Mark Turner are interested in how we conceive of reality in metaphorical terms and how metaphor at the conceptual level is shaped by culture and expressed in the way we talk.18 Their work is insightful because it provides evidence both for how we tend to think and for how this way of thinking can cause us to misread Scripture. One of the basic metaphors that Lakoff and Johnson suggest shapes how we understand and experience life can be expressed, “Life is a journey.” In terms of this metaphor, we typically understand “The person leading a life is a traveler…purposes are destinations…difficulties in life are impediments to travel…progress is the distance traveled,”19 etc. This conceptual metaphor shows up not only in poetry (like Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken”) but also in how we talk in everyday language. We have all said things like “I feel like I’m spinning my wheels; my life has taken a new direction; I just have to get through this time in my life; where do we go from here?” Lakoff and Turner would say that this kind of metaphor allows us to perceive and think about something as ab- stract as life in terms to which we can relate in a concrete way. According to Lakoff and Turner, our culture expands on that basic metaphorical observation that life has some things in common with a journey. In our basic way of thinking, not only is life a journey, but death is going to a final destination: “We speak of going to the great beyond, a better place, our final resting place, the last roundup.”20 This basic way of understanding life and death not only shapes how we talk; it actually shapes how we read the Bible. Lakoff and Johnson assert, “In Psalm 23, although no mention is made of departure, we can easily understand, by virtue of the metaphor of death as a departure for a final location, that one leaves the earthly ‘valley of the shadow of death’ and goes to live in the house of the Lord.”21 Here the Biblical understanding of two ages no longer guides our interpretation, with the result that dwelling in the house of YHWH is taken to indicate an escape from the earthly to the spiritual.22

18 George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). 19 Ibid., 3ff. 20 Ibid., 4. 21 Ibid., 14. 22 In metaphor interpretation, it is easy to let a familiar metaphor take over an unfamiliar one. Lakoff and Johnson live in a culture familiar with conceiving of life in terms of a journey but less familiar with the image of a victory banquet. It is most likely for this reason that when they read Psalm 23, they naturally connect the house of YHWH with the final destination in life’s journey, even though the metaphor in the psalm has by this point shifted from a shepherd leading sheep to a victory banquet. (After all, you don’t set a table for sheep or fill a sheep’s cup to overflowing.) Indeed, if we are to take the end of this psalm as eschatological—and the Hebrew “I will dwell in the house of YHWH for many days,” does not necessarily have to be eschatological—if we take this as the final

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 393 This tendency in our culture to view the physical over and against the spiritual finds concrete expression in the metaphor, LIFE IS BONDAGE; DEATH IS DELIVERANCE: “Life can be conceived of in terms of bodily bondage. The soul of the person leading the life is metaphorically a bound prisoner. Be- ing embodied is metaphorically the chain...that binds the soul… The event of death is metaphorically the event of being released from imprisonment.”23 If this cultural metaphor shapes how we think about reality, then it is shaping our understanding contrary to the witness of the Bible. From a Scriptural perspective, the metaphor LIFE IS BONDAGE; DEATH IS DELIVERANCE as expressed above misunderstands both the nature of who we are and the nature of our salvation: “This faulty view of human nature thinks that, essentially, we are really souls…. The body is somewhat unnecessary, even a hindrance. And this view, incredibly, regards the death of the Christian’s body as a victory, as something good rather than as an ongoing manifesta- tion of sin and evil…such a neo-gnostic view no longer sees salvation in linear Biblical terms of God coming down into history and into His creation to save it. Rather, salvation is ‘up,’ vertical, and this world is a vale of tears from which we hope to escape forever.”24 It is natural for salvation to be “up” in a culture where “GOOD IS UP.” We say things like, “Things are looking up. We hit a peak last year, but it’s been downhill ever since. Things are at an all-time low. He does high- quality work.”25 That basic way of speaking betrays a basic way of imagining the world where bad is always down and good is always up. Contrast the fundamental assumption that Good is Up with the witness of the Scriptures, where salvation is always down: YHWH comes down26 to rescue His people from Egypt (Ex. 3:8). YHWH comes down to cut covenant with His people at Sinai (Ex. 19:11). The prophet’s plea for salvation is that YHWH would “rend the heavens and come down” (Is. 64:1). Jesus is the living bread who comes down from heaven to give life to the world (John 6:33). On the last day, the Lord himself will come down (1 victory over sin and death, we do so because we have a broader Biblical metaphor that understands death as an enemy and the resurrection as a feast of victory. Note, however, that dying and going to heaven is not the referent of the metaphor of the victory banquet. Rather, the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead are in view. 23 Ibid., 23. 24 Gibbs, Regaining Biblical Hope, 316. 25 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 16. 26 In both the Septuagint and the New Testament, the verb katabai,nw is used consistently to denote this coming down. It is striking then, that the framers of the Nicene Creed chose kate,rcomai over katabai,nw when referring to Jesus’ descent from heaven. Although katabai,nw is the Scripture’s way of talking about a descent from the heavens, the Biblical word for the return of Christ inconsistently e;rcomai. The Lord’s coming down from heaven confessed in the Creed is to be seen in terms of His coming again. Though we cannot be dogmatic in asserting what Christians in the fourth century were thinking when they used a particular verb, we can say that the Creed’s way of viewing the world is expressed clearly in this choice of kate,rcomai over katabai,nw for confessing One Lord who came down from heaven (and is coming again).

394 Thess.) 4:16. The New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from God (Rev. 21:10). Even when the Bible does contrast heaven (up) with earth (down)—“Their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven…”—salvation is still not up, but remains down—“…and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:19-20, emphasis added). It is almost inconceivable that a people shaped by the words and images of the Bible should imagine their salvation as escaping up to heaven. But we are not shaped by Scripture in a vacuum; our culture colors the way we read, and our culture says, “Good is up!” Yet the Nicene Creed calls on us to confess one Lord Jesus Christ who came down—and is coming again!

Conclusion

Lakoff and Turner point out that our understanding of our world is shaped by conceptual metaphors, and conceptual metaphors are in turn shaped by our culture. Somewhat ironically, they prove the point unawares by reading the Biblical text through the distorting lens of a culture that understands metaphors of life and death quite differently from the culture of the Bible. Of course, inasmuch as we are more naturally a part of Lakoff and Turner’s world than the world of the Bible, the question remains for us, do we get the Bible wrong when we read it through the lens of our culture? Do we, at times, let the world shape the way we view what we confess instead of letting what we confess shape how we view the world? If we understand the phrase, “came down from heaven,” primarily in terms of a “good is up” paradigm easily compatible with a kind of platonic dualism, then we have missed what the church fathers seem to have understood as the point: this coming down marks the last days. In our day, the present times, are understood as existing between the first parousia and the second. The end has begun. That Biblical way of imagining our time affects how we think and act and live in the here and now. It resets our homing device to look up, up to the hills, not whence we go to escape danger, but from whence cometh our help. “Just where exactly is heaven?” may simply be the wrong question. A far more Biblical (and creedal) question is, “When are we?” By confessing that the one Lord, Jesus Christ, came down from heaven in the last days and that He is coming again, we begin to look once more for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. That longing for the final fulfillment of all of God’s promises has the power to shape what we say at funeral homes, how we preach on Sundays, how we hope, what we long for, and how we pray.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 395 SHORT STUDY

STILL A PLACE FOR OUR CONFESSIONS?

John Frederick Johnson

Discussions with pastors often convey the uncomfortable impression that the study (even reading) of our Symbols enjoys somewhat less than highest priority ranking on their agendas. It is not that our Confessions are rejected or relegated to that nineteenth-century theological refuse bin labeled repristinationism. They are simply being ignored. Study of Confes- sions has become to clergy what study of Scripture is to laity. In equation form Confessions:clergy::Bible:laity. Why such an anomaly? The judgment often provided asserts that the contemporary church confronts a myriad of compelling issues which are simply alien to the sixteenth or even the twen- tieth centuries. This gives rise to a concurrent concern, one that reaches deeply into the Lutheran psyche. Is there still a place for our Symbols other than in a well-rounded theological curriculum? Do they speak to issues which are of continuing concern? Perhaps it is as much an acculturated question as a mere theological one. When in 1992 I lectured in the newly reestablished Theologisches Seminar in Riga, Latvia, I introduced myself to the class with the reminder that English is my Muttersprache. They would have to be tolerant of Sprachfehler (linguistic mistakes), but, I hastily added, not Lehrirrtuemer (doctrinal errors). For my instruction would be based squarely upon Scrip- ture and the Lutheran Confessions. One alert student, a professor of languages at the University of Kiev, quickly retorted: Gut. Das ist alles, was wir nun haben (Good. That is all we now have). Years of living under So- viet anti-religious totalitarianism had driven a largely underground church back to its foundations.

Lutherans have always been occupied, some say neurotically preoccu- pied, with the twin concerns of confession and proclamation. That, of course, is what gave primary impetus to confessional formulae on the part of the very early church. That is what has guaranteed our Symbols a rightful and continuing presence in theological expression and witness. In such a context C. F. W. Walther is usually cited. He is purported to have uttered the

Dr. John Frederick Johnson is a consultant of continuing education in Gulfport, FL.

396 opinion that if he were remiss in studying the Confessions regularly and systematically he should soon find himself bereft of the clearest expression of Lutheranism and a truly devout spirit of Biblical loyalty. Perhaps he learned that from Luther who reminded his contemporaries, especially those who boasted of their theological prowess, that he had to remain a lifelong student of the Catechism. What might be adduced to counter assumptions that the Book of Concord is a collection of antiquated documents with little relevance for our age? What might constrain some to realize that our Confessions are both a functional and vibrant articulation of that faith delivered to the saints, for which we are earnestly to contend? (Jude 3) At least four “stubborn” facts ought to impel us to look carefully at our Symbols. First, they exist as an integral part of ecclesiastical existence. Second, each person ordained by the Lutheran community into the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has publicly, voluntarily, and solemnly made some kind of commitment (whether quia, quatenus, or some other form is not the point here) to uphold the Confessions as the avowed doctrinal position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Third, our Symbols treat matters of faith and life drawn from Sacred Scripture. Unless one espouses an essentially Romish view of progressive revelation (as defined from the papal seat) one does not look for changes made due to history or culture. Neither does one expect an alteration of doctrine to come to terms with the dynamic interplay of in- ternal human experience and external circumstance. The Confessions, furthermore, urgently remind us that controversy for the sake of controversy is always detrimental to the church catholic. Distinctions must be made between issues that cause unnecessary wrangling and those which call for decisive pronouncements to safeguard truth. Those wise theologians who carefully crafted the Formula knew full well that some disputes and dissension belong to the nebulous realm of logomachy. They accomplish nothing positive and scandalize those who are weak in faith (cf. FC, II, 9). Fourth and finally, our Confessions address, either directly or obliquely, issues which are ever relevant to the continuing life of the community of faith in any century, including our own. These are stubborn realities. They will not go away. II.

Few would disagree that the church today faces weighty problems. Christological controversy, e.g., is far from over regardless of how lucidly Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon have spoken. Just who exactly is Jesus of Nazareth? One in a long, continuing line of prophetic voices sent by God at various times to admonish and correct the world He created? A moral philosopher, perhaps an apocalyptic seer gifted with insight and sugges- tions for a radical makeover of God’s world? Even cursory examination of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 397 recent literature demonstrates the divergence of opinion both within the Christian community and outside it. Our Lord has undergone profound metamorphosis from the Schweitzerian unknown to victim of stunted sexu- ality, activist gay Palestinian, lover of Mary Magdalene, devotee of goddess cults, and founder of a religion in which it is neither required nor desirable to confess His virgin birth, reconciling death, triumphant resurrection, or glorious return to judge the living and the dead. Granted, some of the theological jargon which defines, say, the genus maiestaticum, may not be the kind of talk bandied about Kmart or heard at the afternoon bridge club. But that precise language, in the context of issues and times, gave force to the simple and quite understandable dic- tum that Jesus Christ is God, begotten of His Father, and man born of Mary. Essence, nature, and hypostasis may seem hopelessly dated to a generation more at home with the technological jargon of computers and pods. That does not at all mean that those terms are without value, especially to a theologically equipped clergy. Today a viable definition of church is on the line. Just exactly what is it? One religious society among others? One group in a pluralistic culture which freely uses the term to identify any number of them? During the recent holy days a commentator felt some kind of seasonal urgency to comment on the real meaning of religious festivals. Hanukkah, he explained, is a Jewish commemoration of freedom. Christmas celebrates Santa Claus and good cheer. Both are a time for giving and sharing! Obituaries sometimes state that the deceased was a member of a Buddhist church. Scientology calls itself a church. That is merely one reason why we need to hear our Confessions remind us that the church is the assembly of saints, forgiven sinners in Christ who are renewed by the Holy Spirit (Apol- ogy VII-VIII, 20). Furthermore, the New Testament ekkleesia is not Israel the nation, but the Qahal Jahweh which at one time was found in ancient Israel. At the same time the notion of church as societas fidei seems to have a shaky and precarious existence in our pluralistic culture of toleration. Can Lutheran ecclesial theology survive when it is being more and more challenged, in many instances successfully, by the so-called megachurch? Non-creedal, non-sacramental, entertainment-style worship, and feel-good- about-yourself theology exert a tremendous appeal. One suspects the temp- tation to gravitate toward revisionism in proclamation and teaching is strong. So it is time to be reminded of the wise counsel provided by Nicolas of Lyra and approvingly cited by the Apology: The church is made up of those in whom there is true knowledge and the confession of faith and truth (VII-VIII, 22). III.

Knowledge, faith, truth! Granted that our historic Symbols provide sound guidance in these important areas. But what about those burning

398 contemporary issues with which God’s people are agonizingly struggling? What about all those ethical questions so unique to an age which has wit- nessed technical, medical, and biological advances never thought possible, or even imagined, in former generations? Must we shelve the norma normata when delving into bioethics, geneticism, therapeutic cloning, cy- clotrons, technologized sin, stem cell research, abortion, and homophilia? These are just some of the problems being debated by scientists, biolo- gists, theologians, politicians, educators, and the courts. Christians who work in these professions face real struggles as they strive to relate such questions to their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of life. And there is no General Index to the Book of Concord (or to Bible concordances) to which one may turn for specific reference. How are we to deal with such? First, our Symbols remind us that faith in Christ of necessity bears fruits of obedience (Augustana VI). They result from careful choice, guided by the Holy Spirit to reflect the will of God. They are, furthermore, spon- taneous impulse (sponte; selbst reizen und treiben, LC I, 330). For on the part of the believer necessity is never to be understood as outward coer- cion. Second, believers decide and act as they do because they are no longer under Law, but under grace (FC, Epitome IV, 10). Third, Christians will not interpret freedom under grace to obviate necessity, as though they have the option of doing or not doing that which is required. Furthermore, such spontaneity is not perfect per se. It is nonetheless an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit (11-15; cf. S.D. IV, 6-7). Those reborn by the Spirit are freed to be constrained by the love of Christ proclaimed in the good and joyous message of reconciliation. Grace is apprehended by faith, which is trust in God’s gracious promises. Pastors who themselves glory in the freeing power of divine grace have a sure blueprint for counseling those who are challenged to make difficult, personal, responsible decisions. The Augustinian regula caritatis, “Love and do as you please,” will neither suffer abuse nor be turned into a laissez faire ethicism. Neither will a rigidly legalistic orientation to action be pawned off as a valid Spirit-induced ethic. Decisions and consequent actions may be imperfect, even impure. But they are acceptable to God through Christ (cf. FC and SD VI, 23-25).

IV.

Our Confessions decisively address one other nagging issue which, like the poor, always seems to be with us. All within the church catholic are compelled to reassess their Standpunkt with regard to that unity earnestly desired by our Lord (John 17). That unity is still so elusive. And disunity continues to fracture the church’s witness to the world. Western thought has also challenged Christendom to adopt an expansionist view of ecumenism which comes to terms with the phenomenon of cultural relativism.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 399 New Testament Christianity clearly defined itself over against first century Judaism. With equal clarity and precision it spoke to forms of competing paganism, ranging from mythology, to imperially sanctioned religion, to Eastern inspired mystery cults. Today it must define itself anew. It vies for acceptance with bland, generic religiosity, post-Temple law-ori- ented Judaism, militant and culturally supported Islam, and a host of world religions described by St. Paul as espousing many gods and lords (1 Cor. 8:5-6). It seems that the crucial question always returns to Christology. Any orthodox attempt to defend das Aergernis der Einmaligkeit (the scandal of particularity) in uniquely exclusivist categories elicits cries of an antiquated, unjustified, even unchristian theological arrogance. Stu- dents of the History of Religions cite references to the so-called Christ of Hinduism. Roman Catholic scholars have introduced the appealing (to some) notion of anonymous Christians who reside outside the traditional boundaries of the baptized body of Christ. Ultimacy in matters of divine revelation is measured not in ontological terms of hypostatic union, but rather in functional terms of transforming power. Muslims boast of honoring Jesus as a virgin-born prophet in a line of prophets. Reformed Judaism can laud Him as a paragon of rabbinic moralism. At the same time Christian communities are advised no longer to speak of Jesus as the only Lord, the ultimate revelation of the divine will, the only sure way to the Father. Authors of the Formula did not seek to establish Christological truth on the basis of flawless rational argumentation or stirring emotional appeal. They based it upon clear Biblical witness to Christ. They boldly confessed that the greatest mystery (summum mysterium), next to the article of the Trinity, is the personal union. God was manifested in flesh. In Christ is to be found the fullness of deity (SD VIII, 33-34). In so doing, they were confident that they could render all Christendom valued service. They even (perhaps a bit naively) thought that those who opposed evangelical doctrine would finally assent if they only understood it. For they were absolutely certain that they had not devised something radically new or strange. Through the grace of God’s Spirit they had written all on the basis of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures. All who possess upright love for truth will find pleasure in their salutary and necessary efforts (Preface, Book of Concord). Our Confessions still have a place, an honored place, in the life of the church.

400 Grammarian’s Corner

Participles, Part III

In the previous “Grammarian’s Corner” (July 2006), we described participles as shorthand for subordinate clauses. We noted that those in attributive position represent a subordinate clause introduced by a relative pronoun. Indeed, we asserted equivalence of the two structures by referring to Luke 20:46-47, where we find in parallel an attributive position participle and a relative clause: prose,cete avpo. tw/n grammate,wn tw/n qelo,ntwn peripatei/n evn stolai/j…oi] katesqi,ousin ta.j oivki,aj tw/n chrw/n…. “Beware of the scribes who desire to walk around in flowing robes…who devour the houses of widows….” In the last paragraph of that installment, however, we raised a red flag, asking whether full equivalence of the two construc- tions is actually a fact (though most scholars, including myself, have understood them so to be), noting that a study now commenced by Michael Hayes is considering precisely this issue in detail. Why this question over full equivalence? Because of the actual cases in which each construction seems to appear. Consider the four passages quoted in the last “Grammarian’s Corner”:

a. 1 Corinthians 12:22 …ta. dokou/nta me,lh ton/ sw,matoj avsqene,stera u`pa,rcein avnagkai/a, evstin.…1 b. Acts 9:7: oi` de. a;ndej oi` sunodeu,ontej auvtwauvtw/| ei`sth,keisan e;neoi.…2 c. Hebrews 11:10: evxede,ceto ga.r th.n tou.j qemeli,ouj e;cousan po,lin….3 d. Matthew 21:15: ivdo,ntej de. oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j ta. qaumasi,a…kai. tou.j pai/daj tou.j kra,zontaj evn tw/| i`erwi`erw/|....4

In each case, the clause represented is properly understood to be restrictive, i.e., the entity in the clause represents a smaller subcategory of a larger group.5 Thus in a. above, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are a subcategory of all members of the body, some of which are

1 “The members of the body seeming actually to be weaker are necessary.…” 2 “The men travelling with him were standing speechless….” 3 “For he was looking forward to the city having the foundations….” 4 And the chief priests and the scribes, upon seeing the wonders…and the children crying out in the temple….” 5 Here is an example in English: restrictive: “The thieves stole the TV that was in the living room,” meaning there were a number of TVs in the house, and they stole the one in the living room; non-restrictive: “The thieves stole the TV, which was in the living room,” meaning they stole the one TV in the house, and it was in the living room. Note the presence or absence of the comma in these cases. Generally, “that” is also used in a restrictive clause, “which” in a non-restrictive one.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 401 not weaker.6 In b., the men who were traveling with Paul were a subgroup of all men. In c., the city which has foundations is a subcategory of all cities, and in d., the children who were crying out were a subgroup of all children in Jerusalem at the time. By contrast, subordinate clauses headed by a relative pronoun seem to be non-restrictive in their meaning. A clear example is 1 Peter 2:11:

vAgaphtoi(, parakalw/ w`j paroi,kouj kai. parepidh,mouj avpe,cesqai tw/n sarki- kw/n evpiqumw/n ai[tinej strateu,ontai kata. th/j yuch/j. “Beloved, I exhort (you) as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the fleshly desires, which war against the soul.”

Are there fleshly desires that do not war against the soul? Most certainly not. So, one could almost translate this verse thus: “…to abstain from the fleshly desires, which, by their very nature/which, by definition, war against the soul.” Other examples are:

Luke 2:4: …eivj po,lin Daui.d h[tij kalei/tai Bhqle,em…. “…unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem….” John 8:53: mh. su. mei,zwn ei= tou/ patro.j h`mw/n vAbraa.m os[tij avpe,qanen; “You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died are you?” Acts 1:10-11a: …kai. ivdou. a;ndrej du,o pareisth,keisan auvtoi/j...oi] kai. ei=pan…. “…and behold, two men were standing by them…, who also said….”

We can see the contrast in close proximity in Colossians 1:12-13:

…euvcaristou/ntej tw|/ patri. tw|/ i`kanw,santi u`ma/j eivj th.n meri,da tou/ klh,rou tw/n avgi,wn evn tw|/ fwti,, o]j evrru,sato h`ma/j…. “…giving thanks to the father who has made you sufficient for the/ your share of the portion of the saints in light, who has rescued us….”

There is only one father who has made us sufficient (it’s not our earthly one), hence, the attributive position participle providing a restrictive clause. But it is the same person—no more limiting, just amplifying—who rescued us, thus the relative pronoun introducing a non-restrictive clause. See also John 6:27 for a similar example. This means that, in fact, we should probably not see the attributive position participle and the relative pronoun in Luke 20 (see first paragraph, above) as equivalents; rather, the first should be restrictive, warning of the (subcategory of) scribes who desire to walk around gaining attention, while the second is non-restrictive, further describing this same subset of scribes (= “who, by the way…”). It also means that the “equivalents” to the attributive position participles

6 Put another way, “weaker” does not apply to all members of the body as it would in a non-restrictive clause.

402 given in the last “Corner” installment, p. 314, are probably not live alter- natives after all. Let me end this installment with the observation that the analysis we suggest is not without its minor problems, especially attributive position participles in the nominative that seem to be a restriction, not on what they modify directly but upon all other alternative possibilities. See, for example 1 Peter 1:3:

Euvloghto.j o` qeo.j kai. path.r tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n vIhsou/ Cristou/ o` kata. to. polu. auvtou/ e;leoj avnagennh,saj h`ma/j eivj evlpi,da zw/san…. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who has, according to his great mercy, begotten us again unto a living hope (as opposed to anyone else who might attempt such a salvation).…”7

But this is why Mr. Hayes is doing his in-depth analysis.8 James W. Voelz

7 The sentence is certainly not implying that there are multiple gods and fathers of our Lord Jesus Christ so that it is restricting us to the one among these who did the begetting anew! 8 Another minor problem is the issue of relative pronouns in the accusative. See e.g., John 6:51c: kai. o` a;rtoj de. o;n egvw. dw,sw h` savrx mou, evstin. This seems to be restrictive, but, it should be noted, one could not use a participle to convey this idea unless it were in the passive voice (future tense!), viz., o` doqhso,menoj u`p v evmou/….

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 403 Homiletical Helps on LW Series B —Epistles

All Saints’ Sunday Revelation 21:9-11; 22-27 (22:1-5) November 5, 2006

Somewhere I saw a cartoon drawing of the entrance to heaven. Big, open gates led into the eternal presence of God. Clouds and angels were hovering all around. A long line of people was moving toward the gates. Off to the side was a huge book with names written in column form like a telephone book. Everyone in the line needed to stop and see if his or her name was written in this book. If it was, in you went. If not, well, you get the picture. The basis for the drawing was Revelation 21:27. “Nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Now we could certainly argue about the accuracy of that cartoon’s picture of heaven, but I doubt any of us would argue about wanting our names written in that book of life. The way John describes heaven in this chapter gives us a glimpse of the most incredible, wonderful place. He says heaven is filled with light. The light, however, comes not from the sun or moon, but from God Himself. He is brighter than any light we have ever seen. The place is radiant, magnificent, and beautiful. We all know how wonderful light can be. You’re scared on a dark street, a moonless night, and then you walk into a brightly lit home. What a relief! How welcome is the light! Or the power goes out. You can’t find a candle and the flashlight batteries are dead. The house is eerie in the quiet darkness. It feels like a pitch-black cave. You can’t see. It’s frightening. Then the electricity is restored. The lights power on. Yippee! Light, wonderful light! And heaven is infinitely better, as the glory of God, encompassing all of heaven, will shine brightly forever. Those in the book of life will bask in the radiant life of God. John also reports that heaven will never be threatened by evil or danger. No one will fear the crime that so often comes during the cover of darkness at night. The light of the Lord will never stop. But everything evil will cease. No more pain. No more tears. No more hurts. No more hunger. Nothing bad will ever defile the purity of heaven. And once there, those in the book of life will never have to leave. Incredible! What’s more, John compares heaven to the most precious gems, priceless diamonds, and streets of gold. Beauty and splendor will fill this wonderful place. Someone once said that never is a woman more beautiful than on her wedding day, and the church in heaven, all those written in the book of life, is called the Bride of Christ. Heaven is like the beauty and joy of the perfect wedding lasting for all eternity. Yes, we want our names written in that book of life. We want to be there. The only problem is that the reasons someone is excluded could describe us. Those who are unclean, do something detestable, or tell lies will not be found in the book of life. Now that’s frightening because we’ve all done things like that on many occa- sions. Jesus says in Mark 7 that what defiles a person, makes us unclean, is not so

404 much what happens outside of us, but what goes on inside, in our minds and hearts. He mentions such things as pride, evil thoughts, sexual immorality and lust, envy and jealousy. Watch television and you get envious over something someone has and you don’t. Get a raise, buy a new car, win an award, and pride rushes in. Watch a movie or look at some billboards and lust is just a picture away. We can’t go through a day, an hour, without one of those thoughts or desires defiling us, making us unclean. As for doing something detestable, all of us have those moments when we’re just ashamed of what we’ve done. It could be the words we’ve used in anger that hurt someone we love so dearly. It could be the betrayal that goes on in a marriage. Maybe it is an addiction that is destroying your family, your life. Or how about the huge debt load you’ve built up buying stuff for yourself that puts terrible stress on everyone else at home and keeps you from helping those in need. We’ve all had those moments when we detest something we’ve done that has hurt ourselves, someone close to us, even our relationship with God. As for telling lies, do I even need to go there? Who of us could pass a lie detector test if everything we ever said was held up for examination? In the book “Telling Lies,” (New York: Berkley Books, 1985), Paul Ekman says, “Lying is such a central characteristic of life that better understanding of it is relevant to almost all human affairs” (23). Deceit and lies are central characteristics of our lives. It doesn’t look good for having our names written in the book of life if being unclean, detestable, and deceitful would keep us out. Go back to that cartoon drawing at the pearly gates. The angel looking at the book reminds you of a hostess at a fancy restaurant, reservations required. You give your name. The hostess glances at the reservation list, looks up and says, “Sorry, Your name’s not here. You don’t get a table.” What could be worse than hearing those words on Judgment Day? “Sorry. Your name’s not written in the book of life. You don’t get in.” And that’s the way it would be for us—except, the book of life is not just any book. Go back to Revelation 21:27, and you will see that it’s the Lamb’s book of life. Whose book is it? The Lamb’s and Jesus is the Lamb. John the Baptist, when he sees Jesus coming to be baptized, says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). In Revelation 5, the angels and all the company of heaven are singing, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (5:12). Why? Because those in heaven fell down before the Lamb and sang a new song with the words, “You were slain and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God” (5:9-10). Those who are in the Lamb’s book of life are there because the Lamb has written their names, our names, in that book. He wrote our names when He shed His blood to wash us clean. He was slain on the cross to forgive whatever is detestable in our lives. He takes away deceit and lies and presents us as blameless, spotless, without blemish to His Father in heaven. Yes, He writes our names in the book of life. Go back to your Baptism. In some baptismal liturgies, the pastor will ask the parents, “How is this child to be named?” The parents respond. Then comes the water, poured over the child’s forehead. The name of the triune God is spoken and joined together with the name given to that child. At that moment, Jesus writes that name, (pause) your name, when you were baptized into His book of life. Take out your baptismal certificate. See your name on it. That’s written in the Lamb’s

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 405 book of life. But, of course, we’ve done what is unclean, detestable, and deceitful since that Baptism. Are our names still there? Remember, it’s the Lamb’s book of life. When you come to worship and kneel in confession of your sins, you know who is listening. Jesus hears you admit to those sins of thought, word, and deed. His response comes through precious words of forgiveness. “In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins.” Your name is in His book of life. Jesus holds your reservation by His forgiveness. The same thing happens at the Lord’s Supper. To write your name in the book of life, Jesus shed His blood; His body was slain. At His Table, we receive His body broken for us, His blood poured out for us. A wafer placed into our mouths and a sip of wine are just a taste, but, oh, what foretaste it is! We have a glimpse of heaven as the very presence of Jesus fills our lives during that Holy Meal. But something else happens during the Lord’s Supper. We’re not the only ones at the Lord’s Table. The communion liturgy has an eye-opening phrase in the Pref- ace: “Therefore, with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven we laud and magnify your glorious name.” With all the company of heaven. Imagine the communion rail extending out and around the altar. We’re kneeling on this side, but on the other side is all the company of heaven, all those whose names are written in the book of life. Everyone who has died and walked into the glories of heaven is joining us at this Table. Today is All Saints’ Day. A saint is not someone who is nicer or more religious than anyone else, although that’s usually how it turns out. It’s not someone who is clean and always does what is right and tells only the truth. There would be no saints if that were the definition. No, a saint is someone who is on the most important list of all—the Lamb’s book of life. The saints are those, both dead and alive, who have been forgiven by Jesus. Saints are those who are drawn to the risen Christ in faith, and on the Last Day come to live in His glorious light forever. And today we remember those who have already walked through death and have been greeted by Jesus Himself, welcomed home because their names have been written by the Lamb in His book of life. At one church in Saint Louis, a banner is hung on All Saints’ Day. It was made a few years ago by having congregational members write expressions of faith and thanks to Jesus for family members and friends who have gone to be with Jesus. Names were written on the banner. Names written in love. Names written with tears in eyes as memories came flooding back. Names written in hope that one day the communion at the Lord’s Supper will become a full reunion in that glorious place called heaven. When I think of the Lamb’s book of life, I don’t picture it as some type of impersonal telephone book where I just see if my name is there. No, I think of that banner, and the book of life is where I see the names of my mother, my sister, close friends, beloved congregational members, and people I know who have died and whom I long to see again. On All Saints’ Day, the book of life is Jesus’ promise that darkness, grief, death, and detestable lies will one day be gone. It’s His wonderful promise that the whole company of heaven, including those we know and love most, will be praising and glorifying the Lamb in that incredible place of light and safety and beauty forever. Amen. Glenn Nielsen

406 Third-Last Sunday in the Church Year Hebrews 10:11-18 November 12, 2006

Preliminary considerations: Plato at the beginning of book seven in his famous work, The Republic, relates a conversation between Socrates and his young student, Glaucon, concerning the danger of mistaking the shadow of an object for the object itself:

[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened—Behold! human beings living in an underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. [Glaucon] I see. [Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent. [Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. [Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? [Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads? [Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows? [Glaucon] Yes, he said. [Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them? [Glaucon] Very true. [Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow? [Glaucon] No question, he replied. [Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images. [Glaucon] That is certain.1

Confusing the shadow with the true image is also the concern of the book of

1 Plato, The Republic: The Complete and Unabridged Jowett Translation (New York: Vintage Classics, 1991), 253-261.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 407 Hebrews. In Hebrews 10:1 we read that the Law was a shadow (skia) of the good things to come, but in and of itself, it was not the true image (eikon). As modern- day Christians, we might not appreciate the importance of making such a point. It is abundantly clear, from our perspective, that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Mes- sianic prophecies and that the ritualistic sacrifices commanded by God were simply road signs pointing to Jesus’ sacrifice. For the original recipients of Hebrews and for some today, however, this point needs clarification. In many ways, the Israelites can be compared with the cave prisoners in Plato’s allegory. Until the coming of Jesus, they had only seen the shadow of Jesus, but not Jesus Himself. Imagine how easy it would have been to mistake the shadows for the real thing and forget about the promised coming of the true image, the exact representation of God. Textual considerations: So what light does this shed on the shadows in our text? Here the shadow is the priestly work of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system as compared to Jesus, our High Priest, and His atoning sacrifice. The continual and repetitive nature of the priestly sacrifices, while pointing to forgiveness, could never obtain the forgiveness they prefigured. The parallel between the many priests standing daily, sacrificing the same sacrifices, is dramatically compared to The Priest sitting victoriously at the right hand of God after offering His once and for all sacrifice for the forgiveness of the world. Jesus’ single, efficacious act is contrasted with the never-ending, ineffectual actions of the priests. In Jesus, the shadow gives way to the real thing. So superior is Jesus’ sacrifice to those of the priests, that further offerings for sin are no longer needed…for by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. This text speaks not only to the futility of finding salvation in the shadows of the Law, but also, and more importantly, of the assurance of forgiveness and salvation found in the sacrifice of Jesus. Regardless of what we have done, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ gives us the assurance that the Old Testament sacrifices were unable to provide. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we find certainty and joy in the Holy Spirit’s words through Jeremiah and the divine proclamation, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Toward a sermon:

Central thought: Jesus’ single sacrifice provides the all-encompassing forgiveness unattainable through the Old Testament sacrificial system. Goal: That the hearer finds assurance in Jesus’ single, efficacious sacrifice. Malady: Instead of relying on Jesus’ single sacrifice we are tempted to return to the shadows to find assurance of forgiveness in legalistic ritual and works of the Law. Means: Release from the habitual and ineffective search for forgiveness through the works and rituals of the Law comes through the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus.

“Emerging From the Shadows”

Introduction (option one): Socrates, in Plato’s book, The Republic, tells the story of prisoners raised in a dark cave. The only images the prisoners are allowed to see are shadows of objects cast on the cave’s wall. Over the years of only seeing shadows, Socrates concludes that the prisoners would mistake the shadows for the

408 actual objects that cast them. Mistaking a shadow for the real thing is exactly what our text for today wants us too avoid. Introduction (option two—This introduction could also be used as the basis of a children’s message): How many of you have ever made shadow puppets? It’s the art of holding your hands in such a way that the shadow they cast looks like something else. Thousands of children have transformed their hands’ shadows into rabbits, ducks and elephants. But in the end, no matter how skillfully made, they are only shadows. To confuse them for the real thing sounds silly at best, but mistaking a shadow for the real thing is exactly what our text for today wants us too avoid.

I. The shadow. The priestly sacrifices were shadows of what was to come. A. They offered numerous sacrifices (v. 11). B. They offered ineffective sacrifices (v. 11). C. They offered shadow sacrifices (Heb. 10:1).

Transition: So if the Old Testament sacrifices were shadows of something greater to come, what was the shadows’ source?

II. The source. Jesus’ sacrifice fulfills what the prefiguring shadows of the Law could not. A. He offered a single sacrifice (vv. 12-13). B. He offered an effective sacrifice (v. 14). C. He offered a pleasing sacrifice (vv. 15-18).

Conclusion: While it might seem silly that someone would mistake a shadow for the real object, this is exactly what some have done with the shadows of the Law. But in our text for today, we find assurance and comfort in the fact that Jesus offered the perfect sacrifice and that regardless of what we have done, God remembers our sins no more. Never again do we need to seek forgiveness in the ineffective shadows of the Law, for in Jesus we find true forgiveness. Anthony A. Cook

Second Last Sunday in the Church Year Hebrews 12:1-2 November 19, 2006

For the Epistle reading there are two options of brief selections from He- brews—Hebrews 12:1-2 or 13:20-21. Hebrews 12:1-2 contains an exhortation to persevere in the faith. Hebrews 13:20-21 contains the closing benediction of this Epistle. The present study will focus upon the first of these options. Literary context: The main theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the full sufficiency of Jesus Christ. In particular, Jesus is shown to be the priest and the sacrifice who is superior to and has replaced the priesthood and sacrifices of the Old Covenant. The Epistle’s original audience appears to have been Jewish Chris- tians who were being tempted, perhaps in the context of persecution (see 12:4), to forsake Christ and return to Old Covenant forms of worship. The Epistle is written to encourage these believers not to turn away, but to persevere in the Christian faith. In Hebrews 11 the author presents as “examples of faith” various Old Cov-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 409 enant believers. Hebrews 12:1-2 follows fast upon this “heroes of faith” discourse and seeks to apply this discourse to the life of the readers. It should be noted that in Hebrews 11 not only are there examples of those who by faith overcame difficulties in this worldly life, but this chapter concludes with a discussion of many anonymous Old Covenant believers who suffered persecution, deprivation, or death because of their faith. Nevertheless, even these who suffered also overcame by means of faith, and this is evident in that they did not deny their faith even when faced with suffering and death. The faithful reader is to identify also with these latter examples: Perseverance in faith means not relenting when faced with suffering, loss, and even death. Details: The main clause of 12:1-2 has a hortatory subjunctive as its verb: “Therefore, let us also...run the race set before us in perseverance.” The aspect of the verb is present. The sense could be continuous—“Let us continue to run”—or emphatic—“Let us indeed run.” Toigaroun (“therefore”) connects this exhortation with what came before in chapter 11. The kai here, which functions as “also” or “even,” connects this verse to the previous “examples of faith” section as well. Based upon the discourse in Hebrews 11, “therefore, we also”...are to persist in our faith as did the believers of old. Note that this exhortation likens perseverance in faith with perseverance in an athletic competition (a foot race), though the point here appears to be finishing the race (rather then simply coming in first place). The three participle clauses in these verses relate adverbially to this main clause. “Since we have surrounding us so great a cloud of witnesses.” This participle clause is probably causative (as it is most often translated). We are to run this race with perseverance because we have a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us. The “great cloud of witnesses” probably refers to the believers of old who are used as examples of faith in Hebrews 11. Knowing their example is to encourage the readers to persevere in their Christian faith in the context in which they now find themselves. “Throwing off every obstacle and entangling/clinging sin.” This participle clause is probably attendant circumstance. The participle is often translated into En- glish as is the main verb of the sentence, as a hortatory—“Let us throw off.” This participle could instead suggest the means by which the main verb is done—“let us run by throwing off.” The metaphor of the “foot race” perhaps is further developed here in that there are obstacles in this “race” that are to be avoided. Here one main obstacle is “entangling sin.” This could refer to any sin which could prevent the believer from persisting in the faith, but, given the overall context of Hebrews, fear of persecution and a willingness to turn from worshipping Jesus Christ for an easier earthly life could very well be brought up as specific “obstacles” that inhibit the runner in running the race. “Fixing our eyes upon Jesus.” This aorist participle clause is often translated as simple attendant circumstance. The NIV translates this participle as a hortatory—“let us fix our eyes.” This participle clause could instead suggest another means by which the main verb is done—“let us run by fixing our eyes upon Jesus.” Again, the metaphor of a “foot race” is perhaps further developed: Jesus here is presented as an example of “the model runner” (and so probably not the goal of the race) upon which “the faithful runner” is to focus—“Run just as Jesus ran.” One might consider the commercial campaign run by Nike in the 1990s where the audience was exhorted to be “Like Mike” (Michael Jordan) in their athletic pur- suits. Jesus is used as such an example here, though now the pursuit is persistence in the faith.

410 “The founder and perfecter of faith.” Jesus is described by means of this apposition. The sense is that Jesus is the one upon whom faith depends from its origin unto its goal, from start to finish. Jesus gives faith; Jesus strengthens and perfects faith. Jesus is constantly the one through whom the believer believes—thus good reason to “fix our eyes upon Jesus.” “Who, because of the joy set before Him, endured a cross, ignoring the shame, and also is seated at the right of the throne of God.” Jesus is also described by means of this relative clause. It is here that Jesus is presented as the example, the “model runner,” and thus the reason for why we should “fix our eyes on Jesus.” What did Jesus do? He endured a cross, ignoring the shame associated with such a death. He is now (if one reads the perfect instead of the aorist in the variant reading) in the state of being seated at the right of God’s throne. Jesus went the way of the cross, but is now in glory. This is the way it was for the believers of old who perse- vered when persecuted (see Heb. 11:35b-38). And so this is the way it will be for believers now. “Why did Jesus endure the cross?” It was because of the joy set before Him. What was that joy? The author does not make this clear in the immediate context. One could argue from the context of Hebrews that, since Jesus’ death on the cross was a function of His role as priest and sacrifice, the redemption of those who believe through Jesus’ work could be the cause behind this “joy”: He did it for us! The main exhortation to persist in the faith is thus based firmly in the saving work of Jesus Christ. Considerations for preaching: 1. This text is a passage of exhortation, and so the sermon then should be based in this exhortation: “Let us run the race set before us in perseverance.” This is a call to persevere in the Christian faith. Since our focus at this time of the church year is upon eschatology, the preacher could speak in terms of how we are to live in these “last days” (see 1:2): Until our Lord returns, the Christian believer is called to persevere in the faith—even in the face of persecution. 2. The preacher might attempt a basic three-part outline where the main exhortation about “running the race in perseverance” is understood in terms of the three adverbial participle clauses: Let us run the race set before us in perseverance (a) because we have a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, (b) by throwing off every obstacle and entangling sin, and (c) by fixing our eyes upon Jesus. 3. The malady could be developed from 2b above: Today we often do not throw off every obstacle and entangling sin which prevents us from running with perseverance. Our cultural desire for immediate gratification—which in turn affects the understanding of the Gospel in some sections of the American church—does not readily identify with any notion of perseverance. Those expecting “success now” cannot identify with the believers who went before (2a) or even with Jesus Himself (2c). The examples of faithfulness in Hebrews 11 died without yet receiving what was promised (see 11:39); Jesus endured a shameful death before entering glory. These examples will mean nothing to those who think the Christian faith should mean “blessings now”—usually understood in terms of “American success”—apart from the probability of persecution, suffering, or loss because of our faith in Jesus. 4. The Christology of this passage provides the basis for the exhortation: Jesus is the one in whom the Christian faith is both founded and perfected. He is the one who “ran in perseverance,” enduring the cross. It is in this way that He has become the all-sufficient priest and the once-and-for-all sacrifice for sin. Even when presented as an example, Jesus is never separated from His saving work. The exhor-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 411 tation in this passage is based firmly in this Gospel reality—and this reality gives the exhortation its force. David I. Lewis

Last Sunday in the Church Year Sunday of the Fulfillment Revelation 1:4b-8 November 26, 2006

For the Epistle reading, there are two options of selections—Jude 20-25 or Revelation 1:4b-8. Jude 20-25 contains final exhortations to the readers, the closing benediction, and final doxology of this Epistle. Revelation 1:4b-8 contains the epistolary opening of this work. The present study will focus upon the second of these options. Literary context: As mentioned above, Revelation 1:4b-8 contains (part of) the epistolary opening of this work. Note that, although Revelation is usually classified as an apocalyptic or a prophetic work, it was delivered in the form of an epistle, and so it has an epistolary opening. The purpose of Revelation is given in the preface to this work, which comes before this opening: This “revelation from Jesus Christ” is given to John in order to show Jesus’ servants the things which are necessary to happen soon (see 1:1). Throughout this book it is revealed that Jesus Christ, who died, is triumphant. And so His church will in the end be triumphant even as it faces the hostility of this world while waiting for the consummation. The unbelieving world is under judgment and will be judged. Although there is much debate about how to read this book—and thus about the interpretation of many of the visions contained in this book—it can at least be said that these three points are revealed rather clearly. One literary feature found in the epistolary opening of Revelation is the author’s tendency to say things in “threes.” Perhaps this was done to establish a rhetorical flow that in turn would aid the memory of the readers/hearers. Details: Verses 4b-5a: For whatever reason, the layout of this pericope elimi- nates 1:4a, where the author (John) and recipients (the seven churches in Asia) are identified. The pericope begins instead with the opening greeting. The basic greeting is a Christianized form (“grace and peace to you”) which looks Pauline in form (see Gal. 1:3). But where Paul most often identifies a twofold source of this grace and peace (“from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”), John here identifies a threefold source. This is the first example here of John presenting in “threes.” “From He who is and He who was and He who is coming.” This is how God the Father is identified. This probably signifies both His eternal existence and His eternal rule. This is the God who has always been in charge. Note that the participles here are in the nominative case (as reflected in the above translation) when we would expect the genitive after apo (and in English “Him” after “from”). This is either bad Greek or it was done deliberately to set the Father off from the other two parts in this threefold greeting. “And from the seven spirits which are before His throne.” If the interpreter identifies these “seven spirits” as a reference to the Holy Spirit, then this is a uniquely Trinitarian greeting in its form. “And from Jesus Christ.” Jesus then is further identified by means of a threefold apposition (if the interpreter reads “the faithful witness” rather than “the

412 witness” as distinct from “the faithful one”). This then is a second example of John saying things in a threefold way. First, Jesus Christ is “the faithful witness.” Some interpreters see this as a specific reference to His earthly ministry (and thus the threefold apposition is looking at Jesus’ work from a chronological perspective). Second, Jesus Christ is “the firstborn of the dead.” This refers, of course, to His resurrection. Finally, Jesus Christ is “the ruler of the kings of the earth.” This refers to His exaltation (see Rev. 5). Note how this identification of Jesus thus covers the whole range of His saving work. Verses 5b-6: The opening doxology is contained in these verses. This doxology is given specifically to Jesus Christ, and it is also threefold in form, a third example of this literary devise. First, glory and power are given “to Him who loved us.” Second it is given “to Him who freed us from our sins by means of His blood.” This is a specific reference to the sacrificial and redemptive nature of Jesus’ death. Finally, it is given “to Him who made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father.” (Note the variant readings under verse 6.) This doxology again describes the entire scope of Jesus’ saving work. Verse 7: This verse does not fit the established pattern of an epistolary opening. It appears to be a prophetic statement that once again sounds the theme of this book. Notice yet again a threefold pattern: First, Jesus—who has just been the receptor of the doxology—“is coming with the clouds.” Note the reference to Daniel 7:13 in the margin of Nestle Aland. Jesus here is pictured as “one like a son of man” (see Rev. 1:13) who will be the agent by whom God judges the nations. Second, “every eye will see Him, and even those who pierced Him.” Note the reference to Zechariah 12:10 in the margin of Nestle Aland. The piercing is yet another reference to Jesus’ death. If one reads with Zechariah 12:10, those who pierced Jesus appear to be identified as the entire nation of Israel, not just those historically responsible for His execution. In the third part of this prophetic utterance it says “all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.” This also refers to what is said in Zechariah 12:10. In Zechariah it is all of Israel who will mourn, but in Revelation 1:7 it is “all the tribes of the earth,” the entire world of man, which is included in this mourning. The whole world of man—Jew and Gentile—will be judged by this “Son of Man” and will mourn when He comes with the clouds. This prophetic utterance is then sealed as true with the final words “Yea, Amen!” Verse 8: The Lord God now speaks directly in a self-revelation, and, once again, there is a threefold pattern: “I am the alpha and the omega, He who is and who was and who is coming, the almighty.” This threefold self-revelation also focuses upon God’s eternal existence and His eternal rule. Again, this revelation comes from the God who has always been in charge. Considerations for preaching: 1. The Christology of these verses should be presented in the sermon. Note how the full breadth of Jesus’ saving work is spoken of in different ways in the greeting, the doxology, and the prophetic utterance of 1:7. There is what Jesus did in the past: His faithful ministry, His love of His own (see John 13:1), His sacrificial death, His resurrection, and His exaltation. There is what Jesus is doing in the present: His ruling over the kings of the earth. There is what Jesus will do in the future: His coming with the clouds to judge the nations of the earth. 2. The preacher can also discuss the identity of the believer as it is established most clearly in the doxology. The believers are those who (a) have been loved by Jesus, (b) have been loosed from their sins by means of Jesus’ blood, and (c) have been made a kingdom, priests to God the Father, by Jesus.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 413 3. Since at this time of the church year—and especially upon this last day—we focus upon eschatology and the consummation of Jesus’ saving work, Revelation 1:7 especially can be the focus of this sermon. Jesus will come again, and in His capacity as the Son of Man, He will judge the nations of the world. Since those who have not believed in Jesus will be condemned on the basis of their unbelief (John 3:18b-21), there will be great cause for mourning on the day Jesus returns. But for the believers this will be cause to sing a doxology to our Savior. 4. One malady which may be developed is that as we wait, our faith may wane and grow weak, especially as we face hostility from the world. Revelation was written to make it clear that such hostility would come, but that this does not change who Jesus Christ is or who we are in Jesus Christ. In light of Jesus’ work— His redemptive work in the past, His present exaltation, and His coming again on the Last Day to judge the nations—the believer is called to wait in faithful expectation and serve in this time as God’s priests. The means, then, is the full breadth of Jesus’ saving work that is presented in this pericope. David I. Lewis

First Sunday in Advent Jeremiah 33:1:4b-8 December 3, 2006

Jeremiah 33:14-16 contains a bold Messianic prophecy delivered to the South- ern Kingdom as it faced destruction at the hands of the Babylonians. The court of the palace guard provides Jeremiah’s accommodations during his king-imposed imprisonment and the writing of this prophecy. King Zedekiah, who will lose his sight after being carried off into captivity, has already turned a blind eye to the covenantal relationship between Judah and YHWH and a deaf ear to Jeremiah’s prophecies. Zedekiah seals Judah’s destruction by aligning himself with Egypt, thus breaking his vassal relationship with Nebuchadnezzar and the protection that it provided. One can only imagine the pain of the life-long prophet Jeremiah as he wept and pled for God’s people to repent—only to see Judah destroyed at the point of the Chaldaean spear. But even in the face of Judah’s rejection of YHWH, YHWH re- mained faithful to His promise. For through His salvific power, YHWH promised to provide Judah with a Righteous Ruler from the line of David who would execute the justice and righteousness that were sorely lacking during the reign of Judah’s unrighteous kings. Righteousness (Hebrew: sedeq), a word occurring three times in this pericope and over five hundred times in the Old Testament, is shown in our text not only to be an attribute of God, but also as a descriptive title of both the promised Messiah and the eschatologically restored Judah. At the conclusion of our text we read the words, “YHWH is our righteousness.” The theological depth of these four words provides a wealth of insight for our homiletical consideration. During this time of Advent, while the church awaits the coming of the promised Righteous Branch, we are reminded that our righteousness before God comes not from ourselves but from Jesus. In light of Judah’s loss and destruction, I am reminded of the apostle Paul’s loss in Philippians 3:8-9, “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteous-

414 ness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—” (ESV). Now while the loss spoken of by Paul, the loss of his claim to pharisaical righteousness before God for the purpose of salvation, stands in sharp contrast to the loss of Judah’s earthly kingdom through unrighteous rebellion: the final point remains the same—our righteousness is found in Jesus, not in ourselves. If we were left to ourselves to obtain salvation, we would most certainly fall into the same rebellion before God and rejection of His will that resulted in Judah’s destruction. We, like Judah, would be carried off into captivity—captivity to sin, death, and ever-lasting condemnation. For as the prophet Isaiah says in Isaiah 64:6,

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

But through the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, our righteous King, who suffered and died for our rebellion, we are released from captivity and are given the honor of dwelling with Him in the security of the heavenly Jerusalem that is to come. As we begin the season of Advent, we are reassured that God has fulfilled His Messianic promises and that through the gift of faith in the righteous Branch, Jesus’ righteousness is accounted as ours. Suggested outline:

A Righteous Branch Is Growing

I. Righteous Branch (vv. 14-15). A. Promised. B. Predicted. C. Provided. II. Righteous People (v. 16). A. Released. B. Restored. C. Renamed. Anthony A. Cook

Second Sunday in Advent Malachi 3:1-4 December 10, 2006

Historical context: Malachi is post-exilic and assumes a rebuilt temple, which would date it after 515 B.C. The exiles have returned to the land, as Isaiah and others had promised. In spite of these beautiful prophecies of hope and restoration, however, the situation in Malachi’s Jerusalem—among both priests and people—is disheartening. Summary: In answer to those who doubt His justice (2:17), the Lord Himself is coming to His temple (3:1)! He will draw near to judge the wicked (3:5).

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 415 But who will gather to meet with Him there? Where can any pure and worthy worshipers be found to bring the praise and offerings due Him? In the first two chapters, Malachi has made it clear that the priests and people of Judah are not at all fit worshipers for such a King. The Levitical priests have offered up “defiled food” (1:7), disdained their priestly service and the table of the Lord (1:12-13), and taught falsely and corrupted the covenant of Yahweh (2:7). The people themselves have flirted with idolatry (2:10-11), presented blemished animals for sacrifice to God (1:14), and openly questioned His justice (2:17). They demand, “Where is the God of justice?” But when God replies, “He is coming to you!”—they cannot endure it. Therefore, God will graciously send His messenger before Him, to prepare the way for His coming (3:1). The messenger will scour men clean with the caustic lye of launderer’s soap and will burn away all their dross and impurities with the fire of a smelter’s furnace. And what will emerge from the soapy water, from the glow- ing crucible? Worshipers fit for the Lord. They will worship Him in righteousness (3:3b), and their offerings will be pleasant, rather than provoking, in His sight. Theological reflection: Liturgically, this reading is tied to John the Baptist’s ministry in Luke 3:1ff. “Prepare the way of the Lord” (Luke 3:4) echoes Isaiah 40:3 (cf. Is. 57:14; 62:10). This is the same verb (Piel of hnp) used to describe the messenger in Malachi 3: he will prepare God’s way before Him. On the next Sunday (Ad- vent 3C), the Lutheran Service Book lectionary appoints Luke 7:18-28. Here Jesus explicitly names John as the “messenger” of Malachi 3:1 but also rephrases the prophecy as an utterance spoken by the Father to and about Jesus: “Behold, I send My messenger before You, who will prepare Your way before You” (Luke 7:27). The Baptist’s ministry helps us to rightly understand the laundering and refining of Malachi 3:2; it is the prophetic call to a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Historically, “the Lord will come to His temple” refers to the presence of God in the second Jerusalem temple, worshiped by people spiritually renewed and prepared by the prophetic word of Malachi (“my messenger”) and others. Christologically, it is fulfilled in the advent of Jesus, the Lord God who came to the Temple (Luke 2:22ff., 41ff.). Sacramentally, it refers to the coming of Jesus, the new Temple, into the midst of His baptized (laundered and refined) people, in Word and Sacrament. And eschatologically, Malachi’s words will be fulfilled when the New Jerusalem “suddenly” descends and a great voice from the throne proclaims, “Be- hold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them” (Rev. 21:3). There will be no temple in that city, “for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb, are its temple” (Rev. 21:22). Verse 1: God’s promise, “I am sending My messenger” (ykiaIl.m;), is a word play on the prophet’s name (cf. 1:1). “The messenger of the covenant” is most likely a second ascription of “the Lord whom you seek,” with the “and” between them func- tioning as an epexegetical waw (= “that is”). Verse 2: The question here posed is one of the staples of Holy Scripture, from hiding Adam in Genesis 3 to those crying out to the hills, “Cover us and hide us!” in Luke 23:30 and Revelation 6:16. What sinner can stand in the judgment of the Holy God? (See also Ps. 1:5; 130:3; Amos 5:18ff.; Is. 6:5; Ezek. 1:28; Jude 24-25.) The metaphors of caustic soap and refining fire are harsh—these are neither half- measures nor painless remedies. But they are necessary and effective: the clean and pure alone will remain. Their fulfillment in the ministry of John suggests a theological and homiletical connection to Holy Baptism.

416 Verses 3 and 4: In purifying the Levitical priests, the offerings of the whole community will be made “in righteousness” and will be pleasing to Yahweh, as in former days. This language of the righteous worship of a righteous people is heard later on the lips of Zacharias, John’s father. Before quoting Malachi 3 to his newborn son (Luke 1:76), he rejoices that in redeeming His people God will enable them to “serve/worship Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days” (Luke 1:74-75). Suggested outline:

When God Comes to Church

I. How can we prepare? The worshipers are so unfit! A. In Malachi’s day. B. When Jesus came, as well. C. Among us here…even unto the end of the world…. II. Yet our gracious Lord Himself prepares His people. A. John the Baptist (“a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”). B. Holy Baptism. C. Like Lava Soap, like a furnace. III. What joyous anticipation…clean and pure we will greet His coming with praise! A. In righteousness we will sing the beautiful hymns and carols of His advent. B. In righteousness we will greet His coming among us in worship (in His Word and in the Supper) in the weeks and years to come. C. In righteousness we will lift up our heads and take up the everlasting song when He appears on the Last Day to be our Temple forever. Thomas Egger

Third Sunday in Advent Zephaniah 3:14-18a December 17, 2006

Preliminary considerations: Evidence of moral depravity and idolatry is nothing new to any twenty-first-century Christian. Television, the written and printed media, and especially the Internet with its onslaught of pornography exemplify current moral depravity. All media aside, things really have not changed from the time of Zephaniah to this day. Sin is sin, and moral depravity is moral depravity. This is not simply a sign of our times, but a sign of the sin-corrupted body and soul of humanity. The book of Zephaniah is full of God’s judgment on the moral depravity and idolatry of Judah and Jerusalem. Yet Yahweh is in their midst. The moral corruption that Zephaniah speaks against occurs at all levels: the royal family, the princes, the prophets, and the priests. Jerusalem is a rebellious city. And so Zephaniah’s prophecy embraces Yahweh’s judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem, as well as their redemption. Again, Zephaniah tells the people of Judah that God is in their midst. He is not at a distance, as Bette Midler sings in one of her songs. There should be no difficulty in tying this pericope from Zephaniah to the current depravity in this world and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Lord was in the midst of the people of Judah, so He is today among us. In the means of grace Yahweh says to us, “ ‘I AM’ here!”

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 417 “The LORD Is Among Us!”

Thunder and lightening shake the house and the bedroom of a four-year-old girl who yells for Mommy and Daddy. They rush into her room, grab her hand, and say, “Don’t worry, Mommy and Daddy are here.” The terminally ill patient lies in his hospital bed in the hospice wing. The pastor comes in for a visit, takes hold of his hand, and says, “Hi, John. Your pastor is here.” Regardless of our vocation in life, our educational level, or wherever we might be on a day-to-day basis, the LORD is with us. Even in our sins we have the Law that convicts us of sin and the healing power of the Gospel of forgiveness. We learn this when we read and study the prophet Zephaniah. We especially learn that the LORD is among us, and His grace and love extend to all of His people. Suggested outline:

I. The LORD responds to the moral corruption of Judah with His judgment. A. Zephaniah’s time: moral corruption, lying, and idolatry. (Discuss the corruption that Zephaniah points out regarding God’s judgment on the people of Judah). B. Our time: moral corruption, lying and idolatry. (Relate Zephaniah’s time to the current state of moral corruption in our world, from the political top to the person in the pew. Times have not changed: sin is sin. All are dead in their trespasses and sins [Eph. 2]). II. The LORD responds to moral corruption with His redemptive grace. A. Zephaniah’s time: the LORD is in their midst. (Review the context of Yahweh’s presence among the people of Judah and the comfort and hope that He brings to them in the promise of salvation—His grace. Hence, there is no need to fear, for He is with them as the One who saves His people from sin, death, and the power of the devil. His love extends to all who are troubled and in misery). B. Our time: the LORD is in our midst today. (Review the context of Zephaniah’s prophesy and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ for all penitent, contrite sinners. As the people of Zephaniah’s time were comforted with the promise of being restored by God’s grace, so today, we are comforted with the sure and certain Word of Jesus Christ: your sins are forgiven. As He was among His people in “word and deed” so today He is among us in the “Word and gift” of His means of grace, especially the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. He is among us regardless of our vocation, health, age, or wherever we might be on a day-to-day basis. His grace and love extend to all who are living in despair and hopelessness. God is not at a distance. There can be no greater comfort for any believer in Christ than to know by faith alone that “The LORD Is Among Us”).

Conclusion: We live in a world beset by immorality and gross idolatry. Christians are being tempted ever more scrupulously by Satan to turn from the grace of God to the hellish life in Satan. In terms of sin, the world in which we live is no different than that in which Zephaniah prophesied. Sin is sin and grace is grace. We have the sure and certain Word of His Gospel, the same Gospel that Zephaniah proclaimed thousands of years ago: “The LORD Is Among Us.” Robert W. Weise

418 The Nativity of our Lord Fourth Sunday in Advent Micah 5:2-4 December 24, 2006

I. Background notes (the text in context): A. Micah 1:1 sets the ministry of Micah in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah. In modern chronology Micah prophesied in the latter half of the eighth and early years of the seventh century B.C. Micah’s ministry came slightly after the ministry of Amos and was roughly contemporaneous with Hosea and Isaiah, all of whom are categorized as “eighth-century prophets.” During this period the Neo-Assyrian Empire was rising to power. Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 B.C.) expanded his empire into Israel in 734, marched through Philistia near Micah’s hometown of Moresheth, devastated Damascus in 732, and occupied Galilee and the Transjordan. The occupation of the Holy Land signaled that the Lord was bringing upon Israel the punishment with which He had threatened them because of their apostasy. B. Other important events from 725-722 during Micah’s ministry include the siege and the fall of Samaria, the capital of Israel, which took place at the hands of Shalmaneser V (726-722) and Sargon II (722-705; [cf. 2 Kings 17]). Israel became an Assyrian province named Samaria. The people were deported and other tribes of people were imported to take their place (2 Kings 17:24). In 701 Assyria invaded Judah under Sennacherib (704- 681). Hezekiah, having joined a coalition with Merodach-baladan of Babylon and trusting Egypt for help, withheld tribute from the Assyrians (2 Kings 20; Is. 39). Assyria attacked cities lying in the coastal plain and in the Shephelah, including the ones mentioned in Micah 1:10-15. He surrounded Jerusalem, and the situation looked hopeless. But the city was miraculously delivered by the Angel of the Lord (2 Kings 19:35-36; 2 Chron. 32:22-23; Is. 37:36-37). C. Structure of the prophecy: The book seems to be arranged in three basic sections consisting of oracles of both doom and hope (chaps. 1-2, 3-5, 6-7). In 1:2-2:11, Israel is threatened with exile because of her sin. The Lord, however, will become their king and lead them in deliverance (2:12-13). In the second section of the book, after denouncing the rulers and prophets for their sin, the Lord promises to restore Jerusalem (4:1-5) and assemble a remnant. He also announces the birth and reign of the Messiah who would deliver His people and bring peace to the earth (5:2-5). In the third section, chapters 6-7, the Lord’s indictment and the destruction of the wicked are again heard (6:1-16). Yet, the Lord does not abandon His people but holds out the hope of forgiveness and salvation (7:8-20). D. The text occurs in the middle section of the book, which consists of a series of eschatological oracles of salvation. “In that day” or “in the latter days” (4:1; 4:6; 5:10) introduce predictions in which the current state of Jerusa- lem and Judah will be reversed. The enemies will be driven out and people will marvel at Zion’s glory. Under the leadership of a new ruler, a second David, Israel’s ancient glory will be restored. II. Notes on the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2-4 (MT=5:1-3): Micah 5:2-4 is lexically and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 419 syntactically complex. It has a number of features that make it a difficult text to translate. But this is the case for many of the well-known “messianic texts” which are read in the church throughout the Advent-Christmas season. It may be that some of this is deliberately designed to convey a sense of “mystery.” That is, the form of the text follows the content. The grammar of the text is puzzling (mysterious), and it invites the reader to linger over and think deeply about it. At the same time, the message of the text, the promise of the Mes- siah, another David, is itself a mystery hidden for long ages but finally revealed in the birth of Jesus, the Christ-child. Here there is opportunity only to point out a few details: A. Verse 2: htIrIp.a, (“Ephratha”). Ruth 4:11 pairs Ephratha with Bethlehem. It seems clear that Ephratha includes or is in the vicinity of Bethlehem. According to Genesis 48:7, Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin a short distance from Ephratha. Its use here may give an “archaic flavor” to the passage. And certainly it would call to mind the associations connected with its other occurrences, like the patriarchs and the promise God made to David, who was from Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17:12-14). ry[icI (“least”). Does this word refer to Bethlehem as most of the translations assume, or is it the subject of the verb, and does it then refer to the ruler? Arguments can be given in support of (or against) either understanding. But in either case, a theme of the text seems to be the theme of the unexpected exultation of an unlikely person to be the king. Indeed, this theme—the supplanting of the older by the younger, or the stronger by the weaker—occurs throughout the Biblical narratives (Isaac-Ishmael, Jacob- Esau, Judah-other brothers, David-Saul, and so on). It is a hint at both the way God works in mysterious and unexpected ways and at the mysterious nature of His grace. .lIA[ ymeymi .d<<

420 Bethlehem. The birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, and not in Jerusalem, the city of David, presupposes that the family of David will have lost the throne. This could only arise from the giving of Israel to her enemies. Micah had already talked of this. Here he gives prominence to the idea that the future redeemer would also resemble the past one (David) in that He would not spring from Zion, but from little Bethlehem. III. Outline:

Introduction: Describe a specific movie or book that has a surprise ending—one you never expected. When it happens, you are either delighted or horrified!

I. An expected birth (Micah prepares the way for another David). A. But many would say that Micah’s words seem to offer only a limited hope for an ancient people troubled by foreign enemies—a hope that has long since run its course. It is a long-ago belief sitting on history’s bookshelves, which gives insight into what people used to believe. 1. It seems to promise another king, like David and a kingdom like his. 2. He would conquer Assyria and give peace to his people (5:4-6). B. But here is the surprise: 1. This word ended with the birth of God Himself into the world, when He took on human flesh. 2. Tonight we celebrate His birth. God came to save us. That is a surprise! This is not just a glimpse into what an ancient people used to believe but a promise of a much bigger salvation than any we can imagine! II. But are there any more surprises left? A. We may wish there would be. Life seems all too predictable. This birth might seem like “old news.” Nothing has happened to change things since then. B. But the surprise will come when this king appears again. Now His rule is hidden, and we wait for Him to reveal Himself. C. Will you be delighted or horrified? How does your end figure in this? (Here the comfort provided by our Baptism and the Gospel is all important because we do know how it will end for us.) Timothy Saleska

First Sunday after Christmas Jeremiah 31:10-13 December 31, 2006

The prophet Jeremiah speaks wonderful words of comfort, joy, and hope to a group of people who were in a heap of trouble. He talks about dancing and rejoicing, gladness and singing. Crops and herds will be plentiful—food and drink galore. Their life will be like a watered garden. Sounds like paradise. The people will be gathered together instead of scattered all over the place. No more sorrow or grief. The Lord will redeem them from a hand too strong for them. But when Jeremiah spoke those wonderful words, the hand that was too strong

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 421 for these ancient people was squeezing the life right out of them. The northern half of the nation, Israel, had already been conquered, and the people were scattered all over the place, if they weren’t already dead. The southern half, Judah, was rapidly headed to the same fate. Babylon was on the move, and this was an enemy too strong for Judah to fight. Their only hope was that the people would repent, turn from their sin and rebellion against God, and then He would keep them intact, safe from this stronger enemy power. But the sin and rebellion that had led the people away from God was also strong, too strong for the people. They had lived in it for so long they could not break free. Their fate was sealed. Babylon would come. Jerusalem would be destroyed, the leaders killed, people exiled. These people were in a heap of trouble. Yet Jeremiah still speaks words of comfort, joy, and hope. Isn’t it great that we’re not in the same predicament as these people were? Or perhaps we are. Could it be that there are stronger hands in our lives that put us in a heap of trouble? Yes, there are. We’re in trouble too. Stronger hands are trying to squeeze the life out of us. Oh, I know, the United States isn’t in danger of some more powerful nation conquering us. Yet we still are afraid. Terrorist attacks make us nervous. We hear about dirty bombs, small nuclear weapons filled with deadly radioactive fallout detonated in the middle of a city, or bioterrorism as a deadly virus could be put into our water sources, or airplanes shot down, suicide bombers, and drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are telling us we need to be afraid, very afraid. You can add high gas prices, lost health and retirement benefits for so many people, huge debts, a breakdown of values and morality in our nation, and it appears that a hand stronger than we are is at work in this land. Some days you look around and say, “We’re in a heap of trouble here.” But what was the deep, underlying problem for ancient Israel and Judah? Sin and rebellion. The same is true for us. The stronger hand that creates so much trouble for us is not just out there, but also in here [point to heart], our own sinfulness. It’s been nearly three thousand years since Jeremiah spoke those words, but not much has changed. We’re still struggling with the same problems that sin and rebellion bring. We still know sadness, grief, tears, hurt, and death that the ancient Israelites knew all too well. Here are some examples of these stronger hands I can see in my life.1 Last June my wife and I celebrated twenty-eight years of marriage. I looked at a wedding photo. My face was young and smooth, my hair blonde. Now the mirror shows my wrinkles and age, my hair gray. That’s not just a natural aging process; that’s my sinfulness playing havoc with this body God created for immortality. And I can’t do anything to stop it. Neither can you. In the past five years, I have watched a brother and sister die from cancer. I’ve walked away from their graves in sadness. That’s not natural; that’s sin bringing death’s strong hand right into my life. And into yours too. Last May, my youngest daughter became critically ill. An infection spread to her kidneys and she was going into septic shock. The night she was placed into the Intensive Care Unit, with her vital signs starting to fail, was the most frightening time of my life. We could have lost her that night. I looked at her seventeen-year-old

1 I use personal stories in my sermons. I have not altered them for general use but have placed them into the sermon as I would preach them to show how I use such stories. You will need to find similar stories from your life or generalize the story or simply give appropriate credit that the story comes from another person’s sermon/life.

422 body, with six or seven tubes attached to a central line, an oxygen line, monitors beeping, and I saw what happens when creation goes haywire, when the disease and pain that sin has brought into the world run amok in someone you love. And I was helpless to do anything about it. This enemy was the strong hand that was squeezing the life out of her. You’ve seen the same in loved ones too. It’s been three thousand years, but the sadness, pain, grief, and death that sin’s strong hands bring are still here. We’re still in a heap of trouble. We still need Jeremiah’s words of comfort, joy, and hope. But do these words come true? For ancient Judah, after seventy years of exile, they did return to Jerusalem. They did get their country back. But that national rejoicing was just a peek at the greater comfort, joy, and hope that God would give. Later in chapter 31, Jeremiah says that God will establish a new covenant with His people, a covenant where He will take care of those strong hands of sin and rebellion. God promises to forgive our iniquity and remember our sin no more. About seven hundred years later, God kept that promise. Comfort, joy, and hope were born in a little town called Bethlehem. Last week we celebrated Christ- mas. Go back once again to that manger scene. The baby Jesus held in His mother’s arms. Can you picture Him reaching out His tiny hand, perhaps wrapping His little fingers around the tip of Mary’s index finger? It hardly seemed possible at the time, but His infant hand would become the stronger hand that would bring us comfort, joy, and hope. Picture Jesus twelve years later. He’s in Jerusalem with His parents. They start to head home, but He stays. Where do Mary and Joseph find Him? In the temple. His hands were already busy doing His Father’s work. Not Joseph’s car- pentry, but God’s work of bringing us comfort, hope, and joy. Now jump ahead eighteen years, and Jesus is probably thirty years old. His hands are that of a full-grown man. His ministry begins. His hands cast out demons. He is stronger than Satan and that demonic realm. The disciples are out on the Sea of Galilee. A vicious storm comes up. They cry for help. Jesus tells the wind and waves to “Be still!” Immediately, all is calm. Jesus is stronger than creation gone haywire. A leper is alone, his body sick with disease, death in the near future; yet Jesus reaches out with His compassionate hand and touches him. The leper is healed just like that. Jesus’ hands are stronger than any illness sin could bring to our lives. But the greatest enemy still needed to be defeated. The greatest enemy is death. When death’s hand squeezes, we are helpless. And so it appeared with Jesus. His hands are nailed to the cross. His hands die; go limp when Jesus takes His last breath. His hands are lifeless in the tomb. Is death’s hand stronger? No! The cross is where God’s promise in Jeremiah comes true. Jesus takes care of the sin and rebellion that are too strong for us to handle. With His hands outstretched in love for us, He brings forgiveness. The new covenant is given to us. God forgives our iniquity. He remembers our sin no more. We need Jesus’ stronger hands on the cross, for there He redeems us from the strong hand of sin. And more. Jesus’ hands are stronger than even death. On Easter morning, Jesus’ hands come to life again. He shows them to Thomas and the other disciples. The nail marks are still there, but the death they brought is replaced by life and immortality. His resurrection, the empty tomb, is God keeping Jeremiah’s promise of comfort, joy, and hope for His people. Yes, Jeremiah’s words come true. People who have been scattered are brought together. Not in a nation with boundaries like the United States, but into a king-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 423 dom that reaches around the globe. The risen Jesus brings us together into His church, the community of believers. We may be separated by time and space, by great distances and centuries, but we are still united around Jesus. We are never truly alone. We are His people and look forward to that day when we will all be together around Jesus in heaven in joyous hymns of praise. Talk about dancing and rejoicing! But, of course, the grief and sorrow are still with us. As long as we live in this world, my face will get older, family members will still die, and sickness will invade those I love, invade my body. Same for you. How does Jesus’ stronger hand turn those times of sadness into comfort, joy, and hope? To answer that, I want to go back to my daughter’s stay in the hospital. Now, she’s much better today. The doctors did wonders. The medicines worked. I thank our Lord that He has given us such advances in the medical field for times like these. But that night when my daughter was so dangerously sick, my prayer was not just for her health, but for Jesus’ eternal care for her. I whispered in her ear that Jesus loved her. Yes, I wanted more than anything for her to live, but finally my hope was in Jesus. You see, Jesus came to Beth in Baptism. When she was a baby, I had dipped my hand into the water and spoke the precious words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Right then and there Jeremiah’s words came true as Jesus scooped her up in His hands and gave her His victory over sin, death, and all those strong hands we can do nothing about. Even when we are frightened, sad, grieving, Jesus is still the stronger hand. Jeremiah gave the people back then a glimpse of that joyous hope. We’ve seen that comfort and joy with tiny fingers as a baby in Bethlehem, to a young boy’s hands about His Father’s business in the temple, to His outstretched hands of forgiveness nailed to a cross, to His living and resurrected hands welcoming us into eternal life. And now, today, we once again sing and rejoice that Jesus is our comfort, joy, and hope, even when we are in a heap of trouble. The Lord is the one who redeems us from hands too strong for us. No doubt about it, we need a stronger hand, and His name is Jesus! Amen. Glenn Nielsen

The Baptism of Our Lord First Sunday after the Epiphany Isaiah 42:1-7 January 7, 2007

“With you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). The Synoptic Gospels quote Isaiah 42:1, the beginning of Isaiah’s first Servant Song (for other songs, see Is. 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12), at the Baptism of Christ (Matthew: “with him I am well pleased”). At the River Jordan, the Father’s voice indicates that the mission of His beloved Son as Isaiah’s suffering and exalted Servant has begun to be fulfilled. The Lord puts His Spirit on His Servant to bring justice to the nations (Is. 42:1; cf. vv. 3-4) to be a covenant for His people and a light to the Gentiles (v. 6; cf. 49:6: “to the ends of the earth”). By His suffering and exaltation (esp. Is. 52:13- 53:12), the anointed Servant of the Lord will open the eyes of the blind, free cap- tives from prison, and release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness (42:7; cf.

424 Is. 61:1-6 and Luke 4:14-21 for the Third Sunday after the Epiphany). The language of freedom (from captivity) and covenant alludes to God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt and establishment of a relationship with His people, making the Servant appear as a Moses-like figure through whom God will bring about a new exodus and establish a new covenant that will extend from the people of Israel to the Gentiles (cf. 49:5-6, 8-9a). In Psalm 45:6-7 (see the Introit), God (= the Father) sets God (= the Son) above His companions by anointing Him with the oil of gladness (cf. Heb. 1:8-9). The psalm has had its share of history. Justin Martyr (ca. 100-ca. 165) understood God’s anointing of His Son as an eternal reality closely linked to His being begotten from the Father and creative ordering of the world. From this angle, the anointing of Jesus in the Jordan narrative functions mainly as a way of letting people know that Jesus is worthy of worship. This move fits a prominent theme of Epiphany: the revelation of Jesus as God. It also excludes early Ebionite-Jewish (adoptionist) and Arian (subordinationist) ideas that make Jesus a mere man or a graced son, who achieved honor as Christ either by election or exaltation on account of leading a life of good works conformed to the Law. However, the interpretation of the anointing as an eternal reality does not square well with the usage of anointing in Luke and Acts. The accompanying Sun- day text from Acts 10 shows that Jesus’ anointing is an event in salvation history linked most closely to His Baptism (v. 37; cf. Luke 4:18; 3:21-22). The Father anointed Jesus “with the Holy Spirit and power” (parallel terms in Luke, e.g., 1:35; cf. 24:49 and Acts 1:8) and “He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil” (Acts 10:38). As in his Gospel (4:18), Luke’s description of the liberating work of the anointed one in Acts 10 echoes and indeed describes the work of Isaiah’s Servant (42:7; cf. 61:1)—the work for which He was anointed at Jordan (Luke 3:22). Taking as a starting point God’s saving acts, we may qualify the Epiphany theme: the revelation of Jesus as God’s salvation to His people and the nations. We come to know Jesus as God on the basis of His works as the Servant who, by His suffering and exaltation, releases us from bondage to the power of sin, death, and the devil, and brings us into a right (covenant) relationship with God. While the text from Isaiah portrays the redeeming work of the Spirit-anointed Servant, the broader liturgical-Baptismal setting of this text also allows for its ecclesial orientation and extension. Assigned texts for this Sunday may be brought together under the theme of “anointing for mission”—especially, in connection with the readings from Luke and Acts (Series C). After showing that the Father anoints His Son with the Spirit so that He might bring to fulfillment the works of the Servant (Christology), the preacher might then show how the anointing of the Servant at the Jordan anticipates the exalted Christ’s anointing of the church with His Spirit to proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name to the nations (ecclesiology; see Luke 24:46-49 and Acts 1:4-5, 8; cf. Is. 42:6; 49:6; and Acts 13:47). A basic sermon outline might look as follows:

Anointed for Mission: The Spirit in the Servant and in His Church

I. Christological foundation: The Spirit-anointing of Christ, the Servant. A. Jesus is anointed with the Spirit for a mission as suffering and exalted Servant:Through the Servant, God delivers all from the bondage of sin, death, and Satan.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 425 B. How does God do this work? Through the Servant… 1. God establishes a new covenant with His people. 2. God brings the light of salvation to the Gentiles. II. Ecclesial orientation and extension: The Spirit-anointing of Christ’s church. A. Jesus baptizes the church with His Spirit for a mission to His people and the nations: God extends His salvation in Christ to His people and the nations in her midst. B. How does God do this work? Through the church’s preaching… 1. God brings His people and the nations to repent of their sins. 2. God delivers His people and the nations through the forgiveness of sins. Leopoldo A. Sánchez

Second Sunday after the Epiphany Isaiah 62:1-5 January 14, 2007

This text presents a wonderful opportunity to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus in a way that faces up to the homeliness of fallen humanity, reconstructs our shallow contemporary notions of beauty and embraces the promise of the coming age. For the shriveled and the decrepit, for the lonely divorcee, for the sixth-grade girl who spends hours frozen before the mirror, sad and imprisoned in her plainness, this divine promise is joyous and freeing. All who, in Christ, are citizens of “Jerusalem” and “Zion,” will one day shine with such perfect beauty that God Himself will sharply draw in His breath and will gaze on them in joy and delight. This pericope is piled with metaphors: shining light (v. 1), a new name (v. 2), a beautiful royal crown in God’s hand (v. 3). The latter verses then move into the language of courtship and love—passionate, committed, joyous (v. 5). It is especially this last set of images which can serve to clarify the Gospel of justification through faith in Christ; the end of justification (or the forgiveness of sins) is not merely that we are “cleared”—not merely that we were “bad” and now we are “not bad.” Instead, there is a rich and captivating positive side to the Gospel: Jesus Christ makes us gorgeous, absolutely spell-binding, in the eyes of our Husband, God. Again, this serves to clarify and enrich the Gospel of justification: it is not merely that the judge “doesn’t condemn us” or merely that God is “not angry any more.” The God who has clothed His people in righteousness and garments of salvation (61:10; 62:1-2) is enraptured by her beauty. Verse 1: Read in light of the closing verses of chapter 61, the first person voice here is often taken to be the prophet, speaking of the necessity of his prophetic office and his determination to proclaim God’s Word until the day of its fulfillment. Consider, however, the use of the verb hvx (be silent) elsewhere in Isaiah—42:14 and 57:11—both times in the first person with God as the subject. As the voice of God, these opening verses heighten the note of God’s all-embracing commitment to His people Zion in this pericope (cf. vv. 3-5). The verbs “not be silent” and “not keep quiet” promise that God will not sit idly by when His people are defaced and disgraced. Literally, Hg;NOK; does not mean “like the dawn” (NIV). ESV and NASB are more reliable here: “as brightness.” It is the second, parallel comparison which the text offers as the more concrete and emphatic image: “like a blazing torch.” Verse 2: The beauty with which God’s salvation will manifest itself in His

426 people will be public, shining forth and visible to all; though in this verse it is not yet called beauty, but “righteousness” and “glory.” This builds on the theme of shining glory trumpeted in the Old Testament pericope for Epiphany, Isaiah 60:1ff. (cf. Is. 9:1ff.). Note the interplay of righteousness (hqIdIc. or qd,c,), salvation ([:Wvy> etc.) and especially glory (dwObKI) in chapters 60-62 (60:1-3, 9, 17-21; 61:3b, 10-11). The saving work of God for His people will result in glory for Him and for them. Their glory/light/righteousness/beauty cannot be separated from God’s (cf. Matt. 5:16). Among the restored, it is already visible (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:3-4). Its full bestowal and revelation, however, awaits the Last Day, when we will be clothed with a glory that we can now only imagine. The “new name” spoken of here is more than a refur- bished corporate logo, especially when this new designation comes from the mouth of Yahweh. It signifies a new status and a new reality; think Abraham, Israel, Peter, Paul. In the context of Isaiah 62, the new name is specified in verse 4. On the eschatological dimensions of a new name, see Revelation 2:17 and 3:12. Verse 3: That our beauty and glory are bound up in God’s glory is vividly captured in this image: “You will be a crown of beauty in the hand of Yahweh.” The phrase itself is beautiful: tr,a,p.Ti tr,t,[]—’eteret tif’eret—a crown of beauty. In chapter 3, Isaiah spoke judgment to the prosperous, beautifully bedecked women of Zion because of their pride and faithlessness. “In that day Yahweh will remove the beauty (tr,a,p.Ti) of anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, dangling earrings, brace- lets, veils, headdresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors, under- garments, turbans, and veils...instead of fine clothes, a girding of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty.” Now, in chapter 62, the Lord addresses a humbled, despoiled Jerusalem and speaks of righteousness, salvation, glory, and beauty. The beautiful (apart from Him) He uglifies. The ugly He beautifies, and holds as His own. Verse 5: The second verse spoke of the objective nature of the beauty of God’s saved people. It is real and visible, and nations and kings will see it. This verse speaks of the subjective nature of our beauty in Christ in its most important dimension. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the crucial Beholder is our God. In Christ, we are beautiful to Him. He will marry us forever. He will rejoice over us forever (cf. Zeph. 3:17). That there is rejoicing among the angels over one sinner who repents is breathtaking. That having us will bring God Himself great joy (bride- over-bridegroom joy!)—this is the stuff of heaven’s eternal song. Thomas Egger

Third Sunday after the Epiphany Isaiah 61:1-6 January 21, 2007

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me…to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19, quoting Is. 61:1-2). These texts make an allusion to the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-55), an extraordinary occasion celebrated among the Israelites every fifty years in which slaves in the land were freed, debts were cancelled, and ancestral family lands were returned to their heirs. With the Year of Jubilee as its backdrop, it is not surprising that Isaiah uses the language of deliverance from captivity for prisoners, preaching good news to the poor, and restoration of exiles to their land in a new exodus to describe the Lord’s time of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 427 favor and salvation inaugurated through the work of His Spirit-anointed Servant (Is. 61:1-2, 4; cf. 49:8-9; cf. Luke 4:18-19). In Jesus the Messiah, the anointed Servant of the Lord, we have the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the arrival of the year or time of God’s favor (Luke 4:21: “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”; for related images of God’s salvation through His Servant, see my comments on the texts assigned for the First Sunday after the Epiphany). While God’s ultimate deliverance from sin, death, and Satan comes to fulfillment through the mission of His anointed Servant alone, the language used in the assigned texts for this Sunday (Series C) also reminds us of God’s concern for all who suffer in a literal sense from the effects of living in a sinful world. In Psalm 113:7 (see the Introit), the church proclaims that the Lord “raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap.” Among the assigned readings, Psalm 146 points out that the same God who saved His people from Egypt and created heaven and earth also “upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry…watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow” (vv. 7, 9). Although God’s greater messianic deliverance of His people is described as a Jubilee Year in which prisoners are set free and the blind recover their sight (see Is. 61:1; 49:9; 42:7; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; Ps. 146:7-8), we must not over-spiritualize these texts as if God’s concern and compassion for those who suffer from various forms of oppression and sickness in this world do not reach them through the ministry of His Servant. Even as Isaiah points God’s people to the promise of a new exodus, a messianic time of favor and salvation to come through the work of His Servant, we note that the prophet is writing to a people who are living literally as prisoners in exile under Babylon. God shows His concern for their suffering as slaves by delivering them from Babylon as He delivered their ancestors from an oppressive Egypt. Even as Jesus forgives sins, He also drives out demons, heals many of their diseases, and brings the dead back to life. In Jesus’ words and deeds we see God’s care and compassion extend to the whole person—soul and body—in his or her actual conditions of suffering and marginality. Given the intertwined and yet distinct soteriological and ethical dimensions of all the assigned texts in their broader historical and liturgical settings, the preacher has a unique opportunity to proclaim God’s saving works for them in Christ (soteriological dimension) while exhorting them to do works of mercy and compassion for their poor and suffering neighbors, who are Christ in their midst (ethical dimension). The epistle text for Sunday (1 Cor. 12:12-21, 26-27) has the same twofold orientation. First, the text points to the unity members of Christ’s body possess by virtue of their reception of the gift of the Spirit in Baptism: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (v. 13). Second, the text points to the concern members of the body are to show for one another as they work together for the sake of the unity of the body: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’…‘If one part suffers, every part suffers with it…’” (vv. 21, 26). While God shows His salvation and care for His suffering people in a special way in the history of salvation, God also wishes to extend to the nations His year of favor for the lost and His concern for the poor and suffering through the mission of His Servant and His church. Our Epiphany theme is clear: the revelation of Jesus as God’s salvation to the lost and compassion for the poor. Accordingly, in his sermon outline, the preacher will first proclaim to his congregation the arrival of the year of the Lord’s favor in Christ for salvation and then exhort church members

428 to make this news known in their spheres of influence according to their own voca- tions. Then the preacher will proclaim to his congregation the compassion of Christ for the poor and suffering in her midst and then speak about what it means for church members in the community to show concern for the poor and suffering (e.g., the sick, prisoners, widows, aliens, exiles, etc.). Leopoldo A. Sánchez

The Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany Jeremiah 1:4-10 January 28, 2007

Introduction: “Blessed Lord, who hast caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning, grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them.…” This familiar Collect for the Word is an apt theme for Jeremiah 1:4-10, as this pericope is all about Yahweh’s Word. This is evidenced by verse 4 (“The word of Yahweh came to me saying”), Jeremiah’s call to be a prophet (v. 5), Yahweh’s command for him to “say everything I command you” (v. 7), the “utterance of Yahweh” formula in verse 8, and the climactic verse 9, where Yahweh’s hand places His words in Jeremiah’s mouth. All of this is designed for Jeremiah to “inwardly digest” this holy Word. Liturgical context: Yahweh’s epiphanic Word to Jeremiah is echoed in the Psalm of the Day, specifically in Psalm 1:2, where the verb hgh (“to chew the cud”) is employed. As the blessed person “inwardly digests” Torah, he becomes “like a tree transplanted by canals of water” (v. 3). Jeremiah 17:8 employs this same promise, almost word for word. Those who “inwardly digest” Torah live abundant and fruit- ful lives. Biblical context: After the first scroll (Jer. 1-25) dismantles the foundations of Judah’s social and theological “first principles,” the second scroll (Jer. 26-52) begins to develop strategies that enable refugees to survive and even thrive in their new setting in Babylon. This understanding of the book is based upon Yahweh’s all-powerful Word that plucks up and breaks down, destroys and overthrows, as well as builds and plants (Jer. 1:10). These six infinitive constructs in Jeremiah 1:10 are reiterated in 12:14-17; 15:7; 18:7-9; 24:6; 31:4-5, 28, 38, 40; 32:41; 42:10; 45:3; 49:38. This Law and Gospel Word, therefore, provides the book’s chief theological theme, as it brings about harsh endings, but also amazing beginnings (cf. Jer. 29:11). Comments on the text: Verse 4: Call narratives (e.g., Ex. 3:1-12; Judg. 6:11-24; Is. 6:1-8) typically follow this sixfold structure: (1) encounter (Jer. 1:4), (2) introductory word (Jer. 1:5a), (3) commission (Jer. 1:5b, 10), (4) objection (Jer. 1:6), (5) reassurance (Jer. 1:7-8), and (6) a sign (Jer. 1:9-10, 11-16). The r VIbDI (“word”) not only gives information, but also imparts transformation; it is the power not only to persuade or to reason, but also to change the world (cf. Jer. 23:29). Verse 5: Three verbs are significant in this verse. The first is rcy which has creational overtones, calling forth the image of a potter forming a vessel from clay (Gen. 2:7; Jer. 18:6). The second is [dy which has a wide range of meanings, but here denotes a relationship between Yahweh and Jeremiah that means “to choose for a covenant partner” (cf. Amos 3:2). Finally, the hiphil of vdq means “to consecrate/ dedicate,” and, once set apart, it was an act of blasphemy to remove them from

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 429 Yahweh’s sovereign ownership. The word aybn (“prophet”) is derived from the Akkadian nabu, which means to “name” or “call.” A prophet would therefore be one who “calls” or “proclaims” a divine blessing. Since the verbal root (abn) is niphal based, a prophet is one who has been “called” to discharge a divinely assigned task. As a “set as a prophet to the nations” Jeremiah’s oracles target Judah and Israel (chaps. 1-45), as well as other ancient Near Eastern nations (chaps. 46-51). Yahweh did not choose Jeremiah for Jeremiah’s sake; He appoints him for the sake of the world. Verse 6: Jeremiah’s hesitation is reminiscent of both Moses and Solomon (cf. Ex. 2:7; 4:10; 1 Kings 3:7). Josiah was a r[n at age sixteen but apparently not at twenty (2 Chron. 34:3); hence, Jack Lundbom (Jeremiah 1-20, Anchor Bible) believes that Jeremiah is between the ages of twelve to sixteen. Much of this dialogue in verses 6-9 echoes Yahweh’s earlier encounter with Moses. Accordingly, like the first Moses who led Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land, so Jeremiah, the second Moses, will straddle two worlds, a country behind him and a country ahead of him. This new Moses will pronounce the death of one world and the birth of another (1:10). Verse 7: The root lcn in the hiphil means “to rescue, protect, deliver.” The verb appears repeatedly in the Exodus narrative (e.g., Ex. 3:8; 5:23; 6:6) and is another link to Moses. Verse 8: Yahweh promises to be near many who find themselves debilitated by fears and uncertainties (e.g., Gen. 31:3; Ex. 3:12; 19:9; Josh. 1:5, 9; Judg. 6:12, 16; Is. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23; 18:20; 28:20). Verse 9: Here Deuteronomy 18:18b is quoted almost word for word; in this way Jeremiah is one fulfillment of a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15). Jeremiah later speaks of eating Yahweh’s Word in 15:16 and calls it his “joy and delight” (hx;äm.fiw. !AfßfI). These two words appear four more times in the book, and each time they are paired with “bride and bridegroom.” By means of this poetic word association, Jeremiah evokes the connection between the exuberance experienced by a “bride and bridegroom” with eating Yahweh’s Word, for this Word will enable him to shape the future of the nations not with a sword that a king or warrior might wield, but with the word that is “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12; cf. Eph. 6:17). The phrase h wI )hy>-~aun>)hy>-~aun>)hy>-~aun> (“utternace of Yahweh”) appears 168 times in Jeremiah and as such accents the importance of this Word. All of this is to say that when Yahweh calls, He empowers; when He demands, He provides the resources to accomplish the assignment (cf. 1 Thess. 5:24). Verse 10: The verb dqp has an unusually broad semantic field which is difficult to pull together into one central definition. Helpful is its use in Ezra 1:10, where Yahweh commissions Cyrus to build a temple in Jerusalem. In like manner here, dqp means that Jeremiah is appointed to a position of authority. Homiletical development of the sermon: “You’ve got to taste this.” So said our mothers as they thrust lima beans into our face. “You’ve got to taste this.” So say our spouses as they thrust their latest concoction of tuna casserole into our face. But all this pales in comparison to the taste test Yahweh gives to Jeremiah as He places his Word into his mouth. Inwardly digesting Yahweh’s Word is what this text is all about. In 15:16 Jeremiah says, “When your words came, I ate them; they were the joy and delight of my heart” (here reference the textual notes on the structure on the call narrative, Jeremiah’s weak status, and the importance of the Word in 1:4-10). Having this Word placed in his mouth, Jeremiah is ready for what life would

430 serve up. In chapter 26 he is accused by his enemies, and Yahweh’s Word vindicates him when officials come to his defense by claiming that Jeremiah is echoing an earlier oracle from Micah 3:12. In chapter 29 Jeremiah hears about hopeless exiles, so he communicates to them Yahweh’s Word by means of a letter. In chapters 51 and 52 Jeremiah is overwhelmed with the raw evil of Babylon, so Yahweh gives him a Word on a scroll that says in part, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great!” And in chapter 36, when he is confronted with the destruction of this Word by King Jehoiakim, Jeremiah writes another Word! In Jeremiah’s lifetime Judah would lose everything: temple and sacrifice, monarchy, cities, and the land. But Judah would still have the Word, and this Word would undermine tyranny and mobilize the faithful. No wonder Jeremiah calls this Word his joy and delight, the love of his life (15:16). To define our lives, Yahweh places His Word in our mouths as well. It’s a word that is “the power of God for the salvation of all who believe” (Rom. 1:16)—a Word that is “a lamp to our feet and a light to our path” (Ps. 119:105). But isn’t there something tastier, more appetizing, with a bit more pizzazz? Here it is. For breakfast: one-half grapefruit, one piece of whole wheat toast, no butter, eight ounces of skim milk, coffee–black. For lunch: four ounces of lean broiled chicken breast, skin removed, one cup of steamed zucchini, herb tea, no sugar, one Oreo cookie. For a snack, the rest of the package of Oreo cookies, one quart chocolate almond ice cream, and one jar of hot fudge. For dinner, two loaves of garlic bread, heavy on the butter, one large sausage and pepperoni pizza, extra cheese, a large milk shake with whipped cream, and for dessert, three Milky Way candy bars and an entire frozen cheesecake! Oh, we try, don’t we? We try to stay on a spiritual diet of God’s Word that brings vigor and health and strength and power. But then we slip: one Oreo cookie, one crumb of coveting, one piece of pornography, one slice of slander, one sip of sarcasm, and then the rest of the package of Oreo cookies! The enemy thrusts this junk food before us on silver trays and with a sly grin watches it all disappear. Filled with his miserable morsels, our desire to inwardly digest this Word becomes a chore, a bore, a snore until we say, “no more!” So Yahweh would serve up one more Word; a more vindicating Word than that written by Micah in Jeremiah’s defense, a more hopeful Word than that penned to exiles, a more victorious Word than that spoken against Babylon, and a more enduring word than that rewritten for Jehoiakim. For coming down past the galax- ies, past our solar system, past the moon and the stars, this Word became flesh and appeared in the silence of a night, in the whisper of a baby. And as a man his appetite is defined in Hebrews 2:9, “So that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” Talk about a taste test! Jesus tasted the demonic delight called death, the soldiers’ spit, their cheap wine, sweat running down His cheeks, He tasted even His own blood. But there was more. He drank the cup of the Father’s wrath to the very last drop (Jer. 25:15, 17, 25). But Jesus not only tasted Death. He swallowed him up, chewed him up, and spit him out. “Death has been swallowed up in victory!” (1 Cor. 15:54). And now the spirit of the risen Christ creates in us a new hunger and a new thirst for righteousness. Spirit-led, “like newborn babes we crave pure spiritual milk now that [we] have tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Pet. 2:2-3). On a steady diet of Yahweh’s Word and accused by the enemy, we say, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). This food enlivens hope in the midst of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 431 our hopelessness: “In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope” (1 Pet. 1:3). When enemies mock and deny this word we have a more powerful word, spoken by Jesus: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:34). And sustained by this Word when faced with the raw evil of Babylon we cry out, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great!” (Rev. 18:2). Now the LORD reaches out His hand to touch your mouth and says to you, “Now, I am putting my words in your mouth.” What an epiphany, what a Word, what a life! Reed Lessing

432 “On the reading of many books...”

WORSHIP, GOTTESDIENST, CULTUS DEI: What the Lutheran Confessions Say about Worship. By James L. Brauer. St. Louis: Concordia, 2005. 304 pages. Cloth. $29.99.

This volume is instructive and enlightening on “What the Lutheran Confessions say about Worship.” It is carefully arranged and edited with thorough documentation and thoughtful comments. It is a rare kind, unique in content, structure, and style. The Rev. James L. Brauer, Ph.D. is professor and chairman of the department of practical theology and dean of the chapel at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. In the late 1980s he served as executive director of the LCMS’s Commission on Worship. He has published several musical compositions and written numerous scholarly articles and monographs. In a time when the Lutheran classical tradition of worship is somehow swayed and challenged by the winds of change in worship among Lutherans in America (and elsewhere) and under various influences and taste of other Christian traditions and practices, Professor Brauer lays down clearly the basic purpose of the book. Is there not a reliable foundation of worship—Biblically, theologically, confessionally, and historically? In order to respond seriously to this inquiry, the Book of Concord seems indispensable for identifying some key understandings regarding the content of an “ecumenically blended” Lutheran practice of worship. He has aptly classified lengthy citations from CONCORDIA under eight key categories (chapters), each with helpful sub-topics in question-form: Worship, the Word, Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Absolution, Prayer, Praise, Rites and Ceremonies. Each chapter has helpful “summaries” and at the end a concise “synopsis.” While the Kolb-Wengert edition is used for the quotations and on occasion the Tappert edition, the footnotes give key sentences and phrases in the original German and Latin of the twelfth edition of Die Bekenntnisschriften. By such documentation the readers may have a relaxed feeling in obtaining the authentic Lutheran understanding of worship which is Biblically well grounded. This monograph can be an excellent tool for pastors and students of the Book of Concord to discover the real meaning and practice of uniquely Lutheran worship, both confessionally and ecumenically meaningful. By means of this careful research, Brauer raises foundational questions as to why worship must be firmly Biblical and confessionally founded. The “Introduction” (9-29) has no small significance for the historical understanding of current situation of our time and the ongoing pressure of “change” in many areas of life, especially in Lutheran worship, especially from “ecumenical exchange of traditions and cultural adjustments related to people groups.” Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), there were numerous liturgical movements in various circles and denominations in search of techniques in global and local missionary work that would be more authentic to people in general and more meaningful to ethnic groups. Some pertinent theological and missiological questions formulated by the author are worth noting:

How do theology, mission work and worship fit together? How much of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 433 what is shared between traditions can really be useful to Lutheran worship? What will erode the Gospel core of Lutheran worship? What will assist the delivery of the Gospel (10)?

Haven’t Lutherans had the mandate to answer these questions on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the Confessions? Dr. Brauer sketches the ecumenical context by outlining the necessary information and a brief history, starting from the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions as well as nine Protestant traditions including Anglican and Lutheran. For the users of the Confessions, busy pastors, students, and interested lay readers, there is a table of cross-references to the 287 citations and more than 300 texts mentioned in the book. This has enormous practical value for accuracy and saving time in identifying where to look for related subjects from the entire CONCORDIA. Furthermore, the well-informed comments by a Lutheran theologian, musician, and expert on worship can be a significant help too. A clear summary of the author’s thought on the purpose of this volume is succinctly revealed in the Preface and the Conclusion (chap. 9) which should not be overlooked. In short the author’s careful comments, summaries, synopses, footnotes, Scripture index, the table of cross reference, and the relevant confessional texts quoted in the original languages are all valuable parts of the work. Indeed, as Brauer points out the Lutheran Confessions are “a valuable legacy for a time of fast-paced changes in society offering as a kind of measuring stick for doctrine and practice... bringing people to true spiritual worship” (289, 301). With enthusiasm I recommend this extraordinary publication to pastors and all serious students of the Lutheran Confessions in America and overseas for and toward examining/reexamining and renewing worship. Likewise let me call attention to Dr. Brauer’s previous contribution, Meaningful Worship: A Guide to the Lutheran Service, St. Louis: Concordia, 1994. Won Yong Ji

THE ECUMENICAL LUTHER: The Development and Use of His Doctrinal Herme- neutic. By Richard P. Bucher. St. Louis: Concordia; Concordia Academic Press, 2003. 222 pages. Cloth. $30.99.

This book is grown out of the author’s (LCMS pastor, FW 1985) doctoral dissertation at Boston University School of Theology (Prof. Carter Lindberg, Doktorvater). Consequently it is a result of a thorough research on “Luther’s doctrinal hermeneutic” chiefly found in Luther’s 1518 to 1525 (1529, 1537) writings. The Reformer’s views are illustrated by his dialogue with the UNITAS FRATRUM (1522-1524) being focused on the 1523 treatise “The Adoration of the Sacrament,” the Marburg Colloquy (1529) in thirty-nine (cf. 112-114), and the Schmalkald Articles (1537) (115-129). In the final chapter (chap. six) he examines the “implications” of Luther’s doctrinal hermeneutic in the light of, and in comparison with, the modern ecumenical context and views within Christendom in general and in Lutheranism in particular. For a bird’s-eye view, a concise “Content Summary” (17-18) could be noted. The two major and one more “limitations” (18) mentioned by the author also can be suggested for further study. In light of such a special nature of deliberation, one may observe some unique

434 features, such as comprising 711 extensive “Notes” (footnotes, references, comments) and a bibliography with primary and secondary sources (213-222). The text of the book itself includes many long and short quotations and references. More than half of the book deals with the above revealing a careful and extensive research on the relevant materials, both primary and secondary. Studying Luther’s theology from an ecumenical perspective, the author repeatedly stresses the normative importance of two “canons,” namely, Scriptural and evangelical. The first canon of Luther’s doctrinal hermeneutic is that “a necessary doctrine of the Christian faith must be based on the Word of God, Scripture alone, “the right Scripture, and the right Scripture rightly interpreted” (28, passim). Side by side with the Scriptural canon, the evangelical canon states “only teachings necessary for salvation, in harmony with the Gospel, or which keeps the conscience free can be rightly considered the essential articles of faith” (48)—the doctrine that all Christians must believe. From an orthodox Lutheran stance against the general trend of modern theology and ecumenism, it is understandable that in a scholarly research on certain specific areas focusing upon Luther’s theology and interpretation in order to view doctrine, the Gospel, the articles of faith, the repeatedly used modifying words, though very essential, such as, “right—rightly,” “necessary,” “true,” “clear,” “plain,” etc. should be made more meaningful. Obviously, the “right understanding” of “right doctrine” and “right Scripture,” “rightly interpreted,” are mandatory for maintaining true Biblical doctrine and Christian life. What do they mean, one may ask. This work with a specific position in mind is insightful, stimulating, suggestive, and thought-provoking for those who are interested in the subject, viz., Luther’s doctrinal hermeneutic as well as his relations with the UNITAS FRATRUM, the theological aspects of Marburg Colloquy, and the Schmalkald Articles which is known as the Reformer’s ecumenical overview to Rome. In addition, it can also be helpful to observe the modern ecumenical movement interpreted by Dr. Bucher, the definition of being ecumenical, the form and basis of unity, for example, the WCC’s “conciliarity” as a model for unity and Christian koinonia, and the “reconciled diversity” as the favored model of unity and “communio” claimed by the LWF. The author disagrees with them detecting the optimism of the 1970s in the successes(!) in dialogue to the pessimism of the 1980s. The doctrinal hermeneutic of Luther defines the article of faith as necessary for unity, that is to say, the unity in the essential doctrine and on the Gospel (the evangelical canon). Furthermore, all doctrine ought to be on the basis of Scripture alone (the Scriptural canon). There is a real difference between Luther’s way of handling doctrinal differences as seen in UNITAS FRATRUM, Marburg Colloquy, and Schmalkald Articles, and the aims and goals of contemporary ecumenical dialogues. This comment may apply to the difference within Lutheranism in America and in the world. At any rate this section on modern ecumenism, the “implications” of Luther’s doctrinal hermeneutic, is an additional thought on the reason of a real difficulty in the modern ecumenical scene. The author’s repeated stress is right doctrine as the absolute prerequisite for being “ecumenical,” which he tried to prove on the basis of the writings of Luther and augmented by the supporting ideas of some secondary sources. The book deserves an additional appreciation of the readers by providing the exact location in the Weimar Edition of those many references quoted with the American Edition of Luther’s Works. Won Yong Ji

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 435 MATTHEW’S BIBLE: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. By Maarten J. J. Menken. BETL CLXXIII. Leuven University Press, 2004. 336 pages. Paper. $66.00.

Maarten J. J. Menken’s work on the Old Testament citations in the Gospel of John is already well-known. He has now turned his scholarly attention to the same phenomenon in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist investigates the text-form and source(s) for the many Old Testament citations in the First Gospel. Menken does not primarily take up issues of hermeneutics or interpretation, although some discussion of these matters inevitably occurs. Menken’s major conclusion is that Matthew is not himself responsible for the wording of the explicit OT fulfillment citations in his Gospel, although the evangelist has determined the length of each citation in order to connect it strongly to its context in the Gospel. Rather, Matthew used the wording found in a continuous text of the LXX, extant in a revised form not known to scholars today; the evangelist changed the wording of that text only to a very limited degree when he cited it in his Gospel. Thus, Matthew emerges from Menken’s study as one who cites his copy of the LXX conservatively. This is also the case, according to Menken, with regard to OT citations that Matthew found in his written sources, namely, Mark, Q, and whatever special sources were responsible for the evangelist’s Sondergut. Menken’s conclusions set his work in contrast to others, who have argued either that Matthew has been free to make his own translations from the MT or that the evangelist has used a written source consisting of a string of OT citations. The book is organized into two major sections. Part I offers Menken’s examination of the fulfillment quotations in Matthew, and this is the bulk of the work. Eleven studies (ten of which had already appeared in journals) examine the ten fulfillment citations in Matthew (4:15-16; 8:17; 12:18-21; 13:35; 21:5; 1:23; 2:15; 2:18; 2:23; 27:9-10); owing to its length and complexity, the citation of Isaiah 42:1-4 in Matthew 12:18-21 receives the attention of two chapters. Part II takes up the question of OT citations in Matthew that either come from the evangelist’s sources (Mark, Q, or the special material), or that Matthew has inserted into material from one of his sources. Menken’s study is a model of clarity and it serves as a fine example of how such scholarly study should proceed when it is dependent upon certain presuppositions. He presupposes the Two Source Hypothesis and that Matthew is at all times working directly and in a precise literary fashion. That is to say, there is no discussion in the work that at times Matthew might be either citing the OT from memory or merely offering the gist of an OT citation. Owing to the nature and scope of the study, a mere review cannot describe fully the various arguments that lead Menken to his clearly stated conclusions. A sampling of the kinds of arguments Menken employs, however, can offer a window into his work. Chapter 6 examines the OT citation in Matthew 21:5, “Tell daughter Zion: Behold, your king is coming to you, meek and riding on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden” (Menken’s translation, 105). As is well-known, the OT citation is actually a composite of the opening phrase of Isaiah 62:11 (“Tell daughter Zion,” which replaces Zechariah’s call that Zion “rejoice”) and Zechariah 9:9. Menken perceives that Matthew has matched the quotation skillfully to the context in his Gospel. Since the “city” in Matthew 21 is hostile to Jesus, Zechariah’s call for Zion to rejoice would not fit the narrative context, and

436 Matthew himself is responsible for joining Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9 (109- 110). This result anticipates one of Menken’s larger conclusions, namely, that the evangelist has decided how much of each OT citation to use in order to link the citations carefully with what is happening close at hand in his Gospel’s narrative. Menken next examines the form of the citation in Matthew 21:5. Is the citation Matthew’s own translation from the Hebrew? Has the evangelist adapted the LXX that is known to us? Menken notes that there are both strong affinities between Matthew’s citation and the LXX, as well as considerable differences between LXX and the evangelist where the latter seems to be offered a better translation of the MT. Menken argues that one need not conclude that Matthew himself is responsible for translating from Hebrew. Since there seem to be strong affinities between the LXX as we know it and Matthew’s citation, Menken posits that Matthew=s text is not the result of a direct translation of the MT, but rather a revision of LXX. The question then arises, did Matthew himself revise the LXX or did he rely on an extant revised text? Menken finds no compelling evidence to show that Matthew is responsible for the revision of the LXX that is reflected in his OT citations. In comparing Matthew’s preferred vocabulary and of various possible Greek translations of Hebrew phrasing, Menken insists that the burden of proof lies on those who think Matthew himself revised the LXX. His conclusion is worth quoting because it is so typical: “The textual type of the quotation (in Matt. 21:5) is best characterized as a revised LXX: there is a clear LXX substrate, and the final words have been corrected to make them better agree with the Hebrew text. In these final words there is much agreement with the later Greek OT translations. The phrasing of the quotation nowhere betrays Matthew’s hand; one element strongly suggests that Matthew made use of an extant Greek translation” (116). Each of Menken’s studies exhibits a notable clarity, no mean achievement in a work that involves such potentially dizzying detail. The only criticisms that I can offer of his work are, in a way, not criticisms of his work per se, but of the very kind of work that he is attempting to do. In the first place, the attempt to perceive whether Matthew himself has created the revisions to the LXX text that he quotes is fraught with intrinsic difficulties. How idiosyncratic does the vocabulary have to be before Matthew could not have used it? If the rendering found in Matthew’s OT citation can be shown to be a “standard” rendering that any Greek translator might have offered for a Hebrew original, does this show that Matthew himself has not done the work of translation? The most important step in answering such questions may very well not be the data themselves, but where one places the burden of proof. “Unless it can be shown that this is Matthew’s unique and preferred vocabulary, it will be assumed that he is not responsible for it”—perhaps a reasonable way to proceed, but not ultimately convincing. Further, Menken’s conclusions build explicitly upon his assumption that Mark and Q are Matthew’s sources and that the first evangelist has worked in a detailed way from written texts and never (it seems) from memory. Although such a “wild card” can’t be played too often, one wonders whether it might be possible to explain some of the data in Matthew’s OT citations by appealing to a less precise but still accurate procedure of giving the gist of what the OT says without adhering to the wording with unfailingly modern precision. There is, of course, the larger question of Menken’s major conclusion, namely, that Matthew has taken his OT fulfillment citation from a continuous LXX text that is not, in fact, known to us from any manuscript evidence. Given what we

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 437 know about the fluidity of textual transmission in the first century, this is not an impossible idea. It remains, however, a speculation, and one still wonders whether Menken has solved the problem of the data presented by Matthew’s OT citations, which so curiously at times vacillate between agreements now with MT, now with LXX, and at times with neither. One of the most positive contributions of Matthew’s Bible is the way Menken consistently shows that the OT fulfillment citations connect with and adorn the context in which Matthew has placed them. Many, for instance, have struggled to see how the citation of Isaiah 42:1-4 at Matthew 12:18-21—the longest in all the Gospel—coheres with what is happening in Matthew’s narrative immediately prior to the citation. Menken, however, argues carefully that the OT citation does, in fact, fit into Matthew’s nearer and wider context. Jesus withdraws from the hostile presence of the Pharisees precisely because it is not yet time for Him to accomplish His greatest work through his death and resurrection (63-64). This technical, scholarly book is an important resource, and it will take its rightful place among the older works of Robert Gundry, Richard McConnell, George Soares Prabhu, and others who have wrestled with the data of Matthew’s OT citations. Serious students of Matthew’s use of the Old Testament must read this book. Jeffrey A. Gibbs

THE SONG OF SONGS. By Christopher W. Mitchell. St. Louis: Concordia, 2003. 1,300 pages. Cloth. $42.99.

As one might imagine, given its length, it is an understatement to describe Mitchell’s 1,300 page commentary on the Song of Songs as a “thorough treatment of his subject.” Within its 1,300 pages, Mitchell covers every topic in relation to the Song one might possibly conceive of, and quite a few that most people would not have thought of at all. Because of its comprehensive nature, any pastor who reads through this commentary will learn something helpful for his own ministry. His Introduction (553 pages itself) contains units on customary topics such as the historical setting of the book, the book’s structure, and its history of interpretation. Mitchell covers all these topics in detail, and he is careful to engage other scholars in his discussion of issues that have been and still are highly debated. For example, in his description of the structure of the book, Mitchell respectfully reviews the way others have proposed to structure the Song, and he integrates the strengths of each into his own view. Mitchell nicely defends his view that the Song is cyclical (i.e., many of the literary units move through different stages of the couple’s relationship) and yet possesses a progression—that its structure is a kind of spiral (144-154). Likewise, in his section describing the historical background of the Song, Mitchell makes a convincing case for Solomonic authorship, against the opinion of numerous other scholars. In his section on linguistic evidence (114-116) one thing that could be pointed out is that even though many scholars date the Song late for linguistic reasons, others have examined the linguistic evidence and have made a case for a pre-exilic/Solomonic date. The linguistic arguments are worth a closer look than Mitchell gives them. Though some of these linguists, with whom Mitchell disagrees, do think that the Song is written in a “northern dialect,” others suggest that the evidence is not so clear cut.

438 Another section in the Introduction that will interest pastors is Mitchell’s discussion of the “Churchly Use of the Song” (511-543). In this unit, Mitchell surveys the many ways that the Song has been incorporated into the life of the church. Here he surveys numerous Lectionaries in order to document where pericopes from the Song occur. He then discusses the connections between these selections and the Gospel readings and how the Song is being interpreted in light of this juxtaposition. He also includes in this section a survey of Lutheran doctrinal use of the Song and its influence on Lutheran hymnody. Pastors will find in this last section an especially helpful discussion of Lutheran hymnody and its connections to important Scriptural themes in general and the Song in particular. In the commentary on the Song itself, Mitchell’s philological and textual comments are particularly well done. On virtually every phrase of the Song, Mitchell has substantive notes explaining the grammatical and semantic aspects of the text. His notes on the meanings of individual words are usually quite helpful. For example, his treatment on the Song’s vocabulary for “love” (562-566) gives the reader clear insight into the meaning of the language of the Song. In defending and explaining his translation, Mitchell also refers extensively to other translations (including the LXX, Vulgate, Syriac) for comparison and contrast. The result of Mitchell’s work is not only a clear translation of the text but an extensive and invaluable “philological commentary” supporting it. Mitchell’s work in this area makes a significant contribution to the study and interpretation of the Song. More questionable for this reviewer is Mitchell’s interpretation of the imagery in the Song. Throughout his commentary, Mitchell seeks to avoid allegory (25). Rather than allegorical, he describes his approach as typological, Christological, and analogical. Within the framework defined by these terms, Mitchell connects the imagery in the Song to other OT and NT themes (e.g., the nuptial theme, the garden theme) all of which he says point finally to Christ’s love for the church. But one question that arises, and always does in discussions about the interpretation of the Song, is this: Given this canonical perspective on the Song, what is the relationship between the individual descriptions, ideas, and events in the Song and the descriptions, ideas, and events in the NT? Mitchell uses the term “analogical” in preference to the term “allegorical” because he believes that an analogical approach is more congruent to the doctrinal, creedal, and confessional theology of the historic Christian church (25) than an allegorical approach. But what does an analogical approach look like in contrast to allegory? Frequently, Mitchell does not clarify this for the reader. And it is often difficult to see what the difference is. For example, though Mitchell himself has a broader and more restrained interpretation of Song 4:1-7, “a description of the beauty of Solomon’s bride,” he summarizes with approval Luther’s commentary on this section and suggests that it is similar to his. Mitchell says that Luther does not allegorize the song (479-480). But Mitchell summarizes Luther’s commentary on 4:1-7 as follows: “Luther interprets the eyes that are doves (4:1) to be the leaders and teachers.... The teeth (4:2) indicate that God’s teachers must be able to argue powerfully (“bite”) but without acrimony, so that they remain white.... The two scarlet lips (4:3) represent Law and Gospel.... The breasts (4:5) are another ‘description of the ministry of the Word’...” (816-817). Luther’s interpretation is certainly Christological and within the creedal and confessional theology of the Christian church, but it most certainly looks like allegory to me. Mitchell follows his

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 439 discussion of Luther with a description of Glassius’ and Hengstenberg’s interpretations (817-820), which differ in details but are also allegory (e.g., according to Glassius, the two breasts are the two Sacraments). At times the reader has trouble following the logic of Mitchell’s analogical connections. For example, in commenting on Song 1:3, “In fragrance your oils are good; ‘Oil Poured Out’ is your name,” Mitchell has a discussion of the use of the term “oil” in other Biblical texts. In one paragraph he talks about oil used in the OT for liturgical purposes; in the next paragraph he mentions two Psalms where God Himself applies oil; then in the next paragraph he mentions Gerhard’s interpretation of Psalm 45, and then he continues with a discussion of the NT custom of pouring oil upon the head of guests—mentioning Simon the Pharisee, the sinful woman (Luke 7:46), Mary (John 12:3), and Judas all in the same paragraph. All this is “background” for understanding Solomon’s name in the verse and for the conclusion that “Solomon is not stingy with his love” (586). Mitchell then switches suddenly to a comparison of St. Paul and Solomon based on Philippians 2:17 and 2 Timothy 4:6. He then concludes: “Most pertinent, however, is the ultimate font and spring of this love that is manifested proleptically in the OT by Solomon and retrospectively by St. Paul and all subsequent pastors and Christians: ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is being poured out [evkcunno,menon] for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Matt. 26:28).” In two pages Mitchell moves from a discussion of “anointing oil” in the Song to the suggestion that this verse (and Solomon) is proleptic of Holy Communion, based on the connection between oil being “poured out” and Christ’s words of institution where he states that His blood is “poured out.” This is an awfully long way to travel, and I must confess that I got lost along the way. But this kind of “catch word” procedure, often leading up to a description about the importance of the Sacraments in the life of the believer seems to be fairly prevalent in the commentary. (See, for example, his following comments on pages 586-588 and also his comments in the Introduction, 268 and 324-334.) I also have a question about the way Mitchell treats some of the similes in the text because he seems to misunderstand the intent of the imagery. For example, in Song 1:5 the Shulammite says: “Black am I but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon.” Here, the Shulammite is saying something about her skin color. On any reading of the text, it is the color of the “tents” and “curtains” that she uses in the comparison and not the numerous other characteristics connected to tents and curtains. Mitchell, however, focuses on the supposed referent of “the curtains of Solomon,” the tabernacle or temple, and draws far-reaching conclusions about the significance of this image. He says that here is the “imagery of theophany” where she likens herself to the dwelling place of God among His people (412 and 613). Mitchell concludes: “Since the ‘curtains of Solomon’ in Song 1:5 relate to the tabernacle and/or the Solomonic temple...the theological imagery for the Shulammite in 1:5,17 represents God bringing his kingdom of grace to his people as he dwells among them in a way that anticipates the indwelling among his people in the mystical union” (413-414). While very creative, this interpretation goes way beyond the function of the imagery and is not warranted by the text. A similar example is Mitchell’s commentary on Song 4:2, “your teeth are like a flock of shorn [ewes] which come up from the washing….” Here Solomon compares the color of his bride’s teeth to freshly washed sheep. But again, because the word “washing” is used in the text, Mitchell sees the “fulfillment” of the passage in

440 Christian Baptism. He even extends the thought to suggest that the spittle that Jesus used to heal the blind man might anticipate “the washing of water with the Word” in the church’s ongoing ministry on behalf of Christ (813-814). Neither of these interpretations takes into consideration how metaphor/simile function in ordinary human speech and as a result the significance of the imagery is mis- interpreted. In spite of these drawbacks, Mitchell’s theological commentary does have some good insights in it. To his credit, he does incorporate a “first article perspective” in his commentary, though it could be highlighted and developed more. That is to say, the Song, in a sense, can be read as an extended commentary on the creation story (not only the story of God’s redemption) and as such it is a song that celebrates the dignity and purity of human love. Since the Song is often classed as Wisdom literature, the didactic and moral purpose of it should also be stressed, especially in our culture where marriage and the love between husband and wife are so often pictured in perverse and impious ways. In a quite beautiful way, the Song reminds God’s people that the love between a husband and wife is a gift and the physical and emotional expression of it are part of God’s created order. Even though this aspect of the Song is not a major theme for Mitchell, he does deserve our thanks for reacquainting God’s people with this most provocative work. Timothy E. Saleska

STORY AS TORAH: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically. By Gordon Wenham. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. 180 pages. Paper. $17.95.

Studies in Old Testament (hereafter OT) ethics have centered upon the legal codes in the Pentateuch, the exhortations of wisdom literature and the preaching of the prophets. This is true both of modern scholarship and the older Jewish tradition of halachah which is Jewish casuistry preserved and hallowed in works such as the Mishnah and Talmud. Not surprisingly, therefore, is the fact that there have been few attempts to integrate narrative purposes and perspectives into the field of OT ethics. Trying to fill this void, Wenham proposes that OT narratives not only communicate Israel’s cultural, political, and religious history but also have didactic purposes. Wenham examines how certain narrative phenomena—such as the repetition of key words of themes, the overall rhetorical purpose of a book, intertextual correspondence, and key contextual indicators of mood—provide clues to the ethical message of implied authors. Wenham further employs rhetorical criticism in order to shed light, not simply on a Biblical writer’s literary genius and artistic skills but also on the argument that the writer is developing in a work. His focus is upon Genesis and Judges; however, in doing so, Wenham also establishes principles that assist his readers in their own endeavor to read OT narratives in ways that are sensitive to their ethical thrust. Throughout his study, Wenham operates with the assumption that, in a close- knit culture like ancient Israel, where there was a much higher degree of agreement between its members about religion and ethics than there is in modern secularized and pluralist societies, there was correspondingly less reason to spell out authorial norms and values because the reader was very likely to share them. This is the chief reason Hebrew narrative is so subtle when it comes to ethics. He also cites

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 441 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to justify his search for ethics in OT narrative; for if “all scripture” is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” then ethical instruction should be expected in OT narrative. Wenham then notes how Paul uses sections in the narratives of Exodus and Numbers in 1 Corinthians 10 to encourage higher ethics in the Corinthian church. An example of Wenham’s literary sensitivity in Genesis is as follows. Genesis 1-7 parallels Genesis 8-11 in a creation-decreation pattern. The land that emerges from the primeval ocean in 1:9 is submerged again in the flood. It re-emerges after the flood in 8:5-14. Wenham then asserts that Noah is the second Adam. The boat-builder is the father of all humankind, initially perfect (6:9), but then, like Adam, he succumbs to sin in an episode echoing the fall (9:20-27). Whereas Adam’s fruit makes him aware of his nakedness so that he tries to cover it up, Noah’s fruit leads him to uncover himself unwittingly. As in Adam’s case the son’s behavior (Cain) is even more reprehensible than the father’s; in Noah’s case his son’s disobedience (Ham) leads to dissension among the three brothers. And just as Cain’s descendants appear to be the ungodly line in Genesis 4, Ham’s descendant Canaan is cursed by Noah. An example of how Wenham couples this literary sensitivity with a rhetorical reading strategy is displayed in his introductory comments on Judges. Wenham invokes the literary insight that in reading a book special attention needs to be devoted to the opening because information and attitudes presented at an early stage of the text encourages readers to interpret everything in their light. Judges opens with the question: “Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?” Then God replies, “Judah shall go up” (Judges 1:1-2). Almost the same question is asked in Judges 20:18: “Which of us shall go up first to battle against the Benjaminites?” And Yahweh says, “Judah shall go up first.” The slight change from “Canaanite” to “Benjaminite” shouts. The nation that begins by fighting external foes ends with a civil war. The subtle, yet powerful ethic is this: the community is at its worst when it is fighting with itself. Wenham also matrixes literary and rhetorical insights with the implied author’s point of reference. He writes: “Most [of the ethical] confusion has been generated by a failure to keep the perspective of the implied author to the front of the discussion” (75). To focus attention upon the outlook of the implied author is a challenging endeavor because OT narratives seldom contain explicit moral judgments; they prefer to allow events to speak for themselves. But Wenham attempts to do just this in his discourse on Judges. He begins by noting that Othniel is not only the first judge, but he is also the only one who is not criticized implicitly or explicitly by the author. Othniel also comes from the tribe of Judah—which in chapter one of Judges is presented as much more successful than the other tribes in claiming tribal allotment. Moreover, Othniel fights with King Cushan from Aram-Naharaim far outside Israel’s borders. On the other hand later judges are concerned only with Israel’s near neighbors such as the Moabites, Philistines, and Canaanites. This clothes Othniel with an aura suggestive of the later Davidic dynasty. Adding strength to this interpretation is that the closing chapters of Judges castigate the tribe of Benjamin and the town of Gibeah in particular. In fact, in Judges 19 the men of Gibeah are shown to be even worse than the men of Sodom. The latter were at least frustrated in their plan to rape the angels The Gibeathites gang-raped the Levite’s concubine all night, and she died in the morning. Why do these narratives conclude the book of Judges? Wenham believes they discredit Saul and his sons, who come from

442 Benjamin and Gibeah. These pro-Davidic and anti-Saul hints bring Wenham to the conclusion that Judges was written as a way to validate the Davidic monarchy. The most insightful aspect of this book is the author’s discussion on the differences between the ethics in OT legal codes and OT narrative. Wenham’s thesis is that obedience to the Torah does not entail the entire sum of ethics in the OT because in most societies what the law enforces is not the same as what upright members of that society feel is socially desirable, let alone ideal! There is a link between moral ideals and law, but law tends to be a pragmatic compromise between the legislators’ ideals and what can be enforced in practice. For example, though I may not have stolen my neighbor’s car or had an affair with his wife, I may be far from being a model citizen. This means that in Biblical terms righteousness involves more than living by the Decalogue and the other laws in the Pentateuch. To love Yahweh is to keep His Torah, but love cannot be reduced to just obedience. The psalmist puts it this way: “My soul longs, yea faints for the courts of Yahweh, my heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God” (Ps. 84:20). The First Commandment illustrates this gap between law and ethics. The law merely punished extreme forms of disloyalty to Yahweh, i.e., religious apostasy and idolatry. But fearing, loving, cleaving to Yahweh were not fulfilled just by avoiding the worship of other gods. It involves both loyalty to Yahweh and the enjoyment of His presence. The Torah represents the floor of acceptable living, not the ceiling. Biblical narrators hoped that readers of their texts would do more than observe the letter of the Torah, but also its spirit. What appears lacking in Wenham’s discussion—again and again—is any sustained discussion on the motivation for ethics. About all he offers is this: “The rationale for these demands is found in the opening chapter of Genesis, ‘God created man in his own image’ (Gen. 1:27).” But this hardly serves as a sustained motivating power. Missing, therefore, is any reference to OT Gospel—like that in Exodus 20:2—which empowers people to love and serve Yahweh. In spite of this glaring deficiency, Wenham offers an accessible book that will help seminarians, pastors, and other students of the OT to interpret its narratives with more ethical depth and insight. Reed Lessing

THE CROWDS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. By J. R. C. Cousland, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001. 361 pages. Cloth. $163.00. Supplements to Novum Testamentum CII.

This major study makes an important contribution to how we understand Matthew’s Gospel and, as its title indicates, specifically to the way Matthew’s reader should perceive “the crowds” that figure so prominently in Jesus’ ministry. The result is a learned, yet highly readable, account that interacts with all the important major scholarship while also offering the author’s own reasoning and (largely convincing) conclusions. The argument comes to the readers in six major parts. Part I (chap. 1) introduces and surveys earlier scholarly study of “the crowds” in Matthew’s Gospel. Cousland also describes his own eclectic approach to studying the problem, an approach that combines both redaction-critical observation as well as a more narrative approach (23). In this reviewer’s opinion, the latter type of reading more fully controls the analysis and, for my money, makes the work stronger. Part

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 443 II, “The Identity of the Crowd,” devotes chapters 2-4 to the question implied in its title. Cousland concludes that the crowds in Matthew’s Gospel are portrayed as largely Jewish in makeup although there will probably be Gentiles among them, especially when events transpire in the Decapolis (73). Further, Matthew’s narrative presents the crowds as a component part (along with the religious leaders) of “the people” (o` lao,j). Moreover, the crowds are fundamentally “lost” and in need of Jesus’ ministry (95). Cousland’s “Part III: Rex et Grex” (chaps. 5-8) examines the material in Matthew that presents “the crowds” in a favorable light over against Jesus and His ministry. The author emphasizes that Jesus’ ministry to the crowds continues throughout the length of the Gospel, not ceasing after chapter thirteen, as some earlier redaction-critics had argued. The crowds often respond to Jesus with the group of verbs that Cousland terms “wonder terminology” (evkplh,ssomai( qauma,zw( evxi,sthmi( fobe,omai( doxa,zw). Disciples, on the other hand, do not typically respond to Jesus in this way. Cousland concludes that these reactions are ambiguous, indicating neither a clear positive or negative response to Jesus on the part of the crowds (135). In their reactions to Jesus and specifically in the act of “following” Jesus, the crowds never are regarded fully as disciples and yet are to be distinguished from their leaders who stand in outright opposition to Jesus and His ministry (167). In Part IV, “Death and the Prophet,” the author takes up the ways in which the crowds react negatively to Jesus’ ministry. Importantly and appropriately, Cousland devotes an entire chapter to the crowds’ acclamation of Jesus as “prophet” in 21:11 (chap. 9), to the crowds’ role in the Passion Narrative (chap. 10), and to the crowds’ relationship to Jesus’ parable discourse in Matthew 13 (chap. 11). This is some of the best reading in the book, and I shall return to some specific response to this material below. Part V, “Transparent Crowds,” (chap. 12) takes up the quintessentially redaction-critical question of the extent to which “the crowds” are stand-ins for real human figures in Matthew’s own historical context. In a helpfully cautious discussion, Cousland concludes that Matthew wants his own readers to see in the crowds the unbelieving Jewish crowds of Matthew’s own time and situation. The evangelist, Cousland believes, is still trying to reach out to Jewish non-Christians with the message of Jesus (293). Part VI offers the author’s summary and conclusions. The book contains excellent and useful indices. Let me begin by offering my strong positive appreciation for this important book. Cousland is a thorough and careful scholar, and I find myself agreeing with many of his conclusions and appreciating many of his balanced arguments. In my judgment, no serious student of Matthew’s Gospel will be able to ignore this full- length study. Indeed, the length of the book guarantees that there will be commentary on many important passages in Matthew. I know that I will often find myself thumbing the Scripture index in the back in order to find Cousland’s comments on this passage or that one. Specifically, I can highlight the author’s helpful response to the perennial question of the seeming “about face” that the crowds make during the passion narrative. Countless readers of Matthew have been puzzled by the seeming contradiction between the crowds’ acclamations at Palm Sunday on the one hand and the crowds’ cries for Jesus’ crucifixion on Good Friday on the other hand. Cousland rightly connects this phenomenon in a general way to Matthew’s portrayal of “Jesus, the prophet whom Jerusalem will reject.” The crowds’ words

444 at 21:11 are not so strongly positive as some conclude. Cousland is also correct in rejecting the idea that (at least in Matthew’s view) the Palm Sunday crowds are a radically different group than the crowd present at Jesus’ trial before Pilate; presumably Jesus’ words at 26:55 to that crowd that came to arrest Him links them with the crowds that were astonished at His earlier teaching in the temple (22:33). Cousland reasonably argues that the most important explanation for the change on the part of the crowds is the fact that their leaders have persuaded them to think differently about Jesus, a reality that Matthew explicitly notes in 27:20 (227-228). The “about face” is not so dramatic, in other words, as it has appeared to many. I would mention one criticism of Cousland’s work, and it pertains to the crucially important statement in Matthew 12:23. In response to Jesus’ exorcism, the crowds ask a question: mh,ti ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o.j Daui,d. Although Cousland notes that the question could be understood to expect a negative answer (“This isn’t the Son of David, is it?”), he opts to take it in a more neutral or even positive way (139). Now Cousland is surely correct to note that such questions in Greek do not always expect a negative answer. But he apparently failed to examine Matthew’s use of this device, as well as the evangelist’s uses of the rhetorical question that begins with a form of ouvk and expects the answer “yes.” Had he done so, he would have discovered (in my judgment) that in every instance of each of these rhetorical devices in Matthew, the corresponding negative (7:9, 10, 16; 9:15; 11:23; 12:23; 26:22, 25) or positive (5:46, 47; 6:25, 26, 30; 10:29; 12:5, 11; 13:27, 55, 56; 15:17; 18:12, 33; 20:13, 15; 24:2; 26:40; 27:13) response is demanded by the context. The crowds in 12:23 do not, in fact, think that Jesus is the Son of David. The reason why I mention this small point regarding 12:23 is that it later comes back to haunt Cousland’s work. After correctly describing how Matthew chapter thirteen offers a negative view of the crowds’ understanding, Cousland is perplexed that such a negative understanding does not “fit” well into the narrative flow of Matthew’s Gospel. His main support for perceiving this narrative tension is the positive view of the crowds that emerges if their question in 12:23 is read as Cousland has, in fact, read it (258). But this is a problem of Cousland’s own making. Matthew 12:23 is evidence for a negative evaluation of the crowds’ understanding. If Cousland had correctly understood the grammar of 12:23 and (even more importantly) connected it to the Gospel’s view of “this generation” (an important concept that he unfortunately does not investigate), then the “negative” view of the crowds in Matthew chapter 13 would have not seemed so strange a fit. J. R. C. Cousland’s The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew is the most thorough and helpful study on this important topic. No careful study of this or related issues in the First Gospel can afford to ignore it. All students of the First Gospel owe Cousland their thanks for his work. Jeffrey Gibbs

FROM PAUL TO VALENTIUS: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. By Peter Lampe. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 524 pages. Cloth. $42.00.

The German edition of Dr. Lampe’s work is well known in scholarly circles, but the English translation based on the second German edition [1989] not only makes his insights available to more readers but also includes additions and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 445 revisions as well as an appreciative four-page foreword by Robert Jewett. Like the German original, the English publication is in six parts. In Part 1 (chaps. 1 and 2), the Professor of New Testament at the University of Heidelberg explores how Christianity reached Rome. He concludes that Christianity, like Judaism, arrived in Rome primarily through the trade route of Puteoli-Rome. Lampe insightfully examines the “Edict of Claudius” to explain that the historic separation of church and synagogue took place “in the wake” of the events behind the decree. Part II (chaps. 3 and 4) is a fascinating analysis of archaeological and literary evidence leading to the conclusion that the earliest Christians lived primarily in Rome in Trastevere, Aventine, Campus Martius, and Tractus Urbanus of Via Appia. Part 3 (chaps. 5 through 15) and part 4 (chaps. 16 through 35) seek to determine the character of the Roman Christianity using general and prosopographic evidence respectively. Part 3 includes Paul’s letter to the Romans, the writings of Tacitus, First Clement, Ignatius, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin, and the Traditio Apostolica. The most interesting section of part 4, for this reader, was examination of the names in Romans 16 and consideration of the social standing of Aquila and Prisca. Part 5 (chaps. 36 through 41) may be the most important material historically. Lampe demonstrates persuasively that there was great diversity in Roman Christianity (and in Roman Jewry) or, to use his term, great fractionation (German: “Fraktionierung”). Although the evidence is limited, it is possible that from the beginning there was a sociological divide with poor Christians living in Trastevere and Via Appia while more prosperous Christians lived in Aventine and Campus Martius. Part 6 consists of four appendices, a bibliography, three maps, two diagrams, ten archaeological drawings, three indexes of ancient texts of Christians in Rome in the first two centuries, and of other names and subjects. The only significant disappointment of the English translation and revision is the failure to update the bibliography which remains almost the same as the German editions. In the bibliography, I noted only six citations of publications from the 1990s and two in 2001. This is a good and important book. Personally, but also professionally, it reminded me of the fascination and stimulation of first reading books like C. N. Cochrane’s Christianity and Classical Culture and Wayne Meeks’ The First Urban Christians. Reading Lampe is like watching a genius put together a picture puzzle by first carefully examining individual pieces. Lampe’s methodology is precise, logical, and historically sound as he carefully and critically analyses the meaning and interrelationship of ancient (non-Christian) literature, archeology including especially tombstone inscriptions, the New Testament, and other early Christian writings elucidating early Rome. As but one example of his methodology, using five steps involving local traditions, early graves, Jewish quarters, concentrations of Tituli, and contemporary information, Professor Lampe marshals persuasive evidence that many Roman Christians were scattered in house churches in the poorest sections of the megapolis in patterns similar to that of the Jewish synagogues. As another example, prosopographic evidence, including the names in Romans 16, indicates that many early Roman Christians were poor Greek- speaking immigrants although some leaders came from the upper classes. After arguing that Romans 16 is an integral part of the letter and a careful evaluation of the names, Lampe concludes that of the thirteen names about which a sociological evaluation is possible, four names are probably of free-born persons and nine are of slave origin. He cautions that one cannot determine how widely this two-to-one ratio stands for Christianity in the city or the empire as a whole.

446 Contrary to some scholarly opinion, Lampe offers substantial evidence indicating that Aquila and Prisca, although leaders who were singled out for exile by Claudius’s edict, were freeborn, independent craftspersons. Most likely they sewed together linen sun awnings for private customers rather than being engaged in the more lucrative leather work for the military. He concludes that Aquila was not a “great entrepreneur” (195). Probably the most intriguing part of the book, especially for pastors and scholars who serve in a postmodern world awash with relativism and challenged by the question of authority in interpretation and governance, is the evidence that for two hundred years the Roman church was, at best, a loose confederation of house churches with “breath-taking theological diversity” (381). Although the ecclesiastical situation may not have been chaos, on the one hand, one can readily see how the development of heresies was easy and, on the other hand, the movement toward a monarchical episcopate was an attractive way to bring order and unity in both form and substance. In conclusion, a leading LCMS theologian whom I respect once commented that one challenge of the LCMS comes from our lack of understanding of the connectedness of church history. Too often we jump from Paul to Augustine to Luther to Walther to our own time and overlook the links. If that opinion is at all valid, Lampe’s book will provide valuable insights and food for thought on the complexity of Christian history in one city for two centuries. On a more pastoral level, the book provides a historical basis for serious reflection on the theology and nature of the Catholic Church as support of mainline Christian denominations decreases and the elevation of the independence of individual congregations increases not only in the USA but also around the global village of our own time. Robert Holst St. Paul, MN

TREASURES OLD AND NEW: Essays in the Theology of the Pentateuch. By Joseph Blenkinsopp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. 238 pages. Paper. $26.00.

In keeping with the view that the Pentateuch is far too complex to be encapsulated into a single theological system (e.g., Eichrodt’s “covenant” or von Rad’s “salvation through history”), longtime professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame Joseph Blenkinsopp discusses themes in the Pentateuch that easily fall through the cracks of more systematic works of Biblical theology. Among the twelve essays that Blenkinsopp explores are the role of memory in the construction of the past, the close connection between sacrifice and community in the Old Testament, the proper stewardship of the world, and the belief (or lack thereof) in an after-death existence. Many of these essays have been published elsewhere, yet nearly every contribution has been refashioned for the present volume. Blenkinsopp focuses, in particular, on the interweaving of the political-social and the religious function of the Pentateuch during the formative periods of the exile and the post-exile, when he believes the literature was acquiring canonical status. The opening chapter, “Memory, Tradition, and the Construction of the Past in Ancient Israel,” sets the tone for the volume. Blenkinsopp explores how the experience of the exile shaped the collective memory of ancient Israel, finding its way into a wide range of literature in the Old Testament. He traces the themes of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 447 suffering and survival in a variety of literary genres. The Deuteronomistic History provides an explanation for the fall of Jerusalem and a resource for ethnic survival. The Passover combines the recollection of the past with a new beginning. And he believes that the exodus came into prominence as an origin myth of survival. The essay moves easily between an interpretation of the literature, social and psychological theories on memory, and Blenkinsopp’s own life experience. The interweaving of theory and story underscores the power of social memory as a condition of survival. In this same chapter, Blenkinsopp’s discussion on rkz (“to remember”) is informative. The past recalled is a necessary precondition for acting in the present. When rkz is used in the Old Testament it is more than a simple psychological act. For example, when Joseph asks the butler to remember him, this is tantamount to requesting that he mention his name and intervene of his behalf with the Pharaoh (Gen. 40:14, 23). To speak of Yahweh remembering (e.g., Ex. 2:24; 6:5) is therefore a way of spanning the gap between the past and the present. The possibility of a future depends on the past being remembered. Building upon his first essay, Blenkinsopp continues his belief—in several essays—that dominant monotheistic Yahwism emerged during the sixth through fourth centuries B.C. The catalyst for this development was the Babylonian torching of Jerusalem in early August of 586 B.C., about eighteen months after the siege had begun. Adding to this was the codification of Deuteronomy, according to Blenkinsopp, the first step toward the canon and with it the beginnings of Judaism. He cites Wellhausen’s classic statement: “The connecting link between old and new, between Israel and Judaism, is everywhere in Deuteronomy” (175). This movement attempted to eradicate all heterodoxy, i.e., Baal worship, Yahweh/ El syncretism, the worship of ancestors, high places, astral deity worship, etc. An example of how this reading of the Pentateuch informs specific texts may be seen from Blenkinsopp’s discussion on Genesis 18. The background of Abraham’s barter with Yahweh, whether the righteous can influence the fate of the unrighteous society in which they live, is in fact the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and deportation to Babylon. In this way, Pentateuchal narratives are interpreted as ahistorical; they are rather paradigms of what Israel experiences in exile. This means that when Jacob returns from Paddan-Aram (Mesopotamia) to meet Esau, it is really a narrative about the exiles returning to the post-exilic Persian province of Yehud. Only those people are worthy of the name “Israel” (cf. Gen. 32:28). Further proof of this understanding—according to Blenkinsopp— comes from Isaiah 40-55 that refers to the Judean exiles most frequently as Jacob. “The Jacob story, then, combines a kind of political allegory in which a certain understanding of the past is inscribed, resulting in what is in effect a new narrative genre” (154). This also means that the Garden of Eden narrative is about Israel placed in a congenial environment—the land of Canaan—gifted with the Torah, and failing to observe it is then exiled from her land. Each essay is non-technical, reflective, and broad in scope, yet rich with insight. The style of the essays makes the insights of Blenkinsopp open to readers on many different levels, allowing for their use in courses on the Pentateuchal literature and theology. But the essays also contain many innovative readings and thus will stimulate any investigation into the central themes of Pentateuchal theology, the theological influence of the exile, and the social formation of Second Temple Judaism in the Persian period.

448 Blenkinsopp concludes that the origin traditions of ancient Israel in Second Temple Judaism are far more complex than the exclusive Yahwism that has come to dominate the present form of the text. One would have liked Blenkinsopp to spell out more clearly the political and religious implications of the distinctions between universalism, nationalism, and monotheism for the current reader of the Pentateuch, especially in light of the confusion of these views of religion in contemporary political life. Blenkinsopp begins his book with the Aramaic hb alcd ab $phw hb $ph “Turn it and turn it again, for everything is in it” (Mishnah ‘Avot 5:25). His belief—to some extent—is that everything in the Pentateuch points to Israel’s experience after the exile. Of course, this interpretation is a fundamental assault on the historicity of the Pentateuch and falls under the category of Biblical minimalism. That being said, those who want a first-hand account of what is current in Pentateuch studies must consider these essays by Blenkinsopp. Reed Lessing

SILENT MUSIC: The Life, Work, and Thought of St. John of the Cross. By R. A. Herrara. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 2004. 166 pages. Paper. $11.20.

Silent Music is a masterful, literary exploration of the career of St. John of the Cross. Herrara combines his wide reading in philosophy with historic sensitivity to bring to life for a modern audience the thought and writings of this theologian who is often cited but less often read, and even less often understood. The greatest obstacle to understanding John of the Cross, especially for Protestants, is the utter foreignness of the mystical tradition. Herrara, who himself characterizes mysticism as “a puzzle,” addresses this lacuna with an introduction to the mystical tradition that ranges from Plotinus to Kierkegaard. Then, before narrating the events of John’s life, Herrara introduces the major developments in Spanish mysticism against the backdrop of Spanish politics and the Inquisition. The influence this larger setting has had on the author’s approach to John is indicated in the opening sentence of the chapter on the saint’s life: “It was in strong, melancholy, somber Castile, land of pain, war, and death that Juan de Yepes was born” (34). In fact, it is only after a third chapter, devoted to the broad outline of John’s thought, that Herrara addresses the philosophic and poetic foundations of that thought. This completes the first, introductory half of the book, and the next four chapters are detailed examinations of John’s writings. Far from providing mere outlines, these chapters penetrate to the heart and soul, the fundamental theological and literary points, of the texts. In the final chapter, Herrara addresses the all-important “so what?” question with a spirited apology for the usefulness of John’s writings today. Silent Music is a delightful read, and Herrara’s sheer literacy is one of the book’s great strengths. It also, however, will severely limit the usefulness of the book. Because Herrara ranges so widely and drops so many names, the average student, whether in college or seminary, is likely to emerge from these pages bewildered rather than enlightened. Silent Music, in short, is an introduction to John of the Cross that will require its own introduction. In addition, even those who appreciate the allusions will find some more illuminating than others. For example, in comparing a section of John’s Spiritual Canticle with “one of Oscar

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 449 Wilde’s listing of exotica in Salome” (97), Herrara clearly finds here a superficial similitude rather than a deep and significant connection. The other difficulty with Silent Music involves substance rather than form. After pleading with the reader throughout the book to understand John in his context, Herrara finds it necessary to downplay mentions of the demonic in John’s writings. John’s belief in demons and devils receives little more than a cursory glance. “Although other examples of [John’s] expertise can be provided,” Herrara writes, “it must be conceded that he cannot be totally disengaged from the foibles of his age. The Concordances of his work dedicate no less than eight pages to the Devil in whom he believed as well as in the possibility of his making pacts with human beings” (138). Yet this belief, so easily dismissed by the author, is the rule rather than exception in the Christian tradition, at least up until the last century, and Herrara’s analysis of John in this instance says more about his own presuppositions than it does about the object of his study. In spite of these limitations, Silent Music is an enjoyable and helpful book. It is to be hoped that it will lead new readers to sample the works of an important figure in the history of theology. In Herrara’s words, “What this noisy, busy, ego- infatuated world most needs is silence, interiority, self-discipline, and spirituality. And it is here that the Saint can be a splendid teacher” (76). Paul W. Robinson

THE CHURCH COMES FROM ALL NATIONS. By Volker Stolle. Klaus Detlev Schulz, trans. St. Louis: Concordia, 2003. 111 pages. Paper. $16.99.

From the perspective of the Counter Reformation, the Lutheran movement was perceived (and rejected) as a sect rather than as an expression of the church catholic. The clincher cited by Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit antagonist (1542-1621), was Lutheranism’s lack of mission outreach. Though that view could be written off as polemical overstatement, a much more lasting shadow was cast from within the Lutheran family by the “father of missiology,” Gustav Warneck (1834-1910), who viewed as deficient not merely the ministry of the Lutheran church, but more fundamentally the theology of Martin Luther. Largely due to his influence, historians of the Christian church and mission have tended to accept uncritically the view that the Reformers, for all their theological insight and passion, operated without a sense of mission. While it may be true that Lutherans were late-comers in the larger sweep of world mission outreach, it is both anachronistic and theologically suspect to measure missional impulse in programmatic and institutional terms. To restore proper focus on the missional impulse of Luther’s theology, Stolle, professor of mission and New Testament at the Lutheran seminary in Oberursel (Germany), has brought together some forty + excerpts of Luther, some longer (six pages) and some shorter (one paragraph), which radiate a missional bent to Luther’s theology. One of the striking things in this collection is the span and the variety represented, in terms both of periods of Luther’s career (1520s through 1546) and of genres of writing (commentaries and lectures, sermons, occasional writings, catechism, liturgical writings and hymns, table talk). What Stolle has put together, in other words, represents the consistent missional heartbeat of a life lived in service of the living, active Gospel.

450 To give organization to the variety of occasion and expression, Stolle has provided a thematic scheme: Biblical Foundations for Mission, Practical Realization of Mission, and History of Mission. That thematic approach does result in some duplication because some of Luther’s writings appear in more than one category. The individual excerpts are identified by their original document, title, and date, as well as by bibliographical citation of the (German) Weimar edition of Luther’s Works. Where the excerpts are available elsewhere in English translation, e.g., in the American Edition or in Lutheran Worship, Schulz (Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN) uses them and provides those references so that the reader without access to the German edition (or to German generally) can search for the wider context. Interestingly, the one translation excerpted from the Book of Concord uses the old Triglotta version. Unfortunately, the availability of prior translations for several of the sermons, in the old Lenker edition, was not noted (26 in Stolle in Sermons of Martin Luther, III.31ff., and 98 in VI,113ff.). To provide context for the excerpts, Stolle also provides helpful brief introductions, both to the monograph as well as to individual sections, and a summary epilogue. The additional index of Biblical references and the selected bibliography make this a usable reference resource. Perhaps in a second edition, it would be possible to supplement Stolle’s brief bibliography with additional resources. As fundamental as the bibliography is, seven of nine resources are German and not easily accessible to many who will use this book, and one of the two English references has yet to be published. In reality, many English-language studies have appeared in the twenty years since 1983 when Stolle’s work first appeared, including articles in Missio Apostolica (e.g., Scherer, 1994), in Concordia Theological Quarterly (e.g., Bunkowske, 1985), and even one that appeared originally in the Missionsblatt of the Bleckmar Mission under which Stolle had served: “Was Mission the ‘Great Omission’ in the Lutheran Reformation?” As mission in today’s world emerges from its Enlightenment and Christendom context, focus has properly turned from the programmatic and institutional expression of mission toward the missional orientation and impulse of Christian faith, ministry, and theology. This sampling of Luther has not only illustrated long-neglected aspects of Luther’s theology but has highlighted the pertinence of Martin Luther as a rich and seminal missional resource for the Lutheran church and for the church catholic. For Stolle’s work of love, mining Luther’s voluminous writings and compiling these representative selections, we are grateful, as we are also to Schulz’s work of translation and editing. Henry Rowold

COMENTARIO BÍBLICO CONCORDIA. By Walter R. Roerhs and Martin Franzmann. St. Louis: Concordia, 2004. 1448 pages. Cloth. $44.99.

The publication of the Comentario Bíblico Concordia has a long history. In 1947, The Concordia Bible with Notes was published as a revised edition of the original Self-Explaining Bible published earlier by the American Tract Society of New York. Later, Walter R. Roehrs and Martin H. Frazmann were requested to prepare entirely new notes to the study commentary, which they did. The New Testament notes appeared in 1971, and the commentary to the whole Bible in

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 451 1979, this time under the title of Concordia Self-Study Commentary. This commentary has been serving the Lutheran family and those dealing with Biblical studies for over two decades. Now, since 2004, we have this very same self-study commentary in the Spanish language under the title of Comentario Bíblico Concordia. It thus fills a gap in the libraries of those numerous readers of the Spanish language. The subtitle of the work defines well the major objective of the Comentario, namely, a “christocentrical and confessional approach to the Holy Scriptures.” This gives the book a traditional Lutheran conservative character. The names Roerhs and Franzmann also guarantee it. The OT introductions and notes were prepared by Roehrs, and the NT introductions and notes on the NT books and on the Minor Prophets were provided by Martin Franzmann. The Biblical text used as the basis of this volume is the Nueva Versión Internacional, the Spanish equivalent to the English New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. However, some other Spanish versions have also been consulted in this translation. The overall structure and layout of the Comentario is simple and straightforward. Both testaments have a general introduction to the OT (Roehrs) and NT (Franzmann) as a whole. After this, each book of the Bible has a specific introduction. The introductions of the different books of the Bible are brief and aim at setting the background and main features of the book. These book introductions generally follow a consistent pattern of a brief discussion about the content of the book, outline, its authorship, and some specific topics (if there are any). Even though the introduction is brief and avoids any detailed scholarly debate, the major and necessary information (including critical positions) are found there. The commentary does not lose either exegetical or theological depth by being brief and practical. And this is a major feature of the work. When it comes to the actual text of the different books of the Bible, the editors present an overall synopsis of the chapter, pericope, or larger section in focus. And then it goes to specific verses or topics with tailor-made type of comments avoiding repeating what is obvious in the text. The notes are short, clear, concise, and expanded where necessary for better understanding of the text. The editors try to deliver the information needed by the readers and no more. This is a positive feature of the work. The Comentario ends up with seven brief but extremely useful appendices and tables: OT and NT chronologies, the kings and prophets of Israel and of Judah, overview of OT messianic prophecy with a list of the major messianic texts, and finally a brief content summary of the Synoptic Gospels. These appendices should not be overlooked by the Comentario users. However, as expected, the breath of the work (it covers the whole Bible) does not allow answering all the questions that the reader may have in mind as he approaches the text. This is understandable and does not represent a problem. This Comentario represents a faithful translation of its English original Concordia Self-Study Commentary. The Spanish text represents a good level of language, easily readable and flowing smoothly. The team of translators and the Comentario editor did an excellent translation and editing job. In summary, this Spanish version of the Comentario is welcome to our Lutheran and Christian circles. It will surely benefit the Spanish speaking audience. Pastors, students, church leaders and families may consider having it on their shelf and using it as they go about their daily church and family tasks. †Deomar Roos

452 INTERMEDIATE HEBREW GRAMMAR. By Andrew E. Steinmann. College Sta- tion: Vitualbookworm.com Publishing, 2004. 168 pages. Paper. $19.95.

One of the most difficult transitions for students of Biblical Hebrew (hereafter BH) is making the shift from learning basic grammar to reading the Biblical text. Advanced grammars are often too complex to be of use because they often assume familiarity with linguistic terms that are unfamiliar to most students (e.g., Waltke/ O’Connor, Joüon/Muraoka). Andrew Steinmann—Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University, River Forest, IL—attempts to bridge this gap by offering a more advanced discussion of BH without using the technical jargon. He writes in his introduction: “The goal is to help students make the transition from basic grammatical study to actual use of their knowledge in reading and understanding the text.” Steinmann presents his grammar both for students who want to advance in Semitics as well for those who simply want help making the next step. The book has numerous examples; most are from the Torah, Former Prophets, and Writings while the Latter Prophets are not used as often. While footnotes are used sparingly, they are usually quite informative. For example, in one note Steinmann writes: “The ten most common prepositions are, in order, l, b, !m, la, l[,k, d[, ynpl, ~[ and txt” (87). What most elementary BH grammars lack—and what Steinmann provides— may be exemplified by his discussion on the preposition b. Beth may be spatial (translated “in, on, within, among, into, through”), temporal (“in, at, when”), instrumental (“with”), adversative (“against”), price (“for”), norm (expressing a state or condition) or distributive (denoting a distribution over time). Steinmann concludes each chapter with very helpful diagrams; there are twenty-two in the book. One such diagram clarifies the use of superlatives:

Superlatives in Hebrew

Singular construct noun Noun or adjective with followed by plural absolute pronominal suffix noun

Predicate adjective

Marked with the phase Divine designation lKomi (“in God’s estimation”)

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 453 One of the most perplexing problems in Hebrew verbal patterns is discerning the differences between the Qal and Piel. Steinmann contends that the difference is that of result and not intensification. His examples—especially from Judges 7:20—are convincing. This verse describes Gideon’s clay jars as being broken, which can hardly be done without shattering them into several shards. The verb in question is a Qal of rbv,,,,,,, not a Piel. There are several errors that the second edition will want to correct. For example, Jeremiah 10:9—abIWy vyviär>T;mi [QIrum... . @s,K,——is translated, “beaten gold is brought from Tarshish.” But the BH word for gold is bIhIzzz” not @s,K, which means “silver.” I also found errors on pages 119, 139, 142, and 144. Moreover, although Steinmann’s goal is to offer a practical and not a reference grammar, it would have been helpful if some of the standard intermediate and/or advanced grammars could have been cited. At least some interaction with these works would point advancing students in the right direction and enable them to use his book along- side other studies. Also lacking is an index of verses cited in the examples. These reservations aside, the author has provided a great service for those of us who teach BH as well as those who hunger and thirst for more of how this God- given language communicates the enduring words of Yahweh. Reed Lessing

454 Books Received

Boxall, Ian. THE REVELATION OF SAINT JOHN. Peabody: Henrickson, 2006. 347 pages. Cloth. $29.95. Brueggeman, Walter. THE BOOK THAT BREATHES NEW LIFE: Scriptural Au- thority and Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 226 pages. Cloth. $35.00. Day, John N. CRYING FOR JUSTICE: What the Psalms Teach Us about Mercy and Vengeance in an Age of Terrorism. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005. 199 pages. Paper. $14.99. Feinberg, John S. THE MANY FACES OF EVIL: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004. 544 pages. Paper. $35.00. Frost, Michael. EXILES: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. 334 pages. Paper. $19.95. Gerhard, Johann. Translated by Richard J. Dinda. ON THE NATURE OF THEOL- OGY AND SCRIPTURE. St. Louis: Concordia, 2006. 502 pages. Cloth. $49.99. Harrisville, Roy A. FRACTURE: The Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 310 pages. Paper. $20.00. Johnson, Douglas W. THE GREAT JESUS DEBATES: Early Church Battles about the Person and Work of Jesus. St. Louis: Concordia, 2005. 188 pages. Paper. $14.99. Mattes, Mark C. and Ronald R. Darge. IMAGING THE JOURNEY…OF CON- TEMPLATION, MEDIATATION, REFLECTION, AND ADVENTURE. Min- neapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2006. 128 pages. Cloth. $40.00. Perry, T. A. THE HONEYMOON IS OVER: Jonah’s Argument with God. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. 250 pages. Paper. $19.95. Smallman, Stephen E. SPRITIUAL BIRTHLINE: Understanding How We Expe- rience the New Birth. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006. 172 pages. Paper. $12.99. Towner, Phillip H. THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT: The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 934 pages. Cloth. $52.00. Van Seters, John. THE EDITED BIBLE: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. xvi+428 pages. Cloth. $39.50. Wilch, John R. CONCORDIA COMMENTARY RUTH: A Theological Exposition on Sacred Scripture. St. Louis: Concordia, 2006. 418 pages. Cloth. $42.99.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 455 Index of Volume 32

Since our page numbers are consecutive within a volume, the following key shows the page number for each reference.

Volume 32, Number 1—pages 1-124 Volume 32, Number 2—pages 125-252 Volume 32, Number 3—pages 253-364 Volume 32, Number 4—pages 365-460

Articles, Editorials, Grammarians Corner, Homiletical Helps, Review Es- says, Short Studies, and Theological Observers

Aspects of Lutheran Identity: A Confessional Perspective (Klän), 133-146. The Church’s Theological Practice of Liturgy: Clarifying Hermeneutical Bound- aries (Waddell), 2-16. The Formula of Concord as a Model for Discourse in the Church (Kolb), 189-210. Here We Stand Confessing the Faith in Luther’s Footsteps from Worms to Smalcald (Kolb), 175-188. If Jesus “Came Down from Heaven,” Where Does That Leave Me? (Rossow), 388- 395. Lay Elders—A Brief Overview of Their Origin in the Missouri Synod: Implications for Elders Today (Collver), 38-53. Luther Discovers the Gospel: Coming to the Truth and Confessing the Truth (Rosin), 147-160. Luther at Worms and the Wartburg: Still Confessing (Rosin), 161-174. “Pastor, Does God Really Respond to My Prayers?” (Lessing), 256-273. Praying to God the Father in the Spirit: Reclaiming the Church’s Participation in the Son’s Prayer Life (Sánchez), 274-295. Recte Administrantur Sacramenta: “Sacraments Administered Rightly” according to Augustana VII (Waddell), 371-380. Reflections on the Death of God (Maxwell), 381-387. The Situation at the Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of 1 Corinthians 11:21: A Reconsideration (Surburg), 17-37. “Theology”: Thoughts on the Roots of the Wittenberg Reformation (Koch), 296-300. Editor’s Note (Wesselschmidt), 126-127. Grammarian’s Corner (Voelz), 79-80, 211-213, 312-314, 401-403. Homiletical Helps: Advent (Cook, Egger, Weise, Saleska), 414-415, 415-417, 417-418, 419-421. All Saint’s Day (Nielsen), 404-406. Christmas (Nielsen), 421-424. Epiphany (Graudin, Lessing, Kumm, Sánchez, Egger, Sánchez, Lessing) 81- 82, 82-85, 85-86, 424-426, 426-427, 427-429, 429-432. Transfiguration (Graudin) 86-87. Lent (Gibbs, Maxwell, Kumm, Gibbs, Manteufel,) 87-89, 89-90, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93. Palm Sunday (Maxwell), 94-95. Easter (Burreson, Raj, Manteufel, Groll, Groll, Hartung, Hartung) 95-96, 98- 99, 99-100, 214-216, 216-219, 219-220, 220-221. Pentecost (Oschwald, Okamoto, Schmitt, Kolb, Carr, Carr, Kolb, Oschwald,

456 Okamoto, Schaper, Schaper, Herrmann, Herrmann, Fritsche, Bode, Wesselschmidt, Biermann, Fritsche, Wesselschmidt, Biermann, Rosin, Rosin, Cook, Lewis, Lewis), 222-223, 223-225, 225-227, 227-228, 228- 230, 230-232, 232-234, 234-236, 236-237, 315-316, 316-318, 318-319,319- 320, 320-321, 322-323, 323-325, 325-326, 326-328, 328-329, 330-331, 331-333, 404-406, 407-409, 409-412, 412-414. Reformation (Rosin), 333-334. In Memoriam: George Stiegler Robbert, 1925-2006 (Warneck), 366-367. Review Essays: Concordia: a Reader’s Edition (Arand and Robinson), 54-73. Luther and Paul (Slenczka and Mumme), 301-311. Philemon (Myers), 74-78. Short Studies: Still a Place for Confession, (Johnson), 396-400. Theological Observers: Groll: Pastoral Questions about Immigration Problems, 128-130. Lessing: Broken Teeth, Bloody Baths, and Baby Bashing: Is There Any Place in Church for Imprecatory Psalms?, 368-370. Saleska: On the Virtues of Just Hangin’ Out, 130-132. Voelz: Battle for the American Soul, 254-255.

Authors of Articles, Editorials, Grammarian’s Corner, Homiletical Helps, Review Essays, Short Studies, Theological Observers

Arand, Charles P., 54-73. Biermann, Joel D., 325-326, 330-331. Bode, Gerhard, 322-323. Burreson, Kent J., 95-97. Carr, William W. Jr., 228-230, 230-232. Collver, Albert, 38-53. Cook, Anthony A., 407-409, 414-415. Egger, Thomas, 415-417. Fritsche, Joel P., 320-321, 326-328. Gibbs, Jeffrey A., 87-89, 91-92. Graudin, Arthur F., 81-82, 86-87. Groll, Douglas, 128-130, 214-216, 216-219. Hartung, Bruce B., 219-220, 220-221. Herrmann, Erik H., 318-319, 319-320. Johnson, John F., 396-400. Klän,Werner, 133-146. Koch, Ernst, 296-300. Kolb, Robert A., 175-188, 189-210 227-228, 232-234. Kumm, Michael L., 85-86, 90-91. Lessing, R. Reed, 82-85, 256-273, 429-432. Lewis, David I., 409-412, 412-414. Manteufel, Thomas E., 92-93, 99-100. Maxwell, David R., 89-90, 94-95, 381-387. Myers, Larry W., 74-78. Nielsen, Glenn, 404-406, 421-424. Oschwald, Jeffrey A., 222-223, 234-236.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 457 Okamoto, Joel P., 223-225, 236-237. Raj, A.R. Victor, 98-99. Robinson, Paul W., 54-73. Rosin, Robert L., 147-160, 161-174, 331-333, 333-334. Rossow, Justin, 388-395. Saleska, Timothy E., 130-132, 419-421. Sánchez, Leopoldo A., 274-295, 424-426, 427-429. Schaper, Gary G., 315-316, 316-318. Schmitt, David R., 225-227. Surburg, Mark P., 17-37. Voelz, James W., 79-80, 211-213, 312-314, 254-255, 401-403. Waddell, James A., 2-16. Warneck, Richard H., 366-367. Weise, Robert W., 41-418. Wesselschmidt, Quentin, F., 126-127, 323-325, 328-329.

Book Reviews

APRIL 1865: The Month That Saved America. By Jay Winik (Boehme), 108-110. A CASE FOR AMILLENNIALISM: Understanding the End Times. By Kim Riddlebarger (Lessing), 111-112. BONHOEFFER: Pastor, Pacifist, Nazi Resister. By Martin Doblmeier (Becker), 358- 362. THE CHURCH COMES FROM ALL NATIONS. By Volker Stolle (Rowold), 450- 451. COMENTARIO BÍBLICO CONCORDIA. By Walter R. Roerhs and Martin Franzmann (†Roos), 451-452. THE CONCEPT OF BIBILICAL THEOLOGY. By James Barr (Lessing), 344-345. THE CROWDS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. By J. R. C. Cousland (Gibbs), 443-445. DIETRICH BONHOEFFER: A Brief Life. By Renate Bethage. Translated by K. C. Hanson (Becker), 358-362. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PRAYER AND PRAISE. Edited by Mark Water (Maschke), 347-349. THE ECUMENICAL LUTHER: The Development and Use of His Doctrinal Herme- neutics. By Richard P. Bucher (Ji), 434-435. FUNDAMENTAL BIBLICAL HEBREW AND FUNDAMENTAL BIBLICAL ARMAIC. By Andrew H. Bartelt and Andrew Steinmann (Saleska), 335-338. AN EXAMINED FAITH: The Grace of Self-Doubt. By James M. Gustafson (Becker), 349-354. GIVING THE SENSE: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts. Edited by David M. Howard, Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (Lessing), 119-121. GOD SAYS “MOVE!” Go Where He Leads. By Waldo J. Werning (Kiehl), 241-243. A HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: Vol. I. The Ancient Period. Ed- ited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson (Kolb), 118-119. INSCRIBING THE TEXT: Sermons and Prayers of Walter Brueggemann (Lessing), 345-347. INTERMEDIATE HEBREW GRAMMAR. By Andrew E. Steinmann (Lessing), 453-454.

458 JEREMIAH: Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary 15. By Terence E. Fretheim (Lessing), 239-241. JESUS DRIVEN MINISTRY. By Fernando Ajith (Kiehl), 121-122. JESUS REMEMBERED. Volume 1: Christianity in the Making. By James D. G. Dunn (Heckert), 247-249. A LETTER TO JABEZ: Response to a Prayer. By Neal E. Snider (Rossow), 105-107. LISTEN! GOD IS CALLING!”: Luther Speaks on Vocation, Faith, and Work. By Michael D. Bennethum (Maschke), 340-342. LUTHER AND HIS WORLD. By Graham Tomlin (Maas), 249-251. MARTIN LUTHER. By Michael A. Mullett (Maas), 249-251. MATTHEW’S BIBLE: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. By Maarten J. J. Menken (Gibbs), 436-438. ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Kenneth A. Kitchen (Lessing), 115-118. FROM PAUL TO VALENTIUS: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. By Peter Lampe (Holst), 445-447. PERSPECTIVES OLD AND NEW ON PAUL: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. By Stephen Westerholm (Herrmann), 342-343. THE POLITICS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL. By Norman Gottwald (Lessing), 103- 105. A PRIMER OF BIBLICAL GREEK. By N. Clayton Croy (Heckert), 122. PROVERBS AND ECCLESIASTES: Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. By Milton Horne (Lessing), 112-115. READINGS FROM THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST: Primary Sources for Old Testa- ment Study. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer (Ashmon), 101-102. REFLECTIONS ON THE BIBLE: Human Word and Word of God. By Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Translated by Manfred Weber (Becker), 358-362. RELIGION IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA. Jean Bottéro. Translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan (Lessing), 243-245. ROMAN WIVES, ROMAN WIDOWS: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. By Bruce W. Winter (Holst), 245-247. SERMON STUDIES ON SELECTED PSALMS. Edited by John A. Braun (Rehm), 339-340. SILENT MUSIC: The Life, Work, and Thought of St. John of the Cross. By R.A. Herrara (Robinson), 449-450. SINGING THE GOSPEL: Lutheran Hymns and the Success of the Reformation (Brauer), 338-339. THE SONG OF SONGS. By Christopher W. Mitchell (Saleska), 438-441. STORY AS TORAH: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically. By Gordon Wenham (Lessing), 441-443. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, Volume 13. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Rowold), 238-239. THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, Volume 14. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgern, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Rowold), 238-239. TREASURES OLD AND NEW: Essays in the Theology of the Pentateuch. By Joseph Blenkinsopp (Lessing), 447-449. THE VANISHING WORD: The Veneration of Visual Imagery in the Postmodern World. By Arthur W. Hunt (Boehme), 354-358.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/OCTOBER 2006 459 WITNESSING FOR PEACE: In Jerusalem and the World. By Munib Younan (Kiehl), 102-103. WORSHIP, GOTTESDIENTS, CULTUS DEI: What the Lutheran Confessions Say about Worship. By James L. Brauer (Ji), 433-434.

Reviewer of Books

Ashmon, Scott A., 101-102 Becker, Matthew L., 349-354, 358-362, Boehme, Armand J., 108-110, 354-358. Brauer, James L., 338-339. Gibbs, Jeffrey A., 436-438, 443-445. Heckert, Jakob, 122, 247-249. Herrmann, Erik, 342-343. Holst, Robert, 245-247, 445-447. Ji, Won Yong, 433-434, 434-435. Kiehl, Erich H., 102-103,121-122, 241-243. Kolb, Robert, 118-119. Lessing, Reed, 103-105, 111-112, 112-115, 115-118, 119-121, 239-241, 243- 245, 344-345, 345-347, 441-443, 447-449, 453-545. Maas, Korey, 249-251 Maschke, Timothy, 340-342, 347-349, XXX. Rehm, Merlin, 339-340. Robinson, Paul W., 449-450. †Roos, Deomar, 451-452. Rossow, Francis C., 105-107. Rowold, Henry L., 238-239, 450-451. Saleska, Timothy E., 335-338, 438-441.

460