Logia

a journal of lutheran theology

L  B T Epiphany 2001 volume x, number 1 ei[ ti" lalei',   wJ" lovgia Qeou' C A The cover art illustration is from a lithograph by Labouchere, printed by W. Zawitz, Berlin. Shown are logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes Martin Luther (center) with (left to right) Philipp articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theolo- Melanchthon, Johannes Bugenhagen, and Caspar gy that promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical Cruciger translating the Bible. Original in the collection Lutheran Church. We cling to God’s divinely instituted marks of of Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis, Missouri. the church: the gospel, preached purely in all its articles, and the The following is a translation of the information printed sacraments, administered according to Christ’s institution. This at the bottom of the lithograph: name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek, LOGIA “Painting by Labouch`ere [i.e. e-grave], Printed J. Hesse functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,” “learned,” or in Berlin, Engraved by Jab” “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” “Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger “words,” or “messages.” The word is found in  Peter :, Acts Translating the Bible”  ,   : and Romans : . Its compound forms include oJmologiva The cover art is provided by the Reverend Mark Loest, (confession), ajpologiva (defense), and ajvnalogiva (right relation- Assistant Director for Reference and Museum at ship). Each of these concepts and all of them together express the Concordia Historical Institute. purpose and method of this journal. LOGIA considers itself a free conference in print and is committed to providing an independent L is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic American Theological Library Association, Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our  S. Wacker Drive, Suite , Chicago, IL , journal we want our readers to find a love for the sacred E-mail: [email protected] v WWW: http://www.atla.com/ Scriptures as the very Word of God, not merely as rule and norm, but especially as Spirit, truth, and life which reveals Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life — Jesus Christ our Lord. FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without AC [CA] Augsburg Confession rancor, only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride AE Luther’s Works, American Edition of Christ, the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession bears every Christian through the Word of God,” as Martin Ep Epitome of the Formula of Concord Luther says in the Large Catechism (LC , ). We are animated FC Formula of Concord by the conviction that the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg LC Large Catechism Confession represents the true expression of the church which we LW Lutheran Worship confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. SA Smalcald Articles SBH Service Book and Hymnal SC Small Catechism LOGIA (ISSN #–) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy,  Lavant Drive, Crestwood, MO . Non-profit postage paid (permit #) at SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord Cresbard, SD and additional mailing offices. SL St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works POSTMASTER: Send address changes to L, , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Editorial Department:  Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Unsolicited material is Tappert The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical welcomed but cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. Lutheran Church. Trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert All submissions must be accompanied by a 300 word or less abstract of the article. Triglotta Concordia Triglotta Book Review Department: - Truemper Way, Fort Wayne, IN . All books received will be listed. TLH The Lutheran Hymnal Correspondence Department:  Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Letters selected for Tr Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope publication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed or computer printed, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. WA Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe [Weimar Edition] Logia Forum:  S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. Subscription & Advertising Department: , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Advertising rates and specifications are available upon request. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: U.S.A.: one year (four issues), ; two years CONTACT US YOUR FAVORITE WAY (eight issues), . Canada and Mexico: one year surface, ; one year air, .  . Overseas: one year air, ; one year surface, All funds in U.S. currency only. Phone ▲ -- Copyright © . The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publi- E-mail ▲ [email protected] cation may be reproduced without written permission. S Website ▲ www.logia.org Mail ▲ , rd Ave., Northville, SD  logiai a journal of lutheran theologyx

epiphany 2001 volume x, number 1 

 ......  

Preparing A New Bible Translation in Luther’s Day Arnold J. Koelpin ...... 

Bible Translations among Luther’s Heirs Andrew E. Steinmann ...... 

Caveat Emptor! Let the Buyer—and the Reader—Beware! Armand Boehme ...... 

Does Method Drive Biblical Study? Kenneth Hagen ...... 

Lutheran Hermeneutics David P. Scaer ...... 

 ......  R E: Confessions of a Church Growth Enthusiast: An Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran Takes a Hard Look at the Church Growth Movement. By Kent Hunter. Review by Klemet Preus Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. By Bernhard Lohse. Review by John Arthur Maxfield “The Way to Heavens Doore”: An Introduction to Liturgical Process and Musical Style. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By Steven Plank. Review by Brian J. Hamer A Theology of Music for Worship Derived from the Book of Revelation. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By Thomas Allen Seel. Review by Brian J. Hamer Hymnology: A Collection of Source Reading. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By David W. Music. Review by Brian J. Hamer Music in Early Christian Literature. The Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music. By James McKinnon. Review by Brian J. Hamer The Bestman, the Bride, and the Wedding. By Michael L. McCoy. Review by Michael R. Scudder A Little One amidst the Shadows. By Michael L. McCoy. Review by Michael R. Scudder

  ......  On Translating • Truth, Unity, Love • Uniform Ceremonies • For Barbers and Others The Common Service • A Confessional Revival in Worship • Clubbing the World Tetelesthai • Luther on Music in the Schools • St. Peter’s Confession   

Inklings by Jim Wilson ......  A Call for Manuscripts ......  C

j

To the editors: To be sure, the majority of orthodox The dispute about receptionism and Lutheran theologians since the time of consecrationism has been a vexing h L often publishes articles that the Reformation have held the opinion question for confessional Lutheranism take some unusual approaches to theo- that Christ’s body and blood are present for a number of years and shows no logical questions. This may not be out only at the distribution and reception sign of going away, but the point of of place for a journal that regards itself of the elements, but I have never met, difference has never been the cause of as a kind of “free conference in print.” heard of, or read anyone who believed Christ’s presence, since there has not But even by this standard the article that anything other than the words of been any disagreement about this. “The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Christ were the cause of his presence Despite Murray’s disclaimers, the issue Relationship to Justification” by Scott (FC , Neg. ). The belief that only has always been whether it is possible R. Murray (Holy Trinity , –) Christ’s word is the cause of the pres- to fix dogmatically the time when had to leave many readers scratching ence is held by everyone or nearly Christ’s presence begins. In the past the their heads. everyone that could be called a recep- majority of orthodox theologians have In this article Murray claims that the tionist, so this belief certainly cannot held the opinion that the presence so-called receptionist view of Christ’s be used as a definition of consecra- began at the time of distribution and presence in the Lord’s Supper is a syner- tionism in opposition to receptionism. reception. A minority held the opinion gist denial of justification because it I don’t know anyone in the Lutheran that the presence begins at the conse- makes man’s action of eating and drink- church that would meet Murray’s cration. Neither party made this a divi- ing the cause of the presence of Christ’s definition of a receptionist. Murray pre- sive issue for the church, since it is not body and blood in the sacrament. sents no examples to justify his claim. possible to answer this question dog- Repeatedly throughout the article Although he laments that his theologi- matically from Scripture. It really is not Murray asserts that according to recep- cal hero Francis Pieper held the recep- proper to label these two groups of the- tionism the act of eating and drinking tionist position, he acknowledges that ologians as receptionists and consecra- causes the presence of Christ’s body and the evidence in Pieper’s dogmatics does tionists since, in general, neither party blood in and with the bread and wine. not fully support this claim of his, since understood this as a divisive issue, but He also asserts that “consecrationism is Pieper cites with approval the statement as a theological opinion. If the label shorthand for the teaching that the of the Formula of Concord that the consecrationist has any validity, it is as Word of God alone causes the sacra- words of Christ are the cause of the shorthand for those who insist on fixing mental union of the bread and the body presence (Pieper ,  ff.). Murray the beginning of Christ’s sacramental of Christ and the wine and the blood of attributes this to a “felicitous inconsis- presence at the consecration and who Christ.” He goes so far as to assert that tency” on the part of Pieper, but the insist that this issue is divisive of church “modern-day receptionists readily problem here lies not with Pieper, but fellowship. Recently, there has been admit that the reception itself causes the with Murray’s failure to understand and some movement toward healing the presence.” It is this last claim that was to state Pieper’s position correctly. fractures that this issue has caused in especially puzzling to this reader, since Pieper was a receptionist in the sense European Lutheranism. Articles like this in more than twenty years of rather that he held the opinion that Christ’s one, which so distort the respective intensive study of this subject I have body and blood are present only at the positions and perpetuate caricatures, never run across even a single modern- distribution and reception, but neither will not contribute to an understanding day receptionist who believed that the he nor any other receptionist that I and resolution of the issues. act of reception causes the presence of know saw any contradiction between John F. Brug Christ. I would be very interested to this belief and the belief that Christ’s Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary receive a list of these people. Word is the only cause of his presence. Mequon WI

 Preparing A New Bible Translation in Luther’s Day

A J. K

j

 L    before him the poten- ble translating Job, on account of the grandeur of his sublime tial of printing in the service of the gospel. The tran- style, that he seems to be more impatient of our efforts to turn M scription of this one man’s words and works today com- him into German than he was of the consolations of his friends.” prises over one hundred folio volumes of approximately seven And then he added with a chuckle, “Either he always wishes to sit hundred pages each. For those who felt that such scholarly enter- upon his dunghill, or else he is jealous of the translator who would prise was a comfortable activity compared with the hard work of share with him the credit of writing his book.”⁵ the knight in armor or others who must suffer heat, frost, dust, To learn what it meant to prepare a new Bible translation in thirst, and other discomforts, Luther had an answer. “I would like Luther’s day, therefore, we must enter the craftsman’s shop, watch to see the horseman who could sit still for a whole day looking at him at work, note his techniques, share his problems, and listen to a book, even if he did not have to compose, think, or read or the counsel of experience. Heinz Bluhm in his book Martin worry about anything else.” “A pen is light, to be sure,” he mused, Luther: Creative Translator assures us that the effort is rewarding. “but at the same time the best part of the human body (the head) Luther’s Bible exemplifies for him what a translation ought to be. . . . has to bear the brunt and do the most work. Some say of writ- There are “many breathtaking discoveries to be made in [it],” he ers that three fingers do everything, but the whole body and soul relates. “I for one have found every step exciting, and I am con- take part in the work.”¹ vinced others, too, will find their own ventures into this rich field The greatest product of Luther’s pen remains his translation of equally rewarding.”⁶ Even non-technicians in the language arts the Bible into German.² The great reformer was quick to acknowl- need not fear to step into the dear doctor’s study. The end prod- edge that all his writing efforts were unimportant compared to the uct of his efforts may remain foreign to us who no longer read the text of the Holy Scriptures. In a Christmas sermon published in German Bible. But in spite of the language barrier, the venture can December, , shortly after his New Testament first came out, prove beneficial for those who are willing to catch the spirit of the Luther frankly told the congregation: master at work and to learn from his experience.

You see from this babbling of mine the immeasurable LUTHER’S NEW BIBLE TRANSLATION difference between the word of God and all human words, Luther was by no means the first German to attempt a new trans- and how no man can adequately reach and explain a single lation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular. We have long ago word of God with all his words .... Go to the Bible itself, laid to rest the “Protestant legend” that for centuries Rome had dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all hidden the Bible out of man’s reach until the young friar, Martin scholars be no more than a tool with which to build aright, Luther, while rummaging through a monastery library, discovered so that we can understand, taste, and abide in the simple and it and translated it. Ever since the advent of Gutenberg’s press in pure word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion.³ about  the demand for Bibles in the people’s language was growing, especially in the Holy Roman Empire. Prior to Luther’s This awe and reverence that Luther felt for God’s word indicate rendition, no fewer than fourteen High German Bibles and four his primary motive for translating the Bible. But in no way does Low German editions appeared on the market. In addition, the story of the Bible translation end there. Translation work countless Plenaria, selected Bible readings translated for use in the involved more than respect for the Holy Scripture. The transfer mass, were in circulation. from language to language taxed Luther’s writing talents as no But we have overshot the mark if we imagine that Luther began other work. The same man who confidently challenged the his work in a friendly atmosphere. The orthodox Roman Catholic Roman church by affirming, “God’s word is supreme above all the questioned whether such ventures were advisable. The authorities words of men,”⁴ likewise complained to his friend Spalatin about opposed promiscuous Bible reading and translation on the the difficulties in translating that word: “We have so much trou- grounds that they fostered heresy and sects. Interestingly, the Archbishop of Mainz even expressed doubts whether the Bible could be transferred into the German language. Yet in saying so, A J. K is professor of religion and social studies at Martin he was only covering a deeper concern, shared by many: “Who Luther College in New Ulm, Minnesota, and a L contributing editor. would enable simple and uneducated men, and even women, to    pick out the true meaning?”⁷ He was not half as harsh as the Despite the difficulties, the entire Bible came off the press twelve Dominican Mensing, who voiced his antagonism in no uncertain years after the New Testament. terms. “The Scripture can deceive,” he declared. “The church can- But what Luther learned along the way did not leave him not deceive. Therefore it is perfectly clear that the church is more satisfied with the finished product. From the beginning, he had than the Scripture.”⁸ consulted with his colleagues for suggestions to improve the text. By the time the work was reaching completion, he had gathered a sizeable group of advisers who met at his home to revise the text. Luther molded these men into a translation team whose advice he Luther molded these men into a transla- sought in five major text revisions before his death.¹⁴ He liked to ff tion team whose advice he sought in five refer to them a ectionately as his “sanhedrin.” With the modesty of a master craftsman, he credited their participation in the trans- major text revisions before his death. lation process, saying, “If all of us were to work together, we would nb have plenty to do in bringing the Bible to light, one working with the meaning, the other with the language. For I too have not worked at this alone, but have used the services of anyone whom One of Luther’s consistent opponents capped the argument I could get.”¹⁵ against translations by using the Scriptures themselves: In the final analysis, however, the work was still Luther’s, and he bore the responsibility. Fortunately we still possess the protocol of Holy Writ warns us, when our Savior says, “It is given to you the  and – meetings of the revision commission. They to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to the rest remain for us one of the richest sources in getting behind the in parables, that seeing they see not, and hearing they under- scenes in the translation process. Present on a regular basis were stand not.” Who are those to whom the Lord says, “To you it Melanchthon, a skilled philologist and specialist in Greek; is given?” Surely it is to the Apostles and their successors, the Matthew Aurogallus, Hebrew consultant; Caspar Cruciger, pro- rulers of Christ’s flock. And who are they that should learn fessor of theology; and Luther’s famous secretary, George Roerer, by parables? Surely such people who would be better off not who also doubled as corrector for the Lufft printers. On occasion knowing the mysteries, lest they gain a greater damnation by John Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Veit Dietrich, Bernard Ziegler, misusing them. For “precious stones are not to be cast before and Caspar Aquila also attended. The protocols of the meetings dogs,” and in all likelihood these are the ignorant lay people.⁹ reveal that Luther not only chaired the sessions, but also had the final say regarding additions or corrections to the Bible text. Such loose talk could not deter Luther from his resolve to trans- One of Luther’s table companions has preserved the scene of late. His own experience in the church had taught him that “all holy these meetings for us. (The scholars usually assembled in the teachers . . . count as nothing over against a single passage of Holy Black Cloister a few hours prior to the evening meal.) Scripture.”¹⁰ Love for his people moved him to bring this sacred treasure into their hands. “The devil hit upon a fine trick when he Luther prepared himself by reading his own text, and by schemed to tear people away from Scripture,” he said. But “every obtaining information from Jews and linguistic experts, Christian should know the ground of, and reason for, his faith and including elderly Germans, who helped him find appropri- be able to maintain and defend it if necessary.” One month before ate words, as when he had several rams slaughtered in his he set his hand to the translation task, he wrote to a friend, “I am presence, so that a German butcher could tell him the prop- born for my Germans, whom I want to serve.”¹¹ As Doctor of the er name for each part of the sheep. After that he came into Bible and lecturer on the same at the University of Wittenberg, the consistorium with his old Latin and with his new Luther felt the great burden of his call. At the urging of his friends, German Bible, as well as with the Hebrew original. especially Melanchthon, he almost abruptly resolved to provide a Melanchthon brought the Greek text along and Cruciger readable German Bible for the benefit of the people. both the Hebrew and Chaldean Bible. The professors also Little could Luther forecast at the beginning what a wealth of had their rabbinical commentaries available. Bugenhagen, experience this work alone would bring. In retrospect he could who was thoroughly acquainted with the Latin text, had this boast without blushing, “The Scriptures are a vast forest, but in front of him. Each one had studied the text that was to be there’s no tree in it that I haven’t shaken with my hand.”¹² The discussed and had examined Greek and Latin, as well as New Testament translation was finished in eleven weeks in . Jewish, commentators. The chairman introduced the text, The Old Testament yielded more reluctantly to his efforts. “We are gave each an opportunity to state his point of view, and lis- sweating over the work of putting the Prophets into German,” tened to the comments that were based on linguistic schol- Luther confessed. arship or the early authorities. Wonderful and informative discussions are said to have taken place, of which Master God, how much of it there is, and how hard it is to make these George took notes, which were afterwards printed as glosses Hebrew writers talk German! They resist us, and do not want and annotations on the margin of the printed Bible.¹⁶ to leave their Hebrew and imitate our German barbarisms. It is like making a nightingale leave her own sweet song and imitate Reading the minutes of the Psalms’ revision, we can savor the the monotonous voice of a cuckoo, which she detests.¹³ roles of both the master and his assistants. When the discussion       proceeded to his satisfaction, Luther would often end it with the plagiarized much of Luther’s work and then, in the days before the approval, “That’s it!” (das wers) or “I’m satisfied” (mihi placet). At copyright, palmed off the finished product as his own. times he firmly answered, “That’s the way I translated before and Stung by the unfairness of such action, Luther used the opportu- that’s the way it stays!” or else he freely admitted that he had not nity to make public a defense of his New Testament. He published found what he wanted: “We just don’t have a German word.” At it under the title On Translating: An Open Letter. For the readers’ other times he felt they had found a perfect expression, but it benefit Luther shared the problems he faced in transferring the New seemed too daring to place into the text. He would then voice his Testament into a living German. Within a year he followed with a regrets with a sigh, “That would have been nice!”¹⁷ companion pamphlet, in which he candidly revealed similar A sample of Roerer’s minutes illustrates the method of proce- difficulties he encountered in bridging the gulf between the Hebrew dure in preparing the text revision. The men regularly conversed Old Testament and the German. It was sold under the title Defense in Latin, interspersed with German. The committee in this case of the Translation of the Psalms. These two pamphlets, added to the was considering Psalm : in the  edition of the Psalter. There minutes of the committee meetings, stand out as mines of infor- Luther had translated: “Therewith you bring joy into my heart, mation on Luther at work in translation. In them the craftsman but they get gross when they enjoy corn and must.” Luther began opens his heart and our eyes to the secrets of his art. the exchange by getting at the meaning of the words with para- phrases. “Make my heart rejoice,” he said,

that is, Thou art the joy of my heart, I have no other joy but Luther also produced a revised Thee; it is Thou that makest my heart rejoice. They puff themselves up because they have so much wine and corn; edition of the Latin Vulgate for they do not care for the joy of the heart, but the joys of the use among the cultured class. belly they desire. Thou makest the heart rejoice, but they are nb troubled about nothing.

In that way the thought was thrown around, seeking expression But Luther did not isolate his work on the Bible text from con- in words. cerns about its practical use among the people. In the twenty-four Now Melanchthon had evidently added something, for Luther years between the Wartburg stay and his death in , he had continues, done more than translate the Bible into German and preside over its revision. He also produced a revised edition of the Latin Yes, that is spoken right softly, genuinely Philip-like and soft Vulgate for use among the cultured class. More important, for the stepping. I will speak clearly. They desire to be emperors and common folk Luther composed “Prefaces” to accompany the though they had an abundance of bread and wine, that is, books of the Bible. He intended these introductions to help the they attain plenty, they are still not profited, but they only reader discern the message of God’s word in each book. “Necessity wish that they have to eat and to drink. The meaning of the demands,” he explained, “that there should be a notice or preface, Psalm verse is: The righteous suffer want, while the ungodly by which the ordinary man can be rescued from his former delu- eat and drink. They regard, seek, and value much corn and sions, set on the right track, and taught what he is to look for in much wine. They believe in Mammon. Let them have it. this book, so that he may not seek laws and commandments Thou delightest my heart, even though they have their fill of where he ought to be seeking the gospel and promises of God.”²⁰ corn and wine.¹⁸ Among the biblical books, the Psalms came in for special treat- ment. Since the Psalter served best as a Christian prayerbook, the After the meaning of the text was established in this manner, we are Doctor put out a separate printing of summaries (Summarien) not surprised to read the following simple and smooth rendition consisting of brief paraphrases of each psalm’s essential message. of Psalm : in the  edition: “Thou delightest my heart, even From the very first edition of the printed Bible, he also placed though they have abundant wine and corn.” notes or glosses in the margins. The annotated Bible gave helpful If this exchange among friends helped to sharpen the under- interpretive comments for the reader to ponder. Not a year passed standing of the Bible text, it also compelled Luther to formulate in the life of this busy man without some work related to the Bible his principles of translating for his co-workers. On one occasion publication. From the Wittenberg presses alone twenty-one he noted, “Dr. Forster and Ziegler conferred with us about our different editions of the New Testament and eleven editions of the version and gave us much help.” “I gave them three rules,” he said complete Bible appeared during Luther’s lifetime. Dr. Luther’s and then proceeded to spell them out.¹⁹ But, as often happens, the new Bible translation was a life-long effort. opposition forced him to discuss at length the basic issues of translation. His Roman antagonists had combed through his TRANSLATING INTO THE VERNACULAR German Bible and indicated irregularities and additions that had The translation of the Luther Bible speaks for itself. At least, so crept in. To counteract what they felt was the sinister influence of Luther would have us believe. With characteristic modesty he the Luther Bible, a “reliable” New Testament translation () offered his Bible to the world for criticism. “I translated . . . to the came out under the guidance of the ardent Roman Catholic best of my ability,” he stated. “I have compelled no one to read it, Jerome Emser. Comparisons revealed that the man actually had but have left that open, doing the work only as a service to those   who could not do it better. No one is forbidden to do a better “abundance of the bench” is German. But the mother in the piece of work.”²¹ In response, the German-speaking world has home and the common man say this, “What fills the heart ever since applauded his effort as a high-water mark in the devel- overflows the mouth.” That is speaking good German, the opment of their language. Even Luther’s bitterest opponent, John kind I have tried for.²⁶ Cochlaeus, admitted to the popularity of the Luther Bible: “The taylor and the cobbler, yes even women and other simple idiots Luther supplemented this deep sensitivity to modes of expres- who become adherents of the new Lutheran Gospel, eagerly read sion in the mother tongue with an equally great concern for (his New Testament) . . . although they have only learned to read reproducing the text from the original language. His Hebrew a little German.” studies began early in his career. Already as a student at Erfurt Cochlaeus has provided us with one clue to the secret of University, he had obtained, soon after the book appeared, a copy Luther’s success as translator. The Reformer consciously sought to of the first Hebrew grammar published in Germany. Later he shape the translation to meet the people’s need. He selected those worked from the Brecian edition of the Hebrew Bible, put out by words that could be read and understood by all classes of people. the Soncino Press. But Luther’s Hebrew knowledge was, for the He took the raw material from court language and from the mar- most part, self-taught. “I have learned more Hebrew by continu- ketplace. By his own analysis, the language of the Saxon court was ing to read and by comparing one text with another, than by peculiarly suited to his purposes because of its universal appeal in working with a grammar,” he freely admitted. “I am no Hebrew the empire. student according to the rules of linguistics, for I go my own way, “I speak in agreement with the usage of the Saxon court, which unbound.”²⁷ is favored by the princes and kings of Germany, and which is therefore the most universal form of the language,” he explained, and then stated the reason why this happened to be the case. “Maximilian [the emperor] and Frederick the Wise [Elector of He selected those words that could Saxony] have been able to unite all local dialects into one form. Thus it will be possible for me to be understood in different sec- be read and understood by all tions of the country.”²³ classes of people. While the official language of his province provided a base of operation from which to work, the word choice in Luther’s Bible nb is actually a blend of the dignity of the court and the directness of street language. On one occasion Luther confessed, By this expression Luther meant that he was not satisfied with I try to speak as men do in the marketplace. Didactic, philo- a mere grammatical approach to the study of Hebrew. He wanted sophic, and sententious books are, therefore, hard to trans- to savor the language in its own uniqueness. “The Hebrew lan- late, but narrative easy. In rendering Moses, I make him so guage has its own flavor, which distinguishes it from Greek, Latin, German that no one would know that he was a Jew.²⁴ and German,” he explained. “It is the best of all and richest in vocabulary. It does not need to ‘beg’ as do other languages that do Luther himself attributed the freshness of his style over against not have a word of their own for many things and who must that of others to his ventures out among the common folk: therefore borrow parts of other words and combine them into a new one.” The word heart is a good example. “With the word We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to ‘heart’ we mean a part of our bodies,” he informs us. speak German, as these asses do. Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the home, the children on the But we say also that someone has no heart, and then mean street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be that he is afraid and fearful. We also use the expression “my guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our heart tells me.” And “his heart burns in him,” by which we translating accordingly. That way they will understand it and mean that he is angry. The Hebrew, however, has a distinc- recognize that we are speaking German to them.²⁵ tive word for all such cases. And yet this language is simple, and at the same time majestic and glorious.²⁸ One illustration will help us understand Luther’s concern. The Scripture passage comes from Matthew :. Jesus is mak- In the preface to the  edition of the Psalms, Luther further ing the point that our speech reveals what is in the heart, just as explained the importance of knowing the original language. a tree shows whether it is good or bad by its fruits. In Latin this passage reads, as in English, “Out of the abundance of the heart The Hebrew language is so rich that no other can compare the mouth speaks.” “Tell me,” Luther asks, “is that speaking with it. It possesses many words for singing, praising, glori- German? . . . What is ‘the abundance of the heart’? No German fying, honoring, rejoicing, sorrowing, etc., for which we have can say that .... but one. Especially in sacred and divine matters is it rich in words. It has at least ten names with which to name God, For “abundance of the heart” is not German, any more than whereas we have only one word. It may therefore be rightly “abundance of the house,” “abundance of the stove,” or called a holy tongue.²⁹      

We can well imagine from this description the difficulties Luther criticize us, to be sure,” he anticipated, “and even some pious souls experienced in transferring expressions from the richness of the may take offense.” Despite the objections, Luther called for a Hebrew language to the vocabulary of the Saxon peasant. responsible freedom in translating the text. “What is the point of Learning Greek proved to be less difficult for Luther, even needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words though he began to study Greek later than he did Hebrew. The ear- which one cannot understand anyway?” he asked. And then he liest trace of its use we find in his lectures on the book of Romans answered his own question by explaining the methodology he fol- in . During that year the renowned teacher Erasmus had come lowed. “Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew out with the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. This style.... Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let edition, based on some late copies of the ordinary Byzantine text, him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the was a landmark in the history of Bible transmission. If previously best German he knows.”³² Luther had lectured solely from the Latin Vulgate, he now began frequent independent explanations of Greek words. After Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg, he became Luther’s counselor in the Greek language. The Doctor attended Master Melanchthon’s In Luther’s eyes, however, a person lectures on Homer “in order to become a Greek.” But we overestimate Luther’s knowledge of Greek if we imagine who knows the languages has taken that he made the initial translation of the New Testament in such only the first step in translating. a short time without the aid of other translations. The second edi- nb tion of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, which Luther had with him at the Wartburg, also contained Erasmus’ notations for the improvement of the Latin text. Comparisons today indicate that Another instance underscores the point. In Psalm  Luther Luther both used and rejected many of the annotations of avoided a literal translation because it did not carry the meaning Erasmus. The same holds true concerning the Vulgate, which he to the reader. Word for word the text would read, “When their had lying close at hand for constant reference. hair is gray they will still bloom and be fat and green.” “But what In Luther’s eyes, however, a person who knows the languages does this mean?” he asks. has taken only the first step in translating. The real task lay in con- veying the thought of a passage. This cannot always be done mere- The psalm had been comparing the righteous to trees, to ly by translating words from one language to another. If one fol- palm trees and cedars [verse ], which have no “gray hair,” lows this procedure, the result can often prove disastrous. The neither are they “fat” (by which a German means an oily or translation becomes wooden and unintelligible. greasy substance [schmalz], and thinks of a hefty paunch). Take Psalm  for example. In his initial effort Luther had trans- But the prophet here intends to say that the righteous are lated word for word: “Let my soul be filled as with lard and fat, so such trees, which bloom and are fruitful and flourishing that my mouth may make praise with joyful lips.” The Hebrew even when they grow old.³³ image of a soul filled with lard and fat must have conjured up a most humorous picture, especially to the generally rotund German folk. Luther gleaned this thought not merely from the text but from The sense was lost by such a literal transfer. So Luther reworked the other portions of the Scriptures. The word of God teaches that the phrase. “By ‘lard and fat’ the Hebrews mean joy,” he reasoned, righteous abide forever. Psalm : says of the righteous that “his leaf shall not wither.” And Christ himself declares that “every just as a healthy and fat animal is happy and, conversely, a plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, must be rooted happy animal grows fat, a sad animal loses weight and grows up,” Matthew :. Therefore in a free rendition Luther trans- thin, and a thin animal is sad.... [Thus] we have relin- ferred “When their hair is gray they will still bloom and be fat and quished the Hebrew words and rendered the passage in clear green” into the more intelligible “Even when they grow old, they German like this, “It would be my heart’s joy and gladness, if will nevertheless bloom, and be fruitful and flourishing.” In doing I were to praise thee with joyful lips.”³⁰ so, he was well aware that this sort of treatment “may perhaps irri- tate Master Know-it-all, who does not bother about how a By rewording he had successfully removed the stumbling-block German is to understand this text but simply sticks to the words for those who read God’s word in the vernacular. scrupulously and precisely, with the result that no one under- From this perspective we can begin to understand why Luther stands the text.” But he did not care, because the burden lay with frequently took a crack at those who artificially bound themselves the critic. “We have taken nothing from the meaning, and we have to grammar. Such word-bound translations he called “rabbini- rendered the words clearly.”³⁴ cal.” In opposition to the woodenness of the grammarians, Luther None of Luther’s textual renditions has stirred up more criti- followed the rule “that wherever the words could have given or cism than his addition of the word “alone” to the text of Romans tolerated an improved meaning, there we did not allow ourselves :: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone to be forced by the artificial Hebrew [Gemachte Grammatica] of without the deeds of the law.” The defense of that addition to the the rabbis into accepting a different inferior meaning.”³¹ German text forms the core of his open letter On Translating.³⁵ At Luther knew he was running “quite a risk (by) relinquishing the stake in this passage was not only the principle of idiomatic trans- words and rendering the sense.” “For this many know-it-alls will lation, but also the heart of Luther’s biblical theology. We all rec-   ognize “justification by faith alone” as the watchword for the How does one then establish the simple, literal sense of a pas- Lutheran Reformation. But the argument in favor of the retention sage? Here, according to Luther, Scripture itself comes to our res- of the word “alone” in the Bible text has receded into the back- cue. Each passage has both a historical and a theological context. ground for non-German-speaking Lutherans. The simple truth is “Scripture,” he affirmed, “is its own interpreter” for those who that the word “alone” does not occur in the original Greek text. would hear.³⁹ In a marginal notation Luther explains for us his And Luther felt free to quote the passage without the addition, as understanding of the larger context of Scripture. It has to do with he did in the Smalcald Articles. Moses and Christ, with the law and the gospel, with the purpose In considering the meaning of the passage, however, he flatly of the old covenant and the new. asserted that the “alone” conveys the sense of the text. “It belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous.” The explanation If the Old Testament can be interpreted by human wisdom is simple: “It is the nature of our German language that in speaking without the New Testament, I should say that the New of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use Testament has been given to no purpose. So Paul concluded the word solum (allein) [alone] along with the word nicht [not.]” that “Christ died to no purpose” if the Law were Luther illustrates this trait by various German examples, as, for sufficient.... Others make a detour and purposely, as it instance, the farmer who comes to town and brings alone (allein) were, avoid Christ, so do they put off approaching Him with grain and no (kein) money. In transferring Paul’s words into the text. As for me, when I arrive at a text that is like a nut German idiom, therefore, Luther contended that the German with a hard shell, I immediately dash it against the Rock instinctively feels the force of an “only.” “Actually the text itself and [Christ] and find the sweetest kernel.⁴⁰ the meaning of St. Paul urgently require and demand it,” he point- ed out, since the passage deals with a main point of Christian doc- Luther kept these concerns for a literal translation, so under- trine. In it “Paul cuts away all works so completely . . . [that] who- stood, constantly before him. We find them reflected in a table ever would speak plainly and clearly about this . . . will have to say, conversation in the year , at the height of his translation ‘Faith alone justifies us, and not works.’ The matter itself, as well as efforts. There Luther enunciated two rules that he followed in the nature of the language, demands it.”³⁶ translating the Holy Scripture: In view of the foregoing, it may come as a surprise to learn that Dr. Luther was actually a champion of the literal understanding of First, if some passage is obscure I consider whether it treats Scripture. For him responsible freedom in translation applied only of grace or of law, whether wrath or the forgiveness of sin [is to the selection of words in one idiom that best conveyed the mean- contained in it], and with which of these it agrees better. By ing of a corresponding set of words in another. But one was not free this procedure I have often understood the most obscure to pervert the meaning of a text by the choice of words. Finding the passages. Either the law or the gospel has made them mean- right word was one matter; finding the right meaning was another. ingful, for God divides his teaching into law and gospel. The What then does “literal” mean when it refers to the sense or law, moreover, has to do either with civil government or with meaning of a text? For Luther it stood in contrast to the generally economic life or with the church.... So every prophet either accepted manner of interpretation in his day. At the university he threatens and teaches, terrifies and judges things, or makes a had learned to look at a Bible passage in four different ways. The promise. Everything ends with this, and it means that God is meaning could be taken literally, in a historical sense; allegorical- your gracious Lord. This is my first rule in translation. ly, as a picture of the church; tropologically, with reference to the The second rule is that if the meaning is ambiguous I ask moral state; or anagogically, as rising above the literal sense to a those who have a better knowledge of the language than I have future blessedness. Thus Mount Zion could refer historically to whether the Hebrew words can bear this or that sense which the home of the Jews; allegorically, to the temple or its representa- seems to me to be especially fitting. And that is most fitting tives; tropologically, to righteousness; and anagogically, to the which is closest to the argument of the book. The Jews go blessedness of eternal life. astray so often in the Scriptures because they do not know the But after Luther’s breakthrough to an understanding of [true] contents of the books. But if one knows the contents, Scripture in terms of God’s revelation of himself in law and that sense ought to be chosen which is nearest to them.⁴¹ gospel, he discarded the old formulas. “One must not do such vio- lence to the words of God as to give to any word a meaning other While these rules of translation helped Luther unfold the sense than its natural one, unless there is clear and definite Scripture to of the Bible text, they do not always solve the ever-present prob- do that,” he asserted.³⁷ Since his Roman opponent Jerome Emser lem of finding the right words to express the meaning. There were defended the manifold sense of Scripture in his translation work, times, especially with regard to doctrine, when Luther could not Luther countered by saying, “Even though the things described in find German expressions to cover the meaning of the text. At such Scripture mean something further, Scripture should not therefore times he discarded his hopes of speaking the people’s language. have a twofold meaning. Instead, it should retain the one mean- He simply translated the words from the original with little regard ing to which the words refer.” In this connection Luther made the for the German ear. well-known statement, “The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer and A good example is Psalm :. The verse reads: “Thou hast adviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive.” Luther could no more than the one simplest meaning which we call the written have translated in a more readable fashion, “Thou hast set the one, or the literal meaning of the tongue.”³⁸ captives free.” But he felt that was too weak. It simply did not con-       vey the fine, rich meaning of the Hebrew. In explanation, Luther acknowledge that I am one who is more deeply moved, more car- pointed out how much depends on these words. The passage ried away, more strongly inspired by poetry, than through any “does not imply merely that Christ freed the captives,” he said, prose style. Since that is true in general of me you can understand “but also that he captured and led away the captivity itself, so that how much more this is true in relation to the Psalms.”⁴⁵ it never again could or would take us captive again . . . death can But in seeking a readable text, he especially had the people in no longer hold us, sin can no longer incriminate us, the law can mind. He could rightfully boast how smoothly the story of Job no longer accuse our conscience.... Therefore out of respect for reads in the German, even though he sometimes looked three such doctrine, and for the comforting of our conscience,” Luther weeks for one word. “One now runs his eyes over three or four concluded, “we should keep such words, accustom ourselves to pages and does not stumble once —without realizing what boul- them, and so give place to the Hebrew language where it does a ders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along as better job than our German.”⁴² over a smoothly-planed board.”⁴⁶ If we have gained the impression that Luther translated the way he did merely for effect, we have mistaken his motives. We need only observe the master at work to dispel that notion. While “As for me, when I arrive at a text that Luther was translating the Bible, he constantly read his sentences is like a nut with a hard shell, I imme- aloud, testing the accents and cadences, the vowels and conso- nants for their melodic flow. He did this because German was diately dash it against the Rock really a language (Sprache). It was meant to be spoken aloud by [Christ] and find the sweetest kernel.” the tongue (lingua), not written; heard, not read; for a word has nb sound and tone. By Luther’s own description, “The soul of the word lies in the voice.”⁴⁷ Thus Luther constructed his translation with a view to the pub- The same holds true for the Greek New Testament. Citing the lic reading of the book. By means of sentence structure and mean- passage in John  where Christ says, “Him has God the Father ingful punctuation, he made the Bible a book to be heard. He sealed,” Luther admitted it would have been better German to say, transmitted its sounds in such a way that the silent reader can hear “He it is whom God the Father means.” But God’s placing a seal it as living, spoken words. He even suggested that a person who on the Christ was too important a biblical teaching to have been reads the Bible by himself would do well to read it aloud, in order watered down by an inferior translation. So Luther preferred in that the Bible might literally “speak to him.” This was an ancient this instance to violate the German language rather than depart tradition and Luther himself observed it. from the word sealed. “I have been very careful to see that where In the final analysis, the twin goals of producing a faithful and everything turns on a single passage,” he recited as a rule of readable translation always remained before Luther throughout his thumb, “I have kept to the original quite literally.”⁴³ life. He never claimed his work to be perfect and constantly revised We cannot help but admire a man who set out to bring a faith- his translation as new insights came to him. His personal desk ful translation of God’s word to his people and followed through Bible was filled with such jottings. At the same time, he stood in without turning aside. After reviewing basic problems and awe of the task for which he felt he had been called as a Professor difficulties that Luther experienced in transferring the word from of the Holy Scriptures, namely, to bring God’s word to his people language to language, we are able to listen with great sympathy to for their comfort and joy. “I think that if the Bible is to come up his own description of the translator’s craft: “Ah, translating is not again,” he said, “we Christians are the ones who must do the work, every man’s skill as the mad saints imagine,” he said. “It requires a for we have the understanding of Christ without which even the right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing, Christian, trained, knowledge of the language is nothing.”⁴⁸ To this we say, “Amen.” informed, and experienced heart.”⁴⁴ At the same time, we miss in Luther’s soliloquy one trait that helped to set Luther apart as CONCLUSION: LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE translator, that is, a poetic soul. We cannot leave off observing the preparation of a new Bible Those who read the German Bible testify to its beauty and translation in Luther’s day without taking the finished product warmth, to its rhythm and flow. From the very beginning of his into our hands for a moment. Even a casual paging through the work on the text, Luther aimed to produce more than a faithful text will reveal many features that underscore Luther’s intent to translation. He wanted a text that was crisp and pleasant to hear. By bring the Scriptures to the people. A number of woodcut illustra- his own admission he read Holy Writ “as though it had been writ- tions decorate the pages. Especially striking are the twenty-one ten yesterday.” And he wished his translation to be read in the same full-page pictures of the visions of St. John in Revelation. We may way. He adapted his language to any mood, to the tenderness of the also be struck by the fact that the text is not divided into verses. Christmas story as well as to the terrors of the Apocalypse. He Versification started at the middle of the century. Only the chap- employed all the skills of the poet’s craft: an added syllable for the ter divisions are marked. sake of rhythm, the use of alliteration, assonance, and rhyme. All is Luther did provide an index to the Bible. And in running our so naturally conceived that it does not appear artificially contrived. eyes down the familiar listing, we realize, if we have not done so Gifted with a natural talent for language, Luther did not work before, that Luther’s printed Bible reflects the ancient church’s according to rules but from inner necessity. In the midst of the attitude toward the biblical canon. He includes books of the Old Psalms’ translation, he wrote to his friend Eobanus Hessus, “I must Testament Apocrypha because “they are good and useful to   read,” though they are not to be placed on the level of the Holy NOTES Scripture. The order of the books in the New Testament also .WA , – (). reminds us that some epistles were spoken against in the early . This is the opening statement in Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther church. Contrary to the order in the Vulgate, Luther regularly Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), vii.       numbered the New Testament books from –, ending with  .WA , ( ); SL , . .WA ,  ()—against Eck in the Leipzig Debate. John. He then added Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation with- . WA Br ,  (); SL a, –. Letter to Spalatin, February out numbers at the end. , . In the text itself, later editions of the Luther Bible marked the . Bluhm, xv. beginning and the end of the regular Gospel and Epistle lessons . This is part of the Edict of the Archbishop of Mainz, translated in for each Sunday. This was done for the benefit of both pastor and Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible (New York: Cambridge University Press,  reprint), . parishioner. But aside from the text, perhaps the most useful addi- . Wilhelm Walther, Luthers Deutsche Bibel (Berlin, ), . tions were Luther’s introductions to the various biblical books . Deanesly, . The quotation comes from “The Apologie of and the notations on the Bible’s margin. For those of us who do Fredericus Staphylus,” counselor to Emperor Ferdinand. not use Luther’s German Bible, the English translation of the Bible .WA ,  (–); SL , .        Prefaces gives us the flavor of Luther’s writing. They are classics .WA Br , – ( ); AE , . Letter to Nicholas Gerbel, November , . and deserve to be read. . WA TR , No.  (s); AE : . Luther also added comments in the margin for the guidance of . Preserved Smith, Luther’s Correspondence (Philadelphia: The the common folk. A sample of these “glosses,” as they were called, Lutheran Publication Society), : . Letter to Wenceslas Link, June , . will help us understand their character. Our reference is Exodus . WA DB , xv–xvi.  . WA DB ,  (); AE : , . . In this passage Moses asks to see God face to face. God denies   fi . Johann Matthesius, D. Martin Luthers Leben (Berlin, reprint), the request and tells Moses to be satis ed in knowing God by his –. name. And then adds, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gra- . WA DB , xliii–xliv (). cious.” To this scene Luther commented in a side-note: . WA DB ,  (); translated in M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, ), .        All this refers to Christ; how he should live, preach, die, and .WA Tr , No. ( – ); AE : . . WA DB ,  (); AE : . rise in the midst of Moses’ people, who will not see his coun- .WA  , –634 (); AE : ; from Luther’s Sendbrief vom tenance, but only see him from behind. That means, they will Dolmetschen (On Translating). Hereafter only the American Edition will be see Christ by faith in his humanity, but not yet [see] his divin- cited for this work. ity. And this is the Rock on which all believers stand in this life. . Walther, . .WA Tr , No. b. Yet this is entirely a gift of God without our merit. Therefore    ⁴⁹ .WA Tr , No. a; translated in Preserved Smith, The Life and he says, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious. Letters of Martin Luther (New York: Barnes & Noble Inc.,  reprint), . . AE :  (). Luther’s insight leads each reader directly into the heart of the . AE : ,  (). Scripture’s gospel message. .WA Tr , No. ; SL , . .WA Tr , No. ; SL , . That very gospel also moved Luther to work countless hours in    ff . WA DB , . preparing his translation. “I gave it my utmost in care and e ort,” .WA , – (); AE : ; from Luther’s “Summarien ueber die he related, Psalmen und ursachen des dolmetschens”(“Defense of the Translation of the Psalms”). Hereafter only the American Edition of this work will be cited. and I never had any ulterior motives. I have neither taken . AE :  ().   nor sought a single penny for it, nor made one by it. Neither . Ibid., . . Ibid., , . have I sought my own honor by it; God, my Lord, knows . Ibid. this. Rather I have done it as a service to the dear Christians . Ibid., ,  (). and to the honor of One who sitteth above, who blesses me . Ibid.,  (). so much every hour of my life that if I had translated a thou- .WA ,  (); AE : .       sand times as much or as diligently, I should not for a single .WA , f ( ); AE : . .WA , f, line  (). hour have deserved to live or to have a sound eye. All that I .WA , ff. (–); AE : . am and have is of his grace and mercy.⁵⁰ . AE : ,  (). . AE :  (). We cannot, however, leave the workshop of the translator with- . AE :  (). . Ibid. out hearing his closing wish. We have learned the problems and     ffi .WA Br , ( ); translated in William J. Kooiman, Luther and di culties that a translator faces. We have recognized the joys of the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, ), . accomplishment. We may use the insights from Luther’s prepara- . AE :  (). tion of the German Bible as a springboard for a discussion of .WA ,  (–); “Cum vox sit anima verbi.” See H. O. Burger, translation today. But we have overlooked something very basic if “Luther als Ereignis der Literaturgeschichte,” in Luther Jahrbuch, , –.       we do not feel the force of Luther’s admonition to his people, . WA DB , ; AE : ( ). . WA DB ,  (). “Now you have the translated Bible. Only use it well also after my . AE :  ().  death.”⁵¹ LOGIA .WA  ,  (). Bible Translations among Luther’s Heirs

A E. S

j

       noted that Luther they used in everyday life. This is the real issue so far as produced a Bible translation that was intentionally in the Luther is concerned. He thought it was his task to make the B common language of the German people. Unfortunately, Word of God as readily understandable as he could to the many of Luther’s heirs use English Bible translations that are not in masses. That is why he translated as he did.¹ common English. This article explains contemporary translation theory and relevant linguistic concepts to help readers evaluate Despite this commitment by Luther to make the Bible speak the Bible translations for their own use. In addition, three case studies language of everyday people, many of his English-speaking heirs, involving translation of idioms, unmarked and marked meaning, especially among the clergy, have not taken his example to heart. It and inclusive language are included to demonstrate how transla- is not uncommon to hear Lutheran pastors endorse translations tions should be judged. Concluding remarks offer a general evalu- that are not, in the aggregate, in everyday English —for example, ation of modern English Bible translations and urge that those the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard who claim to be Luther’s heirs follow his example by using trans- Bible (NASB), or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). lations that clearly communicate the Word of God in translation. In some cases the pastors’ endorsement is implicit in the trans- lations they use from the lectern or the pulpit. Anecdotally, when LUTHER THE TRANSLATOR my son was in the fourth grade, we attended a Lutheran church Luther’s translation of the Scriptures has often been characterized where he heard, for the first time, the Scripture lessons read from as a masterpiece of translation. It is also one of the first great King James Version. He turned and asked me what language the works of German literature. That the Bible, composed in Hebrew, pastor was speaking, suggesting that it was, perhaps, German. Aramaic, and Greek can be seen as a great work of German litera- Clearly, a ten-year-old boy who had attended Lutheran schools ture is a tribute to Luther’s accomplishment: he made Holy Writ where the Bible is regularly used did not recognize Elizabethan speak German to real, living Germans. The German that Luther English as his own language. used was that of the masses, not of the elite —and this was the Some apparently think that using the  King James Version genius of his work as translator. Thirty-five years ago Heinz in the twenty-first century is realistic. We should ask ourselves Bluhm noted, whether Luther would have considered publishing a translation in the middle-German language as it was spoken four hundred years For Luther there was no doubt about where the living lan- earlier in ..  (akin to reading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales). guage is to be found: in the house and in the marketplace. That would certainly have been nonsensical. The language of daily life, as used by the common man Even some modern translations, however, are not committed unspoiled by Latin idiom, is the yardstick by which Luther to common English. For example, consider these verses: measures real, natural German. Whatever other scholars “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and may do and believe, he has, linguistically speaking, cast his between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and lot with “the mother in the house . . . the children in the you will strike his heel” (Gn : NIV, ). street, the common man in the market.” It is their language he listens to, it is their mouths he watches in order to deter- “Or anyone who strikes another with a weapon of wood in mine the nature of truly idiomatic German. If a translation hand that could cause death, and death ensues, is a murderer; of the Bible is to reach the people, it must be couched in their the murderer shall be put to death” (Nm : NRSV, ). language. Since his translation was most definitely made for “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His the people, Luther did his utmost to put it in the language kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and A S, formerly staff Pastor of Lutheran Home, things on the earth” (Eph :- NASB, revised ). Westlake, Ohio, and Adjunct Professor of Religion, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, is now Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew at One wonders how any of these can claim to reflect common Concordia University, River Forest, Illinois. English. How often do people use a word like enmity in everyday    speech? What is the average reader to make of the phrase a weapon paraphrase, terms that are vague and often betray a prejudice of wood in hand? Who would use a verb like purposed or a phrase against whatever translation is perceived to be a paraphrase such as an administration suitable to the fullness of the times? Surely instead of a true translation. Clearly those who exercise such prej- Luther, if he were translating into modern English, would avoid udice need to become better acquainted with the theory of trans- these constructions. Yet such constructions are common in mod- lation and the linguistic principles that support it. ern English Bibles. What is often called literal translation is more accurately called This situation is unfortunate since we, through the discipline of formal equivalent translation. In formal equivalent translation the linguistics, possess a much broader knowledge of language than translator attempts to match the original text of the source lan- Luther could have dreamed. Luther had to rely on his own obser- guage in the target language on a word-by-word basis. In addition, vations of German usage. We not only have the benefit of observ- the word order of the original is preserved whenever possible. The ing the current use of modern languages as Luther observed translation attempts to meet the semantic (meaning) challenge of German in his day, but also possess the theoretical underpinning translation as well as to preserve the form of the original (hence the of modern linguistics to aid us. name). Most who have studied the biblical languages will identify this as the technique often used by beginning students. Yet one would hope that Bible translators are more sophisticated in their use of this technique than beginning students. But to return to the question at hand: could there have been a What is often called literal trans- “literal but inaccurate” translation? Consider this translation of lation is more accurately called Psalm :: formal equivalent translation. Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of nb mockers (NIV). This translation matches the form of the original fairly well. It only changed the word order slightly to match English prefer- So how are we to evaluate Bible translations? First of all, those ence, and it does not repeat the negative not twice to match the of us who have been trained in the biblical languages need to Hebrew.² This translation does preserve the conceptual sequence move beyond evaluating translations based on a mechanical of the Hebrew: walk, stand, and sit. Yet despite its supposed liter- matching of English translations to the original on a word-by- alness, this translation is not in common English. After all, what word basis. In addition, we must not rely on a simplistic reference does “standing in someone’s way” mean in English? It signifies to the English glosses (“meanings”) found in lexicons. Next, we being an obstruction. Certainly, the Psalmist did not intend to must apply the findings of theoretical and practical linguistics. say that one is blessed if he does not obstruct sinners in their sin- Finally, we need to understand the challenges of Bible translation ful ways! Instead, the Psalmist was saying that one is blessed when so that we can better evaluate translations and use them intelli- he does not join sinners in their sinning. This verse from the NIV gently. I will therefore offer a few suggestions as to how we can is an example of a translation that is literal but inaccurate. better appreciate the challenges of Bible translation. In addition, I The problem with formal equivalent translation is that it places will introduce a few concepts from the science of linguistics so that too great an emphasis on a language’s form as a semantic feature. we can be less harsh in our condemnation of translators’ attempts Certainly, the form, especially word order, can be an important to communicate in contemporary English. Hopefully, we can, at factor in the meaning of a text. This is particularly the case in lan- the same time, become more judicious in our choice of transla- guages such as Hebrew or Greek that are not as dependent on tions to use in preaching and teaching. word order as is English. Form, however, does not usually serve as a reliable guide for translating idioms. In the case of Psalm : the TRANSLATION THEORY problem is actually in English. The Hebrew “stand in the way of” A few years ago at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical is not an idiom; but when translated in a formal equivalent man- Literature I attended a session that examined the translation tech- ner into English, the result is an idiom that means something nique of several ancient Targums to the Old Testament. One pre- other than the sum of the semantic values (meanings) of the indi- senter analyzed a Targum by classifying the translator’s technique vidual words. In other cases, the problem can manifest itself in the at various points as “literal,” “paraphrase, but accurate,” or “para- opposite direction. Hebrew or Greek idioms cannot be translated phrase and inaccurate.” After the presentation, when the moder- merely by matching word-by-word because the result is almost ator solicited questions from the audience, I asked whether the never an equivalent idiom in English. Thus semantic matching presenter found any examples of “literal, but inaccurate” transla- from one language to another cannot always be accomplished on tion. In reply, he asked me what my question meant. His pre- the level of individual vocables (words). sumption was that literal translation (whatever literal may mean) In fact, a myriad of problems can manifest themselves in formal was inherently accurate, whereas paraphrase (whatever that equivalent translation. The word order of an English translation means) can vary in its accuracy. may match the original, but may be awkward English. Greek tol- Clergy and many scholars such as the one I questioned at the erates long sentences, but English prefers sentences of no longer SBL Meeting often characterize Bible translations as literal or than twenty-five words.³ One lemma (root word) in Hebrew or    ’  

Greek may require different lemmas in different contexts in Nevertheless, functional equivalent translation is not without English. Wordplays that depend on sound may not be repro- its pitfalls. Often scholars who have studied texts for years are not ducible in English, and if the translation matches the word play it always agreed on information that is implied by the text. Nor are may sacrifice the meaning of the passage being translated.⁴ In they agreed on the meaning of some idioms (or whether a phrase addition, information that was implicit for the readers of the orig- is an idiom) or on the exact meaning of some phrases or sen- inal text is left untranslated in formal equivalent translations tences. The most pervasive problem with functional equivalent because it does not appear in the form of specific vocables. translation is that translators are often tempted to place their However, the English reader may need that implicit information own interpretation of the text into their translation. If we were to stated explicitly to appreciate the full meaning intended by the be honest, all translators do this to some degree, even if only in original author. their choice among competing terms in the target language that While English translations have traditionally been more or less could be chosen to translate a particular word or phrase. formal equivalent in their approach, formal equivalence is not an (Consider the  Roman Catholic-produced New Jerusalem option in other languages. The past century has seen the world- Bible’s constant translation of dikaiosuvnh with uprightness wide effort of Bible societies and mission groups to translate the instead of the usual righteousness.) Bible into languages that are more distant from Greek (or Hebrew) than is English. In many cases, translators are forced to try other techniques to transfer meaning from one language to another. The most prevalent of these is functional equivalent translation (sometimes called by the older label dynamic equiva- The most pervasive problem with func- lent translation). As the name implies, this technique focuses on making the translation function semantically in the target lan- tional equivalent translation is that guage in the same way that the original text functioned semanti- translators are often tempted to cally for its original readers. It is, in effect, a thought-by-thought place their own interpretation translation instead of a word-by-word translation. This technique is often labeled paraphrase. This is an unfortunate identification of the text into their translation. and one that is often used to imply that translations produced in nb this way are deficient and defective. Translators have come to use functional equivalent translations for a number of reasons. For instance, some languages do not have readily available terms that correspond to concepts in the Bible’s Moreover, in functional equivalent translation the translator original languages. For instance, I have spoken to translators can be tempted to place the interpretation squarely in the text. working in Africa who were translating the Bible into languages Take for example these passages from the New Living that had no term for crown. Another translator was translating the Translation (): Bible for people who had never seen the ocean and, therefore, had This messenger was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilder- no nautical terms whatsoever, not even a word for boat! The case ness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show of translation of the Bible into English is not as problematic as that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be these cases, but there is something to be learned from them. forgiven (Mk :). Then John went from place to place on both Functional equivalent translation can be very accurate. sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be bap- Consider the following example: tized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned Then all Israelites from Dan on Israel’s northern border to to God to be forgiven (Lk :). Paul said, “John’s baptism was Beersheba on Israel’s southern border and from Gilead east of to demonstrate a desire to turn from sin and turn to God. John the Jordan River came to Mizpah. The assembly was united in himself told the people to believe in Jesus, the one John said the presence of the Lord (Jgs :, my translation). would come later” (Acts :). This translation might be faulted by some for adding words All three of these passages contain the phrase bavptisma that are not in the original, such as “on Israel’s northern border,” metanoivaß, usually translated a baptism of repentance. “on Israel’s southern border,” and “east of the Jordan River.” Yet Considering the wide range of meanings that an English reader this information was implied for the ancient Hebrew reader. The could assign to this phrase, almost no one found it objectionable. original readers would have immediately understood that people The relation between baptism and repentance is hidden in the from all over Israel, even from the extreme north and south and word of. The NLT, however, assigns one possible meaning, one east, came to Mizpah. The biblical phrase “from Dan to that is acceptable to a wide range of conservative American Beersheba” contains this information implicitly (cf.  Sm :;  Evangelicals, but not to Lutherans. Our understanding of John’s Sm :; :;  Kgs :;  Chr :;  Chr :; Amos :). Most baptism is not that it was a mere sign that one had repented or was English-speaking readers do not know that this is implied. In this willing to repent. case, functional equivalent technique makes this originally Perhaps a more blatant example of the abuse of functional implied information explicit, giving the reader of the English the equivalent translation is the American Bible Society’s same meaning as conveyed to the original readers. Contemporary English Version (). Its text often incorpo-   rates the translator’s interpretation. Some of these, such as So what should we look for in a translation, and what kind of Matthew :, contain a theological bias: “This is my blood and translations should we, as heirs of Luther, use in the lectern, the with it God makes his agreement with you.” The CEV consis- pulpit and Bible class? What kind of translations should we seek tently translates diaqhvkh as agreement, despite the fact that to produce? I would argue that we need to avoid the hazards that agreement implies a two-way consent, whereas diaqhvkh implies beset both formal equivalent and functional equivalent transla- only the consent of one party. While traditional translations of tion. Instead, we should strive for something that mediates between the two. We should preserve the form of the original whenever possible as long as this does not impede translating into English that clearly and accurately portrays the meaning of We need to avoid the hazards that the original to the general reader.⁵ This always involves a balanc- ing act. When is form to be preferred over function? When is beset both formal equivalent and function to override form? When can the translator preserve functional equivalent translation. both? These are decisions translators and translation teams will constantly have to make. To illustrate, I would like to explore sev- nb eral case studies.

Case Study 1 diaqhvkh, testament and covenant, are not common English TWO IDIOMS IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL words (they are hardly used outside of ecclesiastical or legal con- Two idioms used in Daniel offer a challenge to translate accurate- texts), agreement is a poor alternative. A better choice would ly while preserving the form of the original. The first occurs at have been promise, which like diaqhvkh implies only the consent Dan :. In this verse Nebuchadnezzar complains that his advi- of one party. I suspect the choice of agreement was a theological sors, the Babylonian wise men, are engaged in delaying tactics. one, even if it was not consciously theological. Most American The king has demanded that they tell him what he dreamt and the Protestants do not understand the Lord’s Supper as a gift from dream’s interpretation. Of course, they cannot know what he God that brings us his favor in Christ’s body and blood. Instead, dreamt, so when they delay, he threatens them. The Aramaic they understand it as a human response to the historical sacrifice idiom for their delaying tactics is ˆynIb]z: ˆWTn“a' an:D:[i yDI hn:a} [d"y:. A typ- of Christ. Thus the two-way commitment better fits their theo- ical English translation for this is “I am certain that you are trying logical presuppositions. to gain time” (NIV, cf. NKJV, NRSV, NJB). Other translations Nevertheless, the CEV also contains interpretations that do have “I know for certain that you are bargaining for time” (NASB, not appear to be theologically motivated. For instance,  Samuel NAB [])⁶ CEV reads “You’re just stalling for time” (cf. NLT). : reads: The translations that use gain or bargain are formal equivalent, but they are not in the most natural English possible. CEV and Saul was furious with Jonathan and yelled, “You’re no son of NLT are striving for natural English and capture the meaning well mine, you traitor! I know you’ve chosen to be loyal to that son with the word stall, but they have retained the form of the of Jesse. You should be ashamed of yourself! And your own Aramaic with the addition of the words “for time.”⁷ After all, the mother should be ashamed that you were ever born.” typical English speaker would simply say, “You’re just stalling.” Certainly translating rm,aYOw" as yelled is appropriate here, con- In Aramaic ˆbz can mean gain, but more commonly means buy sidering that the text does tell us that Saul was angry. The usual and is probably a loan word from Akkadian, where the same root translation said is rather insipid in this case. The other equiva- means buy, gain, or engage in commerce (thus the translation bar- lents are questionable, however. Is tWDr“M'h' tw"[}n"AˆB,, (a twisted, gain).⁸ Therefore, we have a happy and unusually rare occurrence rebellious son) really a traitor, a term that implies perhaps trea- here: an Aramaic idiom that matches exactly an English idiom. son against the state? Or is Saul implying that Jonathan has The Aramaic says, “I know that you are buying time.” Thus, a nat- betrayed him personally? Or is he implying that Jonathan has ural English translation that would satisfy the need to be func- betrayed him both as his son and as his subject? Does ÚT]v]b;l] tionally equivalent and yet preserve the form is “I’m sure you’re (“to your own shame”) mean “you should be ashamed of your- trying to buy some time” (GW []).⁹ In this case GW has cap- self”? Instead, it means “you have disgraced (or brought shame tured both function and form and is perhaps to be preferred. upon) yourself.” Does ÚM≤ai tw"r“[, tv,bol]W (“to the shame of your Another idiom is found at Daniel :, . In this case Daniel’s mother’s nakedness”) really mean “your own mother should be skill as a seer is characterized as ˆyrIf]qi arEv;m]. This is usually trans- ashamed you were ever born”? Rather, it means that Saul is lated “able to solve [difficult] problems” (cf. NIV, NASB, NRSV, implying that Jonathan is not his son. The CEV goes too far in NAB, NLT, CEV). The Aramaic idiom, however, is literally “able its functional equivalence here. Perhaps this a better functional to untie knots.” Thus NJB has “unraveling difficult problems” equivalent translation: and GW has “untangle problems.” In this case, both NJB and GW have managed to preserve form without sacrificing func- Then Saul got angry with Jonathan. “Son of a crooked and tion, whereas the other translations have opted for a purely rebellious woman!” he yelled. “I know you’ve sided with Jesse’s functional equivalent approach to this idiom. This is true even son. You have disgraced yourself. You act as if you are your of translations that in the minds of many are “literal”: NASB, mother’s son but not mine.” NRSV, and NAB.    ’  

Case Study 2 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she UNMARKED VERSUS MARKED MEANING went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. One concept we learn from linguistics is the semantic categories Omit “of water” and read it again. Absolutely no meaning is lost of unmarked meaning and marked meaning. Words, as we know, for the English reader, and it becomes more natural English. can have a range of meanings. But how do we know which par- This retaining of the Hebrew marker where it is not needed in ticular meaning is being used by a speaker or writer at any given English is common in NIV, NASB, NRSV, NJB and NAB. Only time? One of the ways we know is whether the meaning of the NLT, CEV and GW recognize that the marker is not needed in word is unmarked or marked by features in the context. The English translation. unmarked meaning of a word is the meaning one would associate with it without any contextual indications of what it means. Thus the unmarked meaning of a word is the meaning that comes to mind without any clues as to what the speaker or writer means. For instance, the unmarked meaning of boot for most people would be a type of footwear. The marked meaning is the meaning The source language may employ a one would assign to a word because of the context in which it was meaning marker that is not needed used. The word may be marked by the overall context, by its in the target language. immediate context, or by specific words used in conjunction with it. Thus a group of computer users who are using the term boot are nb probably talking about turning on their computer and loading its operating system. The challenge that marked and unmarked meaning presents This specific case illustrates two important principles. First, to translators is that the source language may employ a mean- one cannot blindly use or eliminate a marker like “of water.” For ing marker that is not needed in the target language. instance, it needs to be retained in many passages such as  Kings Alternatively, the opposite may occur. The source language may : (“jar of water”). One must know when the target language employ an unmarked meaning, but to make the transition to needs the marker and when it does not. Second, the retaining of the target language, the translator may have to provide marking the marker, even when it is not needed in the target language, for readers. These cases are examples where formal equivalent may not obscure the meaning or mislead the reader. In this case, translation fails because it translates only form with little regard it does not obscure the meaning. Yet it does make the transla- to function. tions in many English Bibles awkward and unnatural. This is I would like to offer one example of marked meaning in the perhaps more insidiously damaging than having a wrong mean- original text that is often translated incorrectly. This is the ing. Repeated instances of awkward, unnatural English (an prepositional phrase “of water” used as a marker. This marker is unfortunate side effect of over-reliance on form-equivalent used in English in various ways, such as in the phrases “drop of translation) have convinced many that the Bible is difficult, water” or “cup of water.” This marker distinguished between obscure, archaic, and out of touch with contemporary needs. drops of other liquids (for example, a drop of blood) or cups ff containing other beverages (such as a cup of co ee). In English, Case Study 3 however, we normally do not mark bodies of water with this INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE phrase. We do not say, “The Mississippi is a major river of Inclusive language, once a controversial issue, is now an expected water,” or, “The farmer drilled a well of water in order to supply standard in many contemporary formal written and oral contexts. water for his farm.” The reason is simple. English was shaped One can still hear uses of man to mean humankind, even occa- (and is often still used) in parts of the world where water is rel- sionally on network news. Yet it is increasingly common, especial- atively plentiful. We expect that our wells will have water and ly among younger adults, to find that the audience no longer our rivers will flow with it. We mark wells and rivers when they accepts or understands terms such as man and men in the gener- are empty: “dry well” or “dry riverbed.” In the case of well, we ic sense of person or human. Because of this trend, and because of have to mark it only if it is not a well for water: “gas well” or “oil allegations of some American theologians that the Scriptures, par- well.” (Or it may be marked by context. I might use well without ticularly in English translation, were unnecessarily gender-specific explicitly marking it to mean gas well or oil well if I am speaking and male-biased, the  convention of the LCMS asked its to a geologist.) Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to study Hebrew, however, was shaped in a part of the world where the theological implications of using inclusive language. The water is a precious resource. Parts of Palestine receive fewer than result of this study is the  CTCR document Biblical Revelation eight inches of rain each year. In this context one cannot assume and Inclusive Language (BRIL).¹¹ that a riverbed will have water in it or a well will not be dry. Thus BRIL very capably sets out and applies principles about the use of Hebrew (and hebraized Greek) marks bodies of water with the inclusive language in five sections: Introduction, Language about God, phrase “of water.” It is common to read English Bible translations Language about Christ, Language Concerning Christians and People in that contain the unnatural phrases “well of water,” “streams of General, and Summary. The short Introduction sets forth the basis for water,” “pools of water,” or “springs of water.”¹⁰ For instance, con- concern about this issue and how God’s revelation in the Scriptures is sider Genesis : in the NIV:   not to be dismissed as coming from a patriarchal culture. Therefore, Or man becomes you in Galatians : in the NRSV: BRIL states, “The language of the Scriptures is the foundational and [Y]ou reap whatever you sow. determinative language which the church is to use to speak about God and the things of God” (). BRIL correctly notes that the change to plural loses the direct- ness of the singular of the original. It also recognizes that the change to second person from third person risks losing the possi- ble universal application of the text by restricting the meaning to But perhaps more importantly, we have the original readers. The problem, however, is that BRIL offers no solution. If one to learn to be more sensitive to actual does not get rid of man in the translation, one risks restricting the language usage when we evaluate Bible application to males in the minds of some contemporary readers. ff translations. By not o ering a solution, the document seems to imply that there is no solution. But of course there is: nb Blessed is the person who . . . he delights . . . He is like a tree . . . He succeeds in everything he does (Ps :–). The next two sections, Language about God and Language A person reaps whatever he sows. (Gal :). about Christ, are well-reasoned and insightful, not only defending In both cases the pronoun he is used, but its antecedent is inclu- the traditional language referring to God in masculine images of sive, and it is doubtful that readers would mistake this as a refer- Father and King and Christ as Son of Man, but also in countering ence to males only. feminist arguments that would have us change this historic and Moreover, this subsection gives the impression that is it biblical language. Therefore, the first person of the Trinity is Father, always incorrect to change number or persons in translation. not Mother or Parent. Christ is Son of God, not Child of God, and While these devices should not be used routinely, there are the Holy Spirit “is not to be understood as a feminine principle of places where they are proper and actually make the translation the Godhead and/or described with feminine pronouns.” Yet BRIL more understandable. One case is the frequent switching of does note that “feminine similes for God occur in the Scriptures, grammatical persons in Leviticus, though the referent is the albeit rarely, and may also be used in appropriate ways” and same. For instance, Leviticus : begins by stating, “If you bring devotes over three pages to the discussion of such texts and their a burnt offering;” and then switches to the third person to refer interpretation by contemporary theologians (). to the person bringing the sacrifice: “He will place his hand on All this is well and good. Nevertheless, when it comes to apply- the animal’s head” (Lv :). In English translation this switch of ing these same principles in the fourth section, “Language grammatical persons can leave the impression that someone Concerning Christians and People in General,” BRIL has some- other than the person bringing the sacrifice is placing a hand on times, in my opinion, overplayed its hand. Not that everything in the animal’s head. One solution is to switch the subsequent this section is wrong. Much of it is well argued and sensitive to the third person pronouns to the second person (“you will place use of terms in the original biblical texts. For instance, the docu- your hand on the animal’s head”). Thus there are times when ment recognizes that a[nqrwpoß is often used in a generic sense in the translation actually is better when person or number is Scripture and can be rightfully translated person, human, or in the switched. These devices ought to be used sparingly, however. plural people, humans. (Presumably, though not stated, so occa- Moreover, BRIL is certainly correct in saying that they should sionally can ajnhvr [e.g., Mt :, ; Lk :, ; Js :, , , ; :] not be devices merely to make the language inclusive. and vyai [e.g., Ps :].) Other good examples are the approved ren- The other place where the document overreaches is in sub- derings of impersonal pronouns in inclusive language (anyone, section F, “Christians as ‘Children’” (). The statement is made everyone, no one instead of any man, every man, no man), indefinite that “the actual language ought to guide and determine the way constructions (as in  Cor : “Whoever boasts, boast in the Lord” we translate and read.” This statement is true in itself, if by instead of “Let him who boasts”), and the concession that some- “actual language” BRIL means the original language of the times ajdelfoiv may mean “brothers and sisters,” not merely brothers. Scriptures. The problem is that one cannot use this principle to Despite these strengths, it is this fourth section that exhibits a argue ipso facto that uiJoi; qeou' cannot be translated “children of number of weaknesses in its argumentation, especially when we God,” as BRIL appears to do. The question is whether uiJoi; qeou' are considering Bible translation. First, in subsection A, “Use of is ever used in an inclusive sense in Greek. To understand this Words Not in the Biblical Text,” BRIL notes that there is often no issue, we must understand how words in language often func- good reason for changing the persons or number of pronouns tion in a hierarchical relationship of meanings. merely to make them inclusive (–). For example, man For instance, we have the hierarchy: becomes those in Psalm  in the NRSV: animal Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked; but mammal bird fish insect their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they med- whale starling barracuda ant itate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams of human ostrich guppy bee water. In all that they do, they prosper. ape    ’  

In the case at hand we have the English hierarchy: principle that the actual language guides and determines transla- tion. (That is, uiJoiv can be translated by the words sons, grandsons, children children, descendants, depending on context, but it cannot be sons daughters translated by other words such as father, mother, cousin, uncle, This hierarchy goes from the generic (gender inclusive level) to aunt, predecessor, which are related but not part of the semantic the specific (gender specified level) with these meanings: range of uiJoiv.) It is especially disappointing to read BRIL’s treatment of uiJoiv [offspring] qeou' given its sensitive treatment of ajdelfoiv. In addition, to be [male offspring][female offspring] evenhanded, BRIL should have pointed out that most translations BRIL’s logic seems to be that uiJoiv functions only on the bot- (NIV, NASB, RSV, NKJV) have Paul calling Timothy “my son” in tom level where sons operates in contemporary English. We  Timothy : and  Timothy : despite the fact that the word used know, however, that sometimes a word can function at more is not uiJovß but tevknon. To be consistent BRIL should have asserted than one level in a meaning hierarchy. One determines by context that “my child” would have been a better translation in these at what level a writer or speaker is using the word. In English, instances (see NRSV). (To my knowledge tevknon is never used on man used to function both at the generic level of human and the the more gender-specific level in Koine Greek that would corre- more specific level of male human, though it functions increas- spond to son in English. It always appears to correspond to child.) ingly only at the more specific level in contemporary English. Admittedly, these are not criticisms of BRIL’s principles, but of Moreover, that the existence of one or more synonyms at the the application of those principles. But in this case, the applica- more generic level does not keep a word from functioning at both tions are important. Let me use a biblical example as an analogy. levels. For instance, man used to function at the generic level When the Israelites were encamped at Mt. Sinai, God instruct- although English had alternatives: human, person. ed Moses to place a fence around the mountain because anyone Thus the old hierarchy in which man functioned in English was: who touched the mountain would die (Ex :). Now suppose Moses had the fence placed up the mountain instead of at its base. human, person, man It would have allowed someone to tread on the mountain and be man woman killed. Suppose on the other hand that Moses, in an effort to The question becomes, What is the hierarchy in Koine Greek? ensure that no one touched the mountain, placed the fence an Is it: extra hundred yards from the mountain. Some people whose tevkna propensity is to challenge limits may have hopped the fence and uiJoiv qugatevra found that they did not die. This could have led to many other people hopping the fence and the eventual death of a good num- Or is it: ber who did eventually tread on the mountain. tevkna, uiJoiv uiJoiv qugatevra A simple scan of the Old Testament will reveal that the Hebrew µynIB; means not only sons, but also often means children or descen- If one does not get rid of man in the dants of both sexes and that it is translated by uJioiv in the Septuagint. A good example is  Chronicles :, where the “sons of Judah” translation, one risks restricting the (hd:Why“ ynEb]) are potential male slaves (µydIb;[}) and female slaves (]t/jp;v]). application to males in the minds hd:Why“ ynEb] Clearly, here the meaning of is “people of Judah” or of some contemporary readers. “descendants of Judah.” Note that the Septuagint translates hd:Why“ ynEb] as uiJoiv and then states that they could be made douvlou" kai; douvla". nb Therefore, Koine Greek indicates that uiJoiv corresponds not only to the English word sons, but also to the English word children. In fact, it can denote sons, grandsons, descendants or children and is often The point of this illustration is this: because of current sensibil- used to translate µynIB; when it carries any of these meanings. Thus ities about gender issues in language, it is important we draw the BRIL’s principle that the actual language guides and determines line precisely where Scripture draws the line. If we put the fence translation does not in itself determine which sense of uiJoiv is too high up the mountain (that is, if we unjustifiably allow too intended unless we also take context into account. much of the Scripture and our theological language to be con- Moreover, the context of Galatians :, the example BRIL uses verted to inclusive language), it will lead to harm. On the other as an example of when not to translate uiJoiv as children (), hand, if we put the fence too far away from the mountain (in would seem to be a perfect example of uiJoi; qeou' meaning “chil- allowing too little of the Scripture and our theological language to dren of God.” Verse  is explicitly gender-inclusive (there is nei- be expressed in inclusive language), some will surely notice that ther male nor female in Christ Jesus), as is verse , which switch- the land on the other side of the fence doesn’t really cause harm. es from the uiJoi; qeou' of verse  to the descendants (inclusive This is why we should commend BRIL in most cases, because it language) of Abraham (tou' ∆Abraa;m spevrma)! I would does draw the line carefully. Nevertheless, we should also be cau- respectfully disagree with BRIL’s assertion that uiJoi; qeou' should tious about those places where it wishes to exclude inclusive lan- never be translated “children of God,” although I agree with the guage unjustifiably.  

Highly form equivalent Mildly form equivalent Mildly function equivalent i Highly function equivalent

NKJV NASB NAB NRSV NIV NJB GW NLT CEV 1985 1995 1991 1989 1984 1985 1995 1996 1995

CONCLUDING REMARKS NOTES In this essay I have touched on only a few of the challenges that face . Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther: Creative Translator (St. Louis:     both Bible translators and those who evaluate and use the Bible in Concordia Publishing House, ; reprint ), – . . A more formal equivalent translation would read, “Blessed is the translation. I would advocate that we need to avoid both extremes man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or in the way of of strict formal equivalent translation and unfettered functional sinners does not stand, or in the seat of mockers does not sit.” equivalent translation. Instead, we should insist on a balance . Robert S. Laubach and Kay Koschnick, Using Readability between function and form. In a way, I am arguing that we should (Syracuse: New Readers Press, ), -.  view translation on a spectrum from rigidly formal to extremely . A clever translator, however, may be able to produce an adequate word play without totally sacrificing the meaning. functional. If we were to construct such a spectrum and place on it . By general reader I mean average readers with no theological the translations mentioned in this essay, it might look something training or a modicum of theological training. Such a translation like the diagram below. should avoid theological and specialized jargon whenever possible. See Wherever one would place a particular translation on this spec- Andrew E. Steinmann, “Preaching without Confusing Jargon,”      trum, it is important to keep in mind that at any particular point Concordia Pulpit Helps ( , no. ): – ; “Communicating the Gospel Without Theological Jargon: Translating the Bible into Reader- the translation may be more formal or functional equivalent than Friendly Language,” Concordia Theological Quarterly  (): it is in general. For instance, we saw above that in the case of –; and “When the Translations of Catechetical Proof Texts Don’t Daniel :,  that many of the translations on the form equiva- Communicate,” Concordia Journal  (): –. lent side of the spectrum used a very functional equivalent . The New American Bible is an American Roman Catholic trans- approach. Thus each instance of translation has to be evaluated lation conducted under the guidance of the Catholic Biblical Association. independently. . In addition, NLT has read too much into [d:y" when it translates But perhaps more importantly, we have to learn to be more sen- “I can see through your trick!” sitive to actual language usage when we evaluate Bible translations, . R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., just as Luther was sensitive to the actual German language being Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, ),  spoken in the marketplace and the home. This means that pastors . . God’s Word is an American Lutheran Translation translated by and academicians alike will have to abandon simplistic characteri- God’s Word to the Nations Bible Society. zations of translations as literal or paraphrase and the implied .For instance, NIV uses “well of water” (Gen :,), “streams equations literal = good and paraphrase = bad. It also means that of water” (Dt :; :; Ps :; :; Prov :; Is :; :; Jer :; Joel we have to be more sensitive to the balancing act that translators :), “pools of water” (Dt :, Ps :; Is :); “springs of water”                   must perform so that we are not overly critical of their work. (Jos : ; Jgs : ; Ps : ; Is : ; Jer : ; Jn : ; Rv : ; : ; : ). . Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language: A Report of the Finally, it means that those who claim to be Luther’s heirs should Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran not simply seek to produce sound theology for their day. They Church —Missouri Synod (St. Louis: LCMS, ). Page references to should also strive to use and produce good Bible translations. this document will be indicated in the body of the text. Both, when done in humility and with a sensitive treatment of Holy Scripture, bring glory to God. LOGIA Caveat Emptor! Let the Buyer — and the Reader — Beware!

A B

j

      to internet buying, Martin’s book is an examination of the New Testament sec- stock trading, and other forms of e-commerce. With the tion of the  NIV Study Bible. The significance of this book T rise of business transactions on the Internet have come for Missouri Synod Lutherans is its examination of the Bible warnings that say, Caveat emptor! —Let the buyer beware. translation used in the synod’s lectionary, catechism, Bible study Sometimes what is offered for sale on the computer screen is not materials, and hymnal Lutheran Worship. In addition, the  necessarily what it appears to be. edition of the NIV is the basis for the LCMS publishing house’s The same warning can also apply in the area of religion. Not “Lutheran edition of The NIV Study Bible.” This Concordia everything labeled religious is always religious or good. This can Publishing House edition of the NIV was the overwhelming be true in any number of areas. This essay is written to help “favorite version of the Scriptures” in a recent survey of Missouri make buyers and readers aware that a Bible translation may not Synod Lutherans; it won hands down.⁴ always be what it appears to be. Martin’s book is significant also for Wisconsin Synod A partial basis for this essay is a book written by Robert Lutherans, because the NIV is its official Bible translation, hav- Martin that examined the New International Version (NIV) of ing been blessed by the faculty of the Wisconsin Lutheran the Bible to see if it lives up to its own claims.¹ Martin’s book Seminary. should be read and studied by every Christian and every Lutheran who considers using, or who actually does use, the Ten years ago the seminary faculty expressed its opinion that NIV. Martin, a Baptist, wrote his book out of concern for the the NIV is a contemporary Bible translation which . . . may many Christian pastors and lay people who are bewildered by be used with a high degree of confidence.... The faculty the large number of Bible translations currently flooding the remains convinced that for all-around use —in private devo- religious market. tions, in programs of Christian education and for worship— This essay also notes the ties between a particular philosophy the NIV is the best contemporary translation we have.⁵ of Bible translation and inclusive-language versions of the Bible. Martin asks, What is the “pre-eminent trait of a good Bible The NIV is the Bible translation used in the latest catechisms, translation?” His answer is that “accuracy of translation . . . is Bible studies, books, commentaries, and other material pub- the overarching issue.” This is so because “the Bible is the Word lished by the Wisconsin Synod —materials designed to strength- of the living God . . . the inscripturated revelation to mankind of en the faith and to increase the piety of its lay people, and mate- God’s mind and will and the inspired record of his redemptive rials designed for pastoral care. work.” The church’s need for a Bible translation that is “an accu- Martin’s examination of the NIV begins by investigating the rate and reliable standard of faith and practice supersedes every philosophy underpinnings of the NIV. There are two philosophies other concern.”² of translation—formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Martin gives two reasons for his examination of the New A formal equivalence philosophy of translation treats each International Version (NIV) of the Bible: () the NIV translators word of the original language, its grammatical style, and its lin- desired to do “for our time what the King James Version did for guistic forms, with care and importance. This type of translation its day,” and () the claim that the “first concern of the [NIV] attempts to reproduce as accurately as possible the words, phras- translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its es, style, and forms of the original Greek and Hebrew texts of fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.” Because the NIV Holy Scripture. This formal equivalence philosophy of transla- desires to be the modern replacement for the King James tion produced the King James Version, the New King James Version, Martin examines the NIV to see whether it “is accurate Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American enough as a translation to warrant its becoming the standard Standard Bible.⁶ A formal equivalency translation is not a wood- version of the English-speaking world.”³ en, stilted translation. It is a careful and accurate rendering from one language into another. Dynamic equivalence translations try to capture “the most A J. B is pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church, Waseca, natural form of the language of the reader . . . whether or not Minnesota. this closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text.” In    other words, this method gives greater priority “to the structure, riated verbal inspiration as a “heresy” that makes the Bible a grammar, and idiomatic expressions of contemporary English.” “false god.” For Bratcher, the “authority” of the Bible “is not in Thus the translator tries to restate in modern English the gener- the words themselves” but in Jesus, “THE Word of God.”¹¹ al idea of the biblical text. The focus is on today’s reader’s Eugene Nida, one of the best-known writers on the subject of response, not on yesterday’s text. Dynamic equivalence is more translating the Bible, writes that neo-orthodox theology typically the paraphrase type of Bible version popularized by the Good News Bible, the Living Bible, and translations like the New conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response English Bible that exhibit many of the characteristics of a para- of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened phrase.⁷ Dynamic equivalency is also basic to inclusive language to the source at the time of writing .... “The Scriptures are or gender-neutral versions of the Bible. inspired because they inspire me.” Such a concept of inspi- ration means, however, that attention is inevitably shifted from the details of wording in the original to the means by which the same message can be effectively communicated to present-day readers.... Those who hold the neo-ortho- As long as the translator captures the dox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be biblical writer’s “idea,” then he is free freer in their translating.”¹² to express that idea in whatever Martin concludes this section of his book by saying that the words he chooses. formal equivalence method of translation is philosophically nb committed to regarding and guarding the individual words of the original text as the primary units of translation; the dynam- ic equivalence method is not. Thus, the further the translator departs from formal equivalence in his work, the less compati- The NIV claims that its emphasis is “for the most part on a ble his method and ultimately the finished product become with flexible use of concordance and equivalence, but with a mini- the orthodox doctrine of biblical inspiration and authority.¹³ mum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equiva- What characteristics determine whether a Bible version is a lence. In other words, the NIV stands on middle ground—by no dynamic equivalence or a formal equivalence translation? means the easiest position to occupy.”⁸ Martin’s book examines Martin lists the following elements as characteristic of a dynam- how the NIV as a finished product stacks up against its own ic equivalence translation: () the elimination of complex gram- claims. matical structures, () the addition of words in translation, () Why does Martin examine the translational philosophy of the the omission of words in translation, () the erosion of the NIV? Because, generally speaking, “the translator’s view of the Bible’s technical terminology, () the leveling of cultural distinc- nature of the Bible’s inspiration greatly influences his philoso- tives, () the presentation of the interpretation of Scripture as phy of translation.” One who believes that every word of the Scripture, () the paraphrasing of the biblical text. Martin pro- Bible is inspired (verbal inspiration) and that all of the words of ceeds to examine the NIV with these criteria to see what its the Bible are inspired (plenary inspiration) will generally tend to translational philosophy really is. use “formal equivalence” in translational work.⁹ The dynamic view of inspiration THE ELIMINATION OF COMPLEX GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURES argues that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writ- Formal equivalence translations attempt to retain the long and ers but left them to express those thoughts or ideas in their complex sentence structures that God the Holy Spirit inspired in own words.... [Thus] as long as we have the general ideas, the original biblical writers. Dynamic equivalence translations then the exact words do not matter; and, thus as long as the attempt to break these long complex sentences into short simple translator captures the biblical writer’s “idea,” then he is sentences. In their own Preface, the NIV translators admit their free to express that idea in whatever words he chooses.¹⁰ adherence to the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation by saying that “faithful communication of the meaning of the As evidence of the ties between a dynamic philosophy of Bible writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence translation and a rejection of verbal inspiration, Martin cites the structure.”¹⁴ examples of James Moffatt and Robert Bratcher. Moffatt pro- Martin lists six long complex sentences in the New Testament: duced a very dynamic English version of the Bible that he want- Acts :–;  Corinthians :–; Ephesians :–; Ephesians ed “freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration.” :–;  Thessalonians :–; and Hebrews :–. He examines Moffatt himself wrote that a translation of the Bible is mainly seven translations of these verses: those of the American “an interpretation.” Robert Bratcher, one of the primary trans- Standard Version, the King James Version, the New King James lators of the Good News Bible, said, “Only willful ignorance or Version, the New American Standard Bible, the Revised intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is Standard Version, the New International Version, and the Good inerrant and infallible.” He further stated that belief in the ver- News Bible, also known as Today’s English Version. Martin bal inspiration of the Bible was “a patent error.” Bratcher exco- found that the NIV was the most dynamic version in its render-    ing of one passage, and was only superseded in dynamic equiv- John :; Acts :; :; Romans :; :; :; :; Ephesians alency by the Good News Bible in the other five passages. Thus :; Philippians :;  Peter :; Revelation :; :. the evidence indicates that in this category “the NIV has more in Martin, however, also lists examples that illustrate the fact common with the philosophy of dynamic equivalence than with that in the NIV “liberties have been taken with the addition of the philosophy of formal equivalence.”¹⁵ words” to the text of the Bible. These additions have altered the The concern about breaking down one complex sentence into meaning of the text, and are interpretation or commentary on many simple sentences has to do with the issue of accuracy and the biblical text rather than a translation. These representative fidelity to the inspired Word of God. How does a translation that passages are:  Corinthians :; Acts :; Matthew :; :; turns one complex sentence into eight simple sentences (as the John :; Mark :; John :; Hebrews :a;  Peter :. NIV did with Ephesians :– and  Thessalonians :–) Martin labels this practice “interpretive translation.” He believes remain faithful to the original text? Was it the formal equiva- these additions to Scripture violate the doctrine of inspiration lence Bible translator who made the long complex sentence, or and fall short of the “accuracy” claimed by the translators.¹⁹ was it the biblical writer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? And if the Holy Spirit made a sentence, can a translator remain faithful when arbitrarily changing the original biblical text using dynamic equivalency? The NIV’s arbitrary changing of sentence structure is contrary to the its own claim that the “first concern Dynamic equivalence tries to make the of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its Bible “simple” at the expense of serious fi ¹⁶ delity to the thought of the biblical writers.” biblical study on the part of the reader. Martin expresses the concern that dynamic equivalence tries to make the Bible “simple” at the expense of serious biblical nb study on the part of the reader. Martin writes that the “Bible is not a pulp novel” or “the modern newspaper” that can be grasped with an “absolute minimum of effort.” Rather, the Bible merits more effort, “more study, more investigation, more Other scholars point out instances of NIV “interpretation” thought, more prayer.” Though Martin does not say it, the abil- rather than translation. Ed. Miller examines John :– in a brief ity to grasp the truth of Holy Scripture requires the work and review of the  edition of the NIV in the Harvard Theological assistance of the Holy Spirit ( Cor :–; :). Review. In verse , Miller said that the NIV translation “requires Martin fears the cry for a simple translation of the Bible a degree of interpretation not strictly justified by the [Greek] text.” And he said of another NIV rendering that “it is a com- which requires little effort to understand is rooted in the pletely unwarranted intrusion of interpretation and emphasis.” itch of our age for instant gratification. Many . . . have In concluding his review, Miller wrote that he found “at least come to regard instant spirituality and instant Bible knowl- eleven important shortcomings in the NIV rendering of the edge as their birthright. The idea that one must labour over Prologue of John.” Many of those eleven “points involve aston- the Word of God in order to mine its gold is a revolution- ishing ‘interpretational intrusions’ beyond what is actually given ary concept to many in our day.¹⁷ in the [Greek] text.”²⁰ Inclusive-language versions of the Bible also add words to the biblical text. An example is The New Testament and Psalms: An THE ADDITION OF WORDS IN TRANSLATION Inclusive Version.²¹ In this version, the Lord’s Prayer begins Dynamic equivalence translations tend to add words to the text “Our Father-Mother in heaven” (Mt :). Additions to the text of Holy Scripture. Formal equivalence translations do this spar- are even found in genealogies: “Abraham and Sarah were the ingly, and usually note additions by identifying them with ital- parents of Isaac, and Isaac and Rebekah the parents of Jacob, ics. Dynamic equivalence translations add a great number of and Jacob and Leah the parents of Judah and his brothers, and words that are not in the original texts, but do not identify them. Judah and Tamar the parents of Perez and Zerah” (Mt :–). In the NIV’s Preface, the translators state that in order to Compare the above verses with the original Greek text, as well “achieve clarity” they “sometimes supplied words not in the as with the NRSV. original texts but required by the context. If there was uncer- tainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets.” Martin THE OMISSION OF WORDS IN TRANSLATION found only eight such verses where additions to the biblical text Dynamic equivalence translations “frequently treat conjunctions, were marked by brackets, though he grants that he could have participles, pronouns, articles, adjectives, adverbs, and even missed some. The reason for this is that in “many places the NIV phrases as surplus verbiage.” In this section, Martin lists repre- is so paraphrastic that a convention such as italics or brackets sentative examples of the NIV’s removal of inspired words that would be meaningless as far as indicating verbal deviations from the Holy Spirit placed into the text of Holy Scripture: Mark :; the formal linguistic pattern of the original text.”¹⁸ He lists the Luke :; Matthew :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; Matthew following as representative examples of verses that contain addi- :–. Martin mentions especially “the NIV’s widespread elim- tions, yet (in his view) without significantly altering the mean- ination” of two “distinctive literary features” in the Gospel of ing of the verse: Matthew :; :; :; Mark :; Luke :; Mark: Mark’s repetitive use of kai (“and”) and his frequent use of   euthys (“immediately”). In addition, Martin points out the NIV’s “gender-neutral”) these same verses also had singulars changed non-translation of thirty-seven of the sixty-two occurrences of to plurals, hes changed to yous, Messianic prophecy removed, idou (“lo” or “behold”) in the Gospel of Matthew. Likewise, the and so forth.²⁵ When, however, it was discovered that the CBT Hebrew word hinneh, translated “lo,” “behold,” or “see,” is often had done this, they were forced by public outcry to revise the missing from the NIV translation of the Old Testament (Gn :; NIrV to remove the gender-neutral material from it. John Piper :; :; :; :, to name a few passages).²² said of these NIVI revisions, “If you believe in the verbal inspi- Some might say that these words don’t really mean much, that ration of Scripture you really can’t play fast and loose with the they are little, insignificant words. So what if they aren’t trans- words the Holy Spirit chose to inspire.”²⁶ lated in the text? Christ said, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much” (Lk :). If a Bible translation is THE EROSION OF THE BIBLE’S found unfaithful to God’s inspired word in little things like con- TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY junctions, participles, pronouns, articles, adjectives, and Martin notes, “dynamic equivalence translators frequently elim- adverbs, how then can it be trusted in larger and more impor- inate the difficult or technical terms” found in the Bible in the tant words? Martin’s concern about these “little words” is a con- apparent “interest of simplicity of expression.”²⁷ Can translators cern for fidelity to the inspired text. These words in the original claim faithfulness to the inspired text when they purposefully Greek text give evidence of specific authorship, are evidence of remove technical words from an English translation of the Bible Hebrew or Aramaic thought patterns, and bring unity of and replace them with different, supposedly simpler English thought to sections of the biblical text. The omission from the words? Would doctors rewrite their medical textbooks to elimi- NIV translation of so many words that the Holy Spirit placed in nate the technical? Do auto mechanics rewrite their technical the Greek text “is without warrant by any just standard of trans- manuals so that those who aren’t mechanics can better under- lation.” These omissions call into question the NIV’s claim of stand them? If these do not and would not, should Christians “accuracy” in translation and “fidelity to the thought of the bib- treat the Bible this way? lical writers.”²³ In the NIV, Martin found “an erosion of the New Testament’s technical vocabulary.” The NIV translates huiothesia without any reference to adoption in Romans : and Galatians :. The Greek word mysteria is not translated as “mystery” at Matthew :; Mark :; Luke :;  Corinthians :; :;  Thessalonians “If you believe in the verbal inspiration :;  Timothy :. The word “propitiation” (hilasterion) does of Scripture you really can’t play fast not appear in the NIV at Romans :;  John :, :.²⁸ Martin does not mention the mistranslation of koinonia (“fel- and loose with the words the Holy Spirit lowship”) in  Corinthians : and , and the mistranslations chose to inspire.” of the Greek word for tribulation (thlipsis) in all the New nb Testament verses (Mt :; :, ; Jn :; Acts :; :; Rom :;  Cor :, ), except for Revelation :. Nor does he men- tion the removal of the technical term “soul” (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psyche) from Genesis :;  Kings :–; Proverbs :; Martin wrote his book well before the NIV Committee on Matthew :; Luke :–, and many other passages. At times Bible Translation (CBT) decided to publish an inclusive lan- the NIV eliminates “word” (logos) and replaces it with other guage edition of the NIV in England known as the NIVI and the terms (Matthew :; :; Luke :, ; :; :; :; NIrV in the United States.²⁴ The adherence of the CBT to gen- :; John :, ; :–; :; :; Acts :). The Nicene der-neutrality commits the CBT to make changes to the original Creed’s “Only-begotten Son” (monogenes) becomes “one and texts of Holy Scripture. Some of those changes will remove only Son” in the NIV (John :, ; :, ).²⁹ The Old words found in the original languages. Other changes will add Testament “peace offerings” (Hebrew shelemim) become “fel- words that are not in the original texts of the Old and New lowship offerings” (Ex :; Lv :, , , ; :, , , ). God’s Testaments. Such changes are made easier when one is also com- “mercy” (Hebrew chesed) becomes “love” (Ex :; :; :; Dt mitted to “dynamic equivalency” as a philosophy of translation. :; Ps :; Ps :–). God’s “glory” (Hebrew kabod) Using this dynamic equivalency philosophy and commitment becomes “honor” (Ps :). God’s “grace” (Heb. chen) is to gender-neutrality, the NIVI changed singulars to plurals in changed to “favor” (Ex :; Ps :). Many more examples Genesis :–; Genesis :; Numbers :; Psalm :–; Psalm could be cited in evidence. This kind of translation can only :; Matthew :–; Luke :; John :; John :; Acts serve to impoverish theologically those who use the NIV as their :;  Corinthians :; James :; Revelation :. Third-per- regular Bible translation. son pronouns became second-person pronouns (Gal :–). Martin argues that it is “dangerous” for a Bible translation to Christ’s gender was made fuzzy by some changes (John :; eliminate technical terms. Translators who make simplicity the  Corinthians :). And Messianic prophecy disappeared key “will sacrifice accuracy in the process.” Sacrificing accuracy (Psalm :–/Hebrews :–; Psalm :/John :). for simplicity erodes the Bible’s “precision of meaning.” These In the original edition of the NIrV (an inclusive language losses contribute to a lack of theological precision and “curren- “easy reader” edition of the NIV, which the CBT quietly made cy of the faith.” They contribute to the perpetuation of “serious    error” in the church, contribute to biblical and theological illit- cal message from today’s world. These supposedly relevant eracy in Christians. They are “hazardous” because much of the changes in the NIV will actually contribute to the irrelevancy of gospel message and its inspired nuance in the New Testament the Bible and remove the Bible’s influence in our culture. The “might be lost forever” as a result.³⁰ NIV translation treats modern culture as most relevant and the Historically, changes in terminology have often been an indi- filter through which to understand biblical times. Thus the NIV cation of an underlying change in theology.³¹ Recent surveys of fails to live up to its claim to be faithful “to the thought of the religious beliefs seem to echo Martin’s warning that the tenden- biblical writers.”³⁵ cy to eliminate the technical terminology of Scripture in our modern day will make those who regularly read these “simple” translations “biblically and theologically illiterate from having suffered long-term exposure to inaccurate and imprecise ver- sions of the Bible.”³² By eliminating many technical biblical By eliminating many technical bibli- terms, the NIV helps to rob the church of its historical termi- nology. It also places a barrier between those who use the new cal terms, the NIV helps to rob the terminology it espouses, and those in the church who use the church of its historical terminology. historically accepted terminology —the “faith once delivered to nb the saints” in Holy Scripture (Jude ). It is the task of the church to teach each generation what its biblical terms mean, not to invent new terms for the faith. God warns his people against adding to his word or subtracting from Many inclusive-language Bibles like the NIVI, and also the it (Dt :; Rv :–). God commanded his people to teach NRSV, attempt to be culturally relevant by changing the text of their children diligently the very words he had given them (Dt Holy Scripture to make it speak with the modern world’s view of :–; Mt :). Jesus reminds us that we are saved by believing ideas and language. Mostly, these changes come at the expense his words (Jn :, ). If the church removes the words of Christ of the original text of Holy Scripture and the worldview of bib- from her Bible translations because they are technical terms, the lical times. As a result, the people of the Bible are made to speak church is not teaching the very words of God. Thus the NIV text as though they were modern-day individuals. (as well as the NIVI text) is at odds with its claim that the trans- Robert Jewett, a self-described “liberal evangelical,” said, lators first concern was “the accuracy of the translation and its “Gender-neutral language obscures the genuine revelation that fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.”³³ is there in Scripture.” For Jewett, liberal dishonesty and not patriarchalism or any other ancient element is the enemy of THE LEVELING OF CULTURAL DISTINCTIVES scriptural truth. A gender-neutral translation that claims to be These examples show how the NIV’s philosophy of translation accurate is “almost as bad as Stalin’s revisions of world history in removes the distinctive culture of biblical times from the mod- which every ten years he’d change all the history books.” Further ern-day reader of Holy Scripture. The NIV desires to be more Mr. Jewett said, culturally relevant to the modern Bible reader by focusing on the response of the modern reader rather than the actual words of We’re facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. the biblical text. Thus the NIV changed “seed” to “offspring” The modern liberated perspective that imposes itself on the (Gn :; :), and “showbread” was translated as “consecrated text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through bread” (Mt :).³⁴ the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated con- Yet the NIV’s attempt to modernize distinctively biblical cul- cepts and so forth like the current politically correct person ture and words forgets that western culture has been influenced in an Ivy League school: I mean that’s just ridiculous. Here by the biblical worldview, and that the English language is filled you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical with biblical terms. E. D. Hirsch wrote, text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liber- al views were Paul’s.³⁶ The Bible is by far the best-known book in our culture. Hundreds of its sayings have become part of our everyday Christians need to remember that the wisdom of God is a speech. Biblical stories are frequently referred to in books, stumbling block and foolishness to the world. The gospel is an newspapers, magazines, and on television. Many paintings offense to the ways, thoughts, and wisdom of the world (Pr :; and other works of art portray people or scenes from the Is :–; Is :–; Jer :–; Ez :–; Mal :; Rm :–; Bible. Furthermore, the Bible is the basis of some of our  Cor :–;  Pt :–). Jesus’ words offend (Jn :–, ). most important ideas about law and government. Because Believers need to remember that Jesus has “the words of eternal it is such a basic part of our culture, it is important for you life.” Cultural offense dare not drive them away from his words to know something about the Bible, regardless of your indi- (Jn :–). Jesus said, “Blessed is he who is not offended vidual religious beliefs. because of me” (Mt :; Lk :). Human wisdom and the ways of the spirit of the world would lead Christians to be offended by Culturally motivated Bible translations will actually cut people the word of God. So, by the help of the Holy Spirit, believers off from their biblical past and separate the real historical bibli- need to have the mind of Christ revealed in his inspired word.  

The wisdom of this world is not wiser than God or his word ( official human interpretations of Scripture that contradict the Cor :–). If removing the offensiveness of the inspired word plain and simple meaning of God’s word.⁴⁰ of God removes the offense God put there, it also removes the Martin lists twenty-one representative examples of interpreta- word of God from the church. tion in the NIV. These examples include interpretive paraphrase, In an essay delivered in , Robert Jenson noted: interpretive word addition to the text, interpretation that nar- rows or limits the meaning of a passage, and translations that are But John did not use two different phrases, “the Jews” and unique to the NIV. In contrast, he emphasizes the importance of “the Judaeans,” depending on whether he had good or bad to clearly and accurately translating the original text of Scripture so say; and when the text read to congregations is rewritten as that God’s people might read the actual word of God that the if he had, Scripture is insofar simply abolished. Some may Holy Spirit has written, not some human words of interpretation wish that the grammatical gender of Israel’s God were not that are passed off as the Spirit-inspired text of Holy Scripture. masculine, or at least that Paul’s and other biblical authors’ Having noted these examples, Martin writes, texts were not so syntactically complex as to need pronouns to make sense. But neither of these is the fact; and readers the NIV translators have not limited their interpretive who rewrite to pretend that they are the fact simply rob their activity to places where the original text is grammatically hearers of the text of Scripture. There is no such usage in any ambiguous. On the contrary, they have been too unre- canonical text as the gnostic “Godself”; necessarily, a reading strained in offering their interpretive opinions. Too often which contains it is not the reading of a canonical text.³⁷ they have assumed the role of expositor; but the translator’s task is not that of an expositor. His job is not to give a run- Not all gender-neutralizing is wrong. To render Matthew : ning commentary nor to explain the parts of the text that as “For if you forgive people (anthropois) their trespasses,” or are theologically difficult to understand.⁴¹ John : as “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people (anthropoi) loved the darkness more Instead Martin writes that the than light,” are valid attempts at making the generic language of the Greek Bible generic in English.³⁸ The real point of concern translator’s role is like that of an ambassador to a foreign comes when changes to the biblical text make the Scriptures say people. He is to be faithful and precise in delivering the something that the original text does not say. words that God has given to him. If this is his task, and it is, then only a careful formally equivalent rendering of the THE PRESENTATION OF THE INTERPRETATION original will pass on to the people of God the message OF SCRIPTURE AS SCRIPTURE which the Lord intended us to receive. Martin voices concern over the interpretive layer the NIV places between the biblical text and the reader. He recognizes that every Because of the extremely large number of interpretive transla- Bible translator has to do this to some extent, but formal equiv- tions found in the NIV, Martin concludes that the NIV is not a alence translations contain less interpretation than do dynamic faithful “ambassador” of God’s word! By passing off the inter- equivalence translations. Dynamic equivalence translations mis- pretive words of human beings as the text of Scripture, the NIV lead readers by giving them interpretations rather than the has fallen short of its claim to “accuracy” and “fidelity.”⁴² divinely inspired text itself. Citing Eugene Nida’s remark that the Inclusive language versions often follow the principle of dynamic equivalence translator “is often inclined to be more dynamic equivalency, give greater fidelity to the receptor lan- interpretive on the basis of such” a philosophy of translation, guage, and present the interpretation of Scripture as Scripture. “than if he attempts to stay closer to the actual wording of the This is openly admitted in inclusive language versions of the original” text of God’s Word, Martin asserts the “dynamic equiv- Bible. The following is representative: alence translator . . . reveals a lack of confidence that the mod- ern Christian is able to interpret the Bible for himself.” As one This introduction is intended to inform the reader about individual said to Martin, “Most people, however, are incapable the interpretive character of the text. Attention should be of interpreting and so need a scholar to interpret for them.” paid to the kinds of adaptations in language that have been Martin believes that such an attitude “places too much authori- made in order to express the intent of the text in the most ty into the hands of the translator.”³⁹ inclusive way possible.... we are aiming at producing a He is also concerned these translators “have either con- specific version of the biblical text: an inclusive version. sciously or unconsciously retreated to some degree from one of the Reformation’s cardinal doctrines”: the ability of a Christian How much interpretation is given as though it were really the with the aid of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the Holy text of Holy Scripture? Scriptures without the interpretation of the pope or a church council. The Scriptures can be read, believed, and understood This version has undertaken the effort to replace or rephrase without an “official” scholar to interpret them. In spite of the all gender-specific language not referring to particular histor- Baptist mooring of Martin’s thought that reduces biblical inter- ical individuals, all pejorative references to race, color, or reli- pretation to a matter of individual freedom, his main concern is gion, and all identifications of persons by their physical dis- still valid. Luther and Lutherans have voiced objections to ability alone, by means of paraphrase, alternative renderings,   

and other acceptable means of conforming the language of the should not be used as our primary study Bibles or as the work to an inclusive idea. standards from which we derive our personal or corporate theology and practice. It is also probably unwise to use them What is of major importance to this version? Is it fidelity to the as pulpit Bibles or as pew Bibles, because in so doing they text of Holy Scripture? No! This version notes that “inclusivity is are invested with the aura of the approval of the church.⁴⁷ of major importance” no matter how much the original Greek text is changed.⁴³ Because the text of the NIV gives so much evidence that it is a dynamic equivalence translation, Martin’s book needs to be THE PARAPHRASING OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT carefully examined and evaluated by any in the Christian church As was seen above, the NIV claims only “a minimum of . . . para- who now use the NIV in the above ways. phrase.” Yet upon careful examination, Martin finds that “the Martin objects when some say that people will not read the NIV translators frequently engaged in paraphrase,” and that Bible unless it is translated into simpler and less precise terms “paraphrase is not an isolated phenomenon in the NIV New than can be found in formal equivalence translations. Martin Testament.” Martin lists forty-eight representative examples of writes that we “must beware of the long-term costs of supposed outright paraphrase in the NIV. He writes about this because short-term gains.” What are those supposed short-term gains? “extensive paraphrase (such as we see in the NIV New Testament) Supposedly more people will read the Bible if they use such greatly reduces a version’s usefulness as a serious Bible study tool, dynamic equivalency translations like the NIV. Martin warns, especially for the reader who does not read Greek and Hebrew however, that and who is thus dependent on the formal accuracy of the English translation that he is using as a study Bible.”⁴⁴ sacrificing precision for simplicity is no bargain. Inaccurate Martin writes, and paraphrastic Bible translations cannot but contribute to the further erosion of theological precision in the it is not accurate to say that the NIV contains “a minimum decades to come .... We must be cautious and conserva- . . . of outright dynamic equivalence.” Although the NIV is tive. We must insist that new versions earn their right to not as “dynamic” as the Good News Bible or the New widespread use in the churches not by advertising finesse English Bible, nevertheless the NIV translators have been but by our careful scrutiny of their accuracy.... We cannot heavily influenced by the dynamic equivalence philosophy afford to be careless and uninformed in these matters. of translation. Indeed, the NIV has more in common with the dynamic equivalence translations than with the formal After careful scrutiny, Martin’s final conclusion is that the “NIV equivalence translations.⁴⁵ is not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English- speaking world. Its accuracy is suspect in too many ways.”⁴⁸ Because he found the NIV to be more of a paraphrase, Martin believes that the NIV’s claim to be an accurate translation is wrong. Thus we arrive at the answers to Martin’s questions: Is the NIV an accurate translation? Is the NIV accurate enough as a translation to warrant its becoming the standard version of the The Scriptures can be read, believed, English-speaking world? Does the NIV meet the church’s need and understood without an “official” for an accurate translation of the Scriptures, which are her only scholar to interpret them. standard of faith and practice? Martin states that if we judge accuracy “in terms of close correspondence to the structure and nb wording of the original texts, then the NIV must be judged inac- curate on a number of counts.” Martin’s answer to all three questions is, No! The NIV translators stated that they “were The end of Martin’s book contains three appendixes, which united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of cover textual changes made in the NIV since its first edition, the Bible as God’s Word in written form.” Martin commends some comments on archaic language in Bible translations, and them for their adherence to a “high view of the Scriptures,” but some comments for those who say the Textus Receptus is the only expresses his concern that “heavy use of the dynamic equiva- Greek version to be used as the basis for a Bible translation. lence philosophy is at odds with the doctrine of verbal inspira- tion.” While it is possible for Bible translators to embrace ortho- CONCERNS FOR CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANS dox views of inspiration even when using dynamic equivalency Martin’s book raises concerns with which the Lutheran as a translational philosophy, this is really an inconsistency. Thus Church —Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, and others Martin says, “history teaches that inconsistency in one genera- must deal. First, these denominations believe in the verbal inspi- tion becomes heterodoxy in the next. Where the dynamic ration of the Holy Scriptures. Yet the NIV, now used in almost method of translation is embraced, it is but one small step to the all of both synods’ educational, devotional, and liturgical mate- embracing of the dynamic view of inspiration as well.”⁴⁶ rials, is a Bible version translated with a philosophy antagonistic Martin believes that dynamic translations have a place in the to that doctrine. Jakob van Bruggen wrote about “the inadequa- Christian church. Nevertheless, they cy of dynamic equivalence” as a method of Bible translation “for   those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.” In Bible” that will be gender-neutral. This “rendition” would reflect addition, van Bruggen taught that Christians must reject the perspective of the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation dynamic equivalence as a method of Bible translation because it (CBT) that “thoroughly support[s] gender-accurate language.” () “rejects the orthodox doctrine of the unity of the unchanged Another article in the same edition of World revealed that the divine and human natures of Christ by making his words sub- British Inclusive Language Version of the NIV (the NIVI) is ject to all the limitations of the first century,” () “denies that the offered for sale here in the United States, supposedly with the Bible reveals absolute truth that transcends the time in which it approval of Zondervan Publishing House that said that the NIVI was written,” () “limits the horizon of God’s speaking in the would not be sold here in the United States.⁵² Bible to the centuries of the past,” and () “fails to account for The NIV’s recent Hispanic version has changed the reading of the creation of man in God’s image, the unity of the human race Psalm : and Hebrews : from “hijo del hombre” (Son of in Adam, and thus its unity in guilt and punishment.”⁴⁹ Man) to “el ser humano” (the human one/human being). The Spanish term for Son of Man is also removed from Daniel :. The wording of Acts : makes it seem that when the disciples chose a replacement for Judas they could have chosen a woman or a man. This means that the NIV Hispanic version is a silent Where the dynamic method of transla- gender-neutral version. In other words, as with the original tion is embraced, it is but one small NIrV, the publisher did not say that it had done a gender-neutral translation, even though it had. This seems to be a recurring pat- step to the embracing of the dynamic tern with NIV gender-neutral versions.⁵³ view of inspiration as well. Martin’s book places before the whole Christian church the nb concern that continued use of the NIV by pastors and lay people will result in the loss of a proper understanding of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible.⁵⁴ The gender-neutral plans of the CBT should certainly cause Lutheran Christians committed to The concern about whether the NIV translators (known as the doctrine of inspiration to reexamine the NIV and their use the Committee on Bible Translation—CBT) remain committed of it in their churches. Thus Martin’s book poses this question to to the doctrine of inspiration has increased due to the fact that the LCMS, to WELS, and to all other evangelical Christians: Can the NIV Committee on Bible Translation quietly worked on you use the NIV as your official Bible translation and continue releasing a gender-neutral “inclusive language” NIV translation to hold to the doctrine of verbal inspiration? in  or . When the American Christian public became Second, both synods desire to promote Bible study as well as aware of this proposed gender-neutral inclusive language revi- theological and biblical literacy with Life-Light and other Bible sion of the NIV, the CBT had already quietly published a gender- studies, and commentaries like The People’s Bible Commentary. neutral inclusive language children’s Bible in America known as Yet the NIV translation, which is the English text for these Bible the NIrV, and had published an inclusive language NIV—the studies, commentaries, and almost all materials published by NIVI —in England. Only after great public outcry was the gen- these confessional Lutheran synods, eliminates a number of the der-neutral NIrV phased out and modified, and the proposed Bible’s technical terms and elevates current culture over the cul- gender-neutral inclusive language version NIV for America ture of the Bible. Thus Martin’s concerns need to be carefully dropped. Some expressed the concern that the CBT could start investigated, for if the NIV truly is as problematic as Martin printing the proposed gender-neutral changes to the NIV at any claims, then its long-term use will spiritually impoverish its time in the future. This fear was not unfounded, since in Lutheran readers rather than make them more biblically and October of  the International Bible Society reprinted an theologically literate. NIrV New Testament called Bright Beginnings in its original gen- Third, these synods diligently strive for theological accuracy der-neutral version.⁵⁰ and doctrinal precision. Yet Martin raises the concern that the When news about the original gender-neutral NIV first Bible translation these synods promote and use is one that has appeared, the Southern Baptists said that the International Bible been translated by means of a philosophy opposed to real theo- Society (IBS) and its CBT were revising God’s word “to meet the logical and doctrinal accuracy and precision because it subtracts demands of political correctness.” They said that if the IBS con- God’s words from the divinely inspired text and adds human tinued with these gender-neutral changes they would boycott the words to the word of God. NIV. Southern Baptists took note of the fact that the IBS could Of special concern here is the doctrine of justification. reprint the gender-neutral NIV at any time. It is also apparent that Radmacher and Hodges (who are not Lutherans) raise some very the Southern Baptists took note of the IBS’s October  reprint- serious questions about the NIV’s view of salvation. These ques- ing of the original gender-neutral NIrV, because they recently tions are based on the NIV’s translation of a number of passages. announced that they and their publishing house (Broadman and Radmacher and Hodges wrote that the NIV translation of  John Holman) would no longer use the NIV in its publications.⁵¹ : “at least permits the deduction that if a person does something A month later it was revealed in World that the International wrong or feels ill will toward another Christian he is not really Bible Society (IBS) “had to acknowledge that it is giving consid- saved!” Furthermore, to render Romans : “as the NIV does, is to eration to publishing a new English-language ‘rendition’ of the open the door widely to perfectionism and eradicationism.”   

The NIV choice of the paraphrase “controlled by” (in version is accepting Christ rather than him choosing and receiv- Romans :) serves the interests of those forms of theology ing us (Jn :, –; :, –; Gal :), the term “Sovereign that insist on perseverance in godly living as a necessary Lord” (more than two hundred times in Ezekiel alone), the manifestation of true regeneration. But even those who absence of Christ from his church today (Acts :), and others. A hold this view ought to be uncomfortable with the NIV Reformed cast to the NIV should concern Lutheran pastors and treatment of these verses.... The NIV translation of this theologians when Lutherans (lay and clergy) claim the NIV as section of Romans  [vv. –] is a doctrinal nightmare.⁵⁵ their overwhelmingly favorite Bible version.⁵⁸ Lutherans from Harold Senkbeil to Carter Lindberg have Recent studies of the beliefs of Christians indicate that there is a expressed concern about the growing influence of Reformed and great deal of confusion in the minds of many Christians as to neo-evangelical theology in Lutheranism.⁵⁹ The heavy use of the how sinners are saved. Translations like those above would have NIV by Lutherans is undoubtedly a contributor to this phenom- to be included as possible contributing factors to this confusion. enon. There is a very real danger that, over time, a confessional Other doctrinal concerns about NIV translations include that Lutheran denomination that regularly uses the NIV will suffer they lessen the divinity of Christ (Col :;  Tim :), inade- damage to its sound biblical and confessional heritage. quately portray his existence from eternity (Mi :), and raise ambiguities about conversion (Jn :, –; :; Gal :).⁵⁶ Both synods encourage the use of the NIV as pulpit and lectern Bibles. The Missouri Synod used the NIV as the text of its Lutheran Worship Lectionary. The NIV is the text of Scripture Can you use the NIV as your official used in its hymnal, Lutheran Worship. Yet Martin’s book emphat- Bible translation and continue to hold ically states that the NIV should not be used as a primary study Bible or as the standard translation from which Christians derive to the doctrine of verbal inspiration? their personal or corporate theology and practice. His book also nb states that it is unwise to use the NIV as a pulpit Bible or as a pew Bible, because doing so invests the NIV with the aura of the approval of the church when it should not have such approval due to its inaccuracy and its lack of fidelity to the inspired text. The LCMS in its constitution demands the “exclusive use of Fourth, these synods have invested the NIV with official sta- doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church tus by using it in catechisms, hymnals, books, Bible studies, and school.”⁶⁰ If the concerns about the NIV are true, then the commentaries, and other materials. The Missouri Synod has Missouri Synod’s use of the NIV as the Bible translation for its issued a slightly revised version of the  NIV Study Bible enti- new catechism, worship books, lectionary, and Bible studies tled the Concordia Self-Study Bible. The revisions in this causes the synod and its individual congregations to experience Concordia Publishing House edition of the NIV did not occur in some serious internal conflict regarding her constitution. the biblical text, but were made in the study notes. Another edi- Lutherans have done some examination of the NIV in the tion of the NIV issued by Concordia Publishing House is called past. The NIV received more critique and commentary in the The Concordia Reference Bible. The comments on the box lid theological journals of the Wisconsin Synod than it did in state that this edition is “Thoughtfully Lutheran.” The – Missouri Synod publications. The Wisconsin Synod’s accep- Concordia Catalog states that this CPH edition of the NIV is “a tance of the NIV, and her resolve to maintain this decision, may Lutheran Bible.” Many Lutheran lay people have taken these be seen in many articles and materials.⁶¹ above statements to mean that the NIV is a “Lutheran” Bible The Missouri Synod’s acceptance of the NIV is in part based version translated either solely or predominantly by Lutherans. on the Wisconsin Synod’s usage. It is also, in part, a result of the Yet the fact is that very few Lutherans served as NIV translators. misuse of an examination of ten Bible versions by the One of the few Lutherans, Frederic Blume, admits that the Committee on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). This Lutheran NIV translators were “vastly outnumbered by men CTCR study examined selected passages contained in the expla- whose basic theological convictions are pointed in the direction nation section of the Second Article of the  synodical cate- of the Reformed tradition.”⁵⁷ chism. It desired to “provide guidance in evaluating contempo- Lutheran Christians need to examine carefully this little-stud- rary Bible translations and paraphrases” and to “stimulate Bible ied aspect of the NIV. Even non-Lutherans like Jacob van study throughout the Synod.” This CTCR study was also issued Bruggen admit that the NIV translators have freely translated the in the hope that individuals and “groups in the Synod will make NIV “for doctrinal purposes.” Since the NIV translators were use of the following samples of this study to check out transla- overwhelmingly Reformed, it is difficult to imagine that there is tions and paraphrases for themselves.” This study was able to not some amount of Reformed theology in this translation. A examine only New Testament NIV passages because the NIV number of Lutheran theologians have for some years raised the Old Testament was not yet available in . The NIV did look concern that the NIV has a decidedly Reformed theological slant. good in the passages that were examined. Nevertheless, this Those who have written on this subject note that the Reformed CTCR examination of various passages from one section of the influence can be seen in the NIV renderings of passages in which synodical catechism was neither intended to be an in-depth faith is cast as obedience (Mt :; Lk :; Jn :–), con- study, nor the final answer for determining the suitability of a  

Bible translation for use in the church. Nor was it intended to be Christian church, Caveat emptor! Let the buyer and reader an endorsement of any one Bible translation. In fact, as was seen beware. Confessional Lutherans and other Christians need to above, the CTCR report hoped to stimulate further study of the examine carefully the claims of Martin, Radmacher and Hodges, suitability of the various Bible translations. Instead of being used van Bruggen, and others, to see whether their concerns are to further the examination of Bible translations in the Synod, unfounded or if they are true. The CBT’s production of, and this CTCR report has at times been misused by some as a final commitment to, a gender-neutral inclusive version of the Bible word to justify the use of the NIV in the Missouri Synod, and to amplifies the concerns these books have voiced about adherence end any debate on the subject. Significantly, the LCMS’s  cat- to the doctrine of inspiration. Concerns about the Reformed echism used every one of the NIV Bible passages that the CTCR slant of the NIV further demonstrate the necessity for confes- study said were “not reflecting the original as well as it should” sional Lutherans to do a careful examination of the NIV. or were deemed “not usable” in a Lutheran catechism.⁶² Martin’s book should raise concerns for confessional Lutheran pastors because NIV Bible passages Martin describes as “interpre- tation of Scripture” and as bad “paraphrasing of the biblical text”  are contained in the LCMS’s catechism. Martin called some A confessional Lutheran denomination of these passages being memorized by Lutheran catechism stu- dents “unwarranted addition,” “the liberty taken by the transla- that regularly uses the NIV will suffer tors has impoverished the text,” and said that the NIV rendering damage to its sound biblical and ⁶³ “obscures the apostle’s point.” Perhaps Martin’s book will confessional heritage. prompt Lutherans to a renewed study of Bible translations, and be a spur to their own diligent in-depth study of the NIV. It is hoped nb that Martin’s book will not be ignored, relegated to obscurity, or shoved aside by confessional Lutherans. Confessional Lutherans should remember Dutch Reformed scholar Jakob van Bruggen’s conclusion: The above criticisms of the NIV should not be taken to mean that there is nothing good or commendable in the NIV. There is In the New Testament, the NIV is . . . too free in its trans- much that is good therein and much has been said and written lation. To a lesser extent than in the case of the TEV, how- in favor of the NIV. Unfortunately, the few books that carefully ever, the NIV misuses this freedom for doctrinal purposes. examine the NIV translation have remained relatively unknown, Often the NIV does not transmit the intention of Scripture even in Lutheranism. There have been very few careful exami- accurately or completely.... The NIV New Testament in nations by Lutherans that have studied the expression of its present form cannot be considered a reliable substitute Christian doctrine (especially Lutheran doctrine) in theology of for the KJV or even the RSV. the NIV. Therefore, this study has attempted to distill the con- cerns of those books and to encourage a thorough Lutheran Van Bruggen’s study also found that the NIV New Testament examination of the NIV. was less than faithful to the Greek text. He too consistently May the Lord of the church bless his people as they diligently classed the NIV with the Good News Bible/Today’s English study his word, examine translations of that word, work to Version and the Living Bible because the NIV is a dynamic translate it clearly and properly, and preach his clear word of law equivalency translation, that is, more of a paraphrase.⁶⁴ and gospel that sinners might always be sure of God’s love and Books written by Martin, van Bruggen, and others say to the forgiveness in Christ. LOGIA

NOTES . Robert Martin, Accuracy of Translation and the New International equivalency. Their definition of formal equivalency is a woodenly rigid Version: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions (Edinburgh: literal translation of the original text. Their definition of formal equiva- Banner of Truth Trust, ). Other non-Lutherans have also examined lency does not seem accurate (Radmacher and Hodges, –). the NIV, most notably Earl D. Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges, The . Ibid., –. NIV Reconsidered (Dallas: Redencion Viva, ). . The Story of the New International Version (East Brunswick, New . Ibid., , , . Jersey: International Bible Society, ), –. Barker defends the NIV . Ibid., , . The quotes are taken from the NIV Study Bible (Grand against Martin’s book, saying: “The most glaring weakness of both Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, ), xi. works [Martin and Rademacher-Hodges] is that faithfulness and accu- . Concordia Self-Study Bible: New International Version (St. Louis: racy are measured too much in terms of the original or source lan- Concordia Publishing House, ), ix. The survey is cited in David guage” (Barker, ). Strand, “Twelve Books Every Lutheran Should Read,” Lutheran Witness . Martin, –. , no.  (July ): . . Ibid., . . John C. Jeske, “Faculty Review of the Revised NIV,” Wisconsin . Ibid., , also n. ; James Moffatt, The Bible: A New Translation Lutheran Quarterly , no.  (Spring ): . (New York: Harper and Row, ), vii. Moffatt also refers to “transla- . Martin, . Here Martin and Radmacher-Hodges differ. The latter tors” as “interpreters.” define dynamic equivalency with the definition Martin gives to formal . Martin, . For a critique of Nida’s translational philosophy by   

Jakob van Bruggen, see Jay Green Sr., ed., Unholy Hands on the Bible . Martin, , . For some other NIV passages that turn the bibli- (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, ), : –. cal world into the modern world, see Genesis :;  Samuel :; Job . Martin, –. :; :; Amos :; Mark :. Compare these NIV renderings with the . Concordia Self-Study Bible, x. original Hebrew and Greek texts. . Martin, . . E. D. Hirsch Jr., A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Our . Ibid., ; The NIV Study Bible, xi. Children Need to Know (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, ), . . Martin, , . Tony Naden has expressed the concern that today “No one in the English-speaking world can be considered literate with- many are “trying to produce translations which are immediately mean- out a basic knowledge of the Bible” (E. D. Hirsch Jr., J. F. Kett, and ingful to any reader, irrespective of his degree of literacy, intelligence or James Trefil, eds., Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Boston: Houghton interest” (Tony Naden, “Understandest What Thou Readest?” Bible Mifflin Company, ), , –. The NIV Study Bible, xi. Translator  [July ]: ). . Cited in David Bayly & Susan Olasky, “Anti-unisex backlash,” . The NIV Study Bible, xiii; Martin, . The lack of brackets to World , no.  (February , ): . indicate additions to the text is also a problem in another “dynamic . Robert W. Jenson, “A Call to Faithfulness,” Dialog , no.  equivalency” translation, God’s Word. Here see John M. Moe, “Review (Spring ), –. In response to recasting God’s name as “Mother, Essay: God’s Word: Today’s Bible Translation that Says What It Means,” Lover, Friend” and other variations, Jenson said that “a church ashamed L  (Reformation/October ): –. of her God’s name is ashamed of her God.” . Martin, , ; NIV Study Bible, xi. For other examples of NIV . “Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language,” –. additions to and deletions from the Greek text, see Green, –. . Martin, –. Interpretation or commentary rather than transla- Please note that many of the changes are the result of the NIV’s usage tion is also a problem in God’s Word. See Moe, “Review Essay,” –, . of a different Greek text than the one used for the KJV. This is also a . Martin, –; Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer much-debated subject. and O. R. Johnston, (n.p.: Fleming H. Revell Company, ), –, . Ed. Miller, , . Here see Radmacher and Hodges, –, –, –, , –. See also FC SD Comprehensive Summary –, and passim. (), which refers to the Scriptures as “the pure, clear fountain of Israel.” . The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (New York: . Martin, –, . That the reader might be able to examine Oxford University Press, ). Adding words to the text is also done in Martin’s concerns, the twenty-one verses he notes are listed here: God’s Word —see Moe, “Review Essay,” –. Matthew :; John :; John :; John :; Acts :; Romans :; . Martin, , . For other examples of NIV additions to and dele- Romans :; Romans :;  Corinthians :;  Corinthians : ( exam- tions from the Greek text, see Green, –. ples);  Corinthians :; Galatians :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; . Ibid.; NIV Study Bible, xi. This is also a problem in God’s Word; Colossians :;  Thessalonians :;  Timothy :; Philemon ; see Moe, “Review Essay,” –. Hebrews :;  Peter :. . The New International Version Inclusive Language Edition: . Ibid, . “But it is the translator’s responsibility to reproduce, if Women’s Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, ). possible, the ambiguity of a text, placing the English reader in the same . New International Reader’s Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan position as the ancient Greek reader.... The [NIV] translators here Publishing House, ). The CBT admitted that the NIrV was released [John :] have usurped the reader’s right to an accurate, even if ambigu- “with a Preface which did not explicitly notify parents that gender- ous and obscure, rendering of the [Greek] text” [Ed. Miller, ]. related changes were made in this version” (Susan Olasky, “Bailing Out . The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, viii–ix. of the Stealth Bible,” World , no.  [June /, ]: ). . The Story of the New International Version, ; Martin, , . The . Olasky, “Bailing Out of the Stealth Bible,” –. Edward E. verses Martin examines are Matthew :; :; :; :; :; :; Plowman and Susan Olasky, “October Surprise,” World , no.  :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Mark :; :; :; Luke :; (November , ), –. Piper is quoted in Susan Olasky, “The :; :; :; :; John :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Battle for the Bible,” World , no.  (April , ): . Acts :; Acts :; Romans :; :; :; :;  Corinthians :; :; . Martin, . Galatians :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; :; :;  Thessalonians . Ibid., –. God’s Word is another translation that also removes :;  Timothy :; James :; :;  John :. the Bible’s technical terminology. See Moe, “Review Essay,” –. . Martin, . “[B]ut it would not be surprising if the same some- . “Even so, the rendering ‘of the one and only Son’ goes too far” what ‘free-wheeling’ strain [of translation] were to be found through- [Ed. Miller, ]. Barker defends the NIV rendering; see Barker, –. out [the NIV]” [Ed. Miller, ]. . Martin, –. . Martin, , ; The Holy Bible: New International Version . “However, in very recent years another type of theology [than (Colorado Springs, CO: International Bible Society, ), ix. propositional theology] has gained prominence in our circles . . . this . Martin, . kind of ‘biblical theology’ requires the addition of certain terms to our . Ibid. This is also the conclusion of Ed. Miller in his review of the theological vocabulary; it may require the redefinition and the NIV in the Harvard Theological Review [Ed. Miller, ]: “Repeatedly, the modification of some of the wonderful systematic terms in our heritage, NIV indulges in changes from the familiar translations of previous years simply because they have become colorless through long use. Every without any appreciable gain to the reader at all. What is more, these denomination is facing the question of what to do with the fruits of the changes often leave the reader worse off than he was before. Weighed in biblical research of the past  years. Some have in effect accepted them the scales of general accuracy and reliability, much too often the NIV is lock, stock, and barrel. No major group, to our knowledge, has turned found wanting” (Radmacher and Hodges, ). “Measured against its own them down in similar fashion. Honesty compels us to say that until stated goal of accuracy, the NIV fares poorly in some very important recent years The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod was one of the few prophetic texts” (). major denominations which was in danger of following this course. . Jakob van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Now, it seems to us, that the Lord of the church is being particularly Nelson Inc., Publishers, ), , . good to our body by giving us men who will not let us ignore the newer . Susan Olasky, “Femme Fatale,” World (March , ), –; biblical studies. Men of our church in teaching positions at every insti- Susan Olasky, “Leave it Just as It Is,” World (May /June , ), ; tution and in parishes in every District have tasted the fruit of heils- Doug LeBlanc, “Hands Off My NIV!” Christianity Today (June , geschichtliche theology . . . . And so there is confusion, tension, and even ), –, ; CBMW News (June, ), , –; Susan Olasky, strife in our denomination” (Herbert T. Mayer, “Editorial,” Concordia “Bailing out of the Stealth Bible,” World (June /, ): –; Theological Monthly , no.  [February ]: –). Edward E. Plowman and Susan Olasky, “October Surprise,” World , . Martin, . no.  (November , ): –. . NIV Study Bible, xi. . Plowman and Olasky, “October Surprise,” ; “Beyond the NIV,” 

World ,no. (May , ), . (April–July ): –; Robert J. Koester, Law and Gospel: Foundation of . Susan Olasky, “There they go again....”World ,no. (June , Lutheran Ministry with Special Reference to the Church Growth Movement ): , . “Recognizing this need, the Committee on Bible (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ); Craig Parton, “The Translation made a decision in  that the New International Version New White-Wine Pietists,” Logia ,no. (Epiphany ): –. should be made available in an inclusive language edition” [NIVI — .Handbook, Article , . “Preface to Inclusive Language NIV,” vii]. Susan Olasky, “Life on the . Frederic E. Blume, “The New International Version: First Bible Beat,” World ,no. (June , ): . Impressions,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly ,no. (April, ): . Susan Olasky, “Regendering in Spanish?” World ,no. (June –; John C. Jeske, “New International Version Completed,” , ): . Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly ,no. (October, ): –; John C. . Martin, . Barker defends the NIV translation, –. Jeske, “New International Version,” Bible Translations: Nine English . Ibid., , –. See also , –, –, –, . Versions of the Bible Evaluated (Milwaukee: Wisconsin Evangelical . In the NIV Christ only “appeared in a body.” Radmacher and Lutheran Synod, ), –; Ernst H. Wendland, “Exegetical Briefs: Hodges said, “It is not improbable that they [Gnostics and Docetists] Suggested NIV Changes New Testament,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly could have been comfortable with the assertion that Jesus ‘appeared in ,no. (Winter ): –; Faculty, “Exegetical Briefs: Suggested NIV a body,’ but they would have objected to the thought that He ‘was man- Changes Old Testament,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly ,no. (Spring, ifested in the flesh!’” (Radmacher and Hodges, ). ): –; John C. Jeske, “Faculty Review of the Revised NIV,” . – Concordia Catalog, ; Frederic E. Blume, “The New Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly ,no. (Spring ): –. International Version —First Impressions,” Wisconsin Lutheran . Comparative Study of Bible Translations and Paraphrases: Report Quarterly ,no. (April, ): . of the Bible Versions Committee (St. Louis: Distributed by the . Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, . The wording of the NIV Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS, and NIVI translation of Acts : (“He [Jesus] must remain in heaven September, ), –; Forward; . See – for the listing of the pas- until the time comes for God to restore everything.”) attempts to make sages. These passages, which only come from the Christology section of Scripture teach a real absence of Christ from this world. In the original the  Catechism, are Matthew :; John :; John :–; Romans  version this verse tied well with the Reformed mistranslation of John :;  Cor. :–;  Timothy :. The passages are found on pages , : (see footnote  above). For evidence that God’s Word is also heavily , , , –, and  of Luther’s Small Catechism with influenced by Reformed theology, see Moe, “Review Essay,” . Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ). . Harold L. Senkbeil, Sanctification: Christ in Action —Evangelical . Those passages are listed below with their page numbers in the Challenge and Lutheran Response (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing  Catechism: Matthew :– (); Luke : (); John :– (, House, ); Carter Lindberg, The Third Reformation: Charismatic ); John : (); Acts :,  (); Romans : (); Romans : (, Movements and the Lutheran Tradition (Macon, GA: Mercer University ); Romans :– (); Romans : (); Romans : (, ); Press, ); James Gustafson, Lutherans in Crisis: The Question of Identity Romans : ();  Corinthians : (–);  Corinthians :– (); in the American Republic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), especially the  Corinthians : (, );  Corinthians : (); Galatians : (); last chapter entitled “Unfinished Issues Regarding Confessional Identity”; Galatians :– (); Galatians :– (, , , ); Ephesians :– Carter Lindberg, “Pietism and the Church Growth Movement in a (); Ephesians : (, ); Ephesians :– (); Ephesians :– (); Confessional Lutheran Perspective,” Concordia Theological Quarterly , Colossians : (); Colossians : (); Hebrews : (); James :– nos. – (April–July ): –; Carter Lindberg, “Church Growth and ();  Peter : (, ),  John :– (). Martin, , , . Confessional Integrity,” Concordia Theological Quarterly , nos. – . Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, , –. Inklings

You donÕt actually expect me to believe all that stuff . . . do you? Does Method Drive Biblical Study?

K H

j

    B   in contemporary against the idea of interpreting the Bible. “Interpretation” sug- circles, “What is your method?” How means method, the gested to him that it was the interpreter who was providing the H necessary prerequisite to interpretation. Every interpre- understanding —that is, the clarity, the importance, and the mes- tation is based on a method, or so goes the current consensus; sage. For Luther, Scripture was quite capable of interpreting itself. therefore it is best to make one’s method clear before interpreta- Much is to be gained in the contemporary discussion of tion can effectively take place. The question here is whether it is hermeneutics and method for those so interested and so true that method precedes interpretation, that every interpreta- inclined.³ My concern here is the relation of method to inter- tion is based on a method, and, therefore, that method drives pretation. My objection to the claim that every interpretation biblical interpretation.¹ employs a method and therefore that method of necessity drives Methodenlehre has been a preoccupation of biblical inter- interpretation is that such a claim is reductionistic and deter- preters for a few centuries, especially in historical-critical circles. ministic. It is similar to the claim that all language presupposes It has not always been that way. In fact the church existed quite a philosophy. Whenever it is claimed that “all” something is happily for a good sixteen hundred years or more before the M- determined by something else, disciplines become blurred. word came into prominence. What is worse, it assumes some neutral beginning point in the Methodenlehre is important, to be sure, along with other asso- human endeavor of understanding that is itself uncaused and is ciated disciplines reaching prominence in the nineteenth century, the unmoved mover. Human understanding is complex, and such as hermeneutics and exegesis. My concern is not to challenge every discipline has something to offer; but to make one disci- the importance of the discussion of method in and of itself. My pline, for example, Methodenlehre, the basis of another exceeds only concern here is to test the widespread assumptions () that the discipline’s capabilities. At best, method drives method, method is prior to interpretation, () that method is clean and which means it needs to be tested and revised by interpretation, clear of philosophical presuppositions, and () that method then to examine its philosophical and historical presuppositions, and is the necessary prior discipline, that is, the prolegomenon upon to sustain its own discipline of inquiry without trying to run the which are built systems of particular points of view. world of understanding. Does method drive the practice of biblical interpretation even IS METHOD PRIOR TO INTERPRETATION? among the modern practitioners of the historical-critical method? The assumption of contemporary “method-ists” is that method I think not. The rise of the historical-critical method has a histo- drives practice. They assume that every interpretation of Scripture ry, a fairly long history; and it is not over yet, since the method is governed by a method. And so, in the twentieth century, the continues to change. I would argue that the history and changes discussion of method is carried on up-front, with the assump- in the historical-critical method are the result of the fact that tion that one needs to be clear about one’s method in order to method does not always produce perfect or satisfying practice, make one’s interpretation clear. The scholars of the Bultmann hence the method needs to be adjusted and revised to accommo- generation were very proud of announcing that they were open date the new results. The new results are not the product of the and up-front about methodological presuppositions.² The claim previous method but of the new method forged in practice. The was that all scholars should come out of their closet and declare history of historical-critical methods—and you need more than their method. two hands to count them —means that method evolves with inter- Is it possible to engage in biblical study without a method? Of pretation, which suggests to me that interpretation drives method course. Biblical scholars for centuries did so—and continue to do at least as much as method drives interpretation. so. Not only did Luther not have a hermeneutic, but he also spoke New methods arise when old methods do not work. This only confirms what I have observed for years in the practice of inter- pretation, namely, that method comes as a result of work. I have observed this especially in my own field of historical theology. K H, a L contributing editor, is Professor Emeritus of Historical Theology at Marquette University and chief editor of Luther Method is a posteriori not a priori. In research one tries as many Digest, a publication of the Luther Academy. He resides in Lake Mills, angles and approaches as possible to get to the bottom of the prob- Wisconsin. lem, question, or text. Method is forged in the heat of research.   

What works one time may not work well the next time, hence new ogy in the sixteenth century from philosophy —more specifically, results. My experience is that people write their introductions after in the case of Niels Hemmingsen, from logic, and within logic all the results are in and not before. It is in these introductions from dialectic. It was a part of the general trend of the time to where methodological claims of superiority are often made. organize and order one’s discipline, an admirable venture, to be What bears this out, and it is too embarrassing to mention sure. As the quip goes: What is the opposite of organized reli- names, is when a scholar announces in a second book that he gion? Disorganized religion. rejects the method employed in the previous publication. This is Method came into several disciplines in the sixteenth century most likely not at all what happened and is off the mark. Two as a way of tidying up the mass of information. This was parallel different books entail two different sets of sources, circum- to the discipline of the summa in Aquinas’s generation. Providing stances, problems, and issues, which result in different methods order in the discipline did not mean that method must be prior that solved the new venture. The second successful book is the to interpretation. Method seeks to be clear about the via docendi result of new research, not a new method. The new research fol- (the way or manner of teaching) —the ancient, classical, and lowed a new course and came up with new results. This is then philosophical definition of method —where the logic of interpre- abstracted for the purpose of an introduction into claims of a tation must be laid out. But logic is not a presuppositionless dis- new and superior method. Contrary to these claims, the rule cipline. It has a very long history; just try to sort out the history seems to be that method follows practice. of medieval logic. I did and was relieved when an expert told me that there was no logic to medieval logic. IS METHOD CLEAR OF PHILOSOPHICAL The point here is that what arises in history is not clean and PRESUPPOSITIONS? clear of presuppositions. Method has a history. It is the history One of the attractive claims of those who insist on the priority of Methodenlehre. My concern here is not to debunk the disci- of method over interpretation is that, while interpretation can pline of method, but only to dethrone it as the necessary prole- be colored by one’s biases, method is free of bias. This claim is gomena to the study of the Bible. Order, definition, presupposi- based on the notion that method is an “objective”⁴ science more tion, via docendi, and principles of interpretation are all impor- closely related to the pure science of history, to philosophy and tant areas of study, and they are all interrelated. logic, than to the muddied waters of biblical commitments. After being accepted in other disciplines, Methodenlehre Method does not dictate results, so it would seem, since results became a theological question. Likewise in the seventeenth and come from interpretation, while method is neutral, historical, eighteenth centuries, the disciplines of biblical introduction, and prior to what is actually to be found in Scripture. biblical theology, and dogmatic theology became separate sub- It is a simple fact that method —as some kind of a neutral jects of theological work and publication. These fields, along starting point —has never driven interpretation. Method is too with exegesis, hermeneutics, historical theology, and systematic closely tied in with results, with interpretation that works, to be theology all became a part of the plethora of theological inquiry considered separate and prior to interpretation. The venture of by the end of the nineteenth century.⁶ Each subject had —and method and interpretation involves a whole complex of research continues to have —a history and a place in theological discus- tools, no one of which is necessarily prior to another. In the sion. Each of the disciplines mentioned in this paragraph has a practice of interpretation, one tries time-honored methods and place in the effort to understand Scripture. never-heard-of methods to see what works, what is true to the text. Method and practice go hand in glove. The text, not method, drives the interpretation. The idea of a value-free method means to me that it is free of value, that is, valueless or worthless. Method is a part of histori- Whenever it is claimed that “all” cal inquiry. Human history does not yield objective pure truth. something is determined by some- Only God produces objective pure truth, and history is not God. The pursuit of historical truth, especially the truth of Scripture, thing else, disciplines become blurred. involves passion and plenty of it. The idea of scientific neutrali- nb ty is a myth. Ask any scientist how objective his work is. What convinced me was when our mathematics chairman told me that numbers are relative. There is no clean and clear neutral point of beginning. The claims of “method-ists” are simply unrealistic. They can- Nineteen hundred years of biblical interpretation show that the not possibly deliver on the claims of objective neutrality. The study of the Bible, with or without a method, is inextricably cou- fact that there are a plethora of method-ists should tell you pled with all kinds of theological commitments. What else something about objectivity. would you expect when we are dealing with God and his word? By saying that a discipline has a history, I mean that it arises How can one be objective and scientific about God? The Bible is in particular historical circumstances with the usual influences certainly not a neutral document. of time and space. Method is not presuppositionless. These Just as the rise of the historical-critical method has a history, influences shape its historical development. I dare say that all so the discussion of method, namely, Methodenlehre, has a his- theological disciplines, including theology itself, arise in human- tory.⁵ My research indicates that Methodenlehre came into theol- historical circumstances. Only Scripture is God-given and       divinely inspired. The point is that until very recently no one The point is that the scholar begins with a task. Method is far theological discipline enjoyed lordship or dominance over all down on the list of priorities. Reading the text is the most the others. Even so today, many segments of the theological ancient of disciplines. It still works. Study drives interpretation. world outside of Western Europe and the U.S. are not dominat- Study brings understanding. Methodus? She might show up dur- ed by Methodenlehre. ing coffee to see how we are doing. Reading and more reading A peculiar thing about method —and perhaps one could add are the only way to read and see. hermeneutics and exegesis —is that it is something of an intru- I see nothing wrong with scholars coming along with new sion into theology from the outside. Method in its classical results on the basis of new procedures, and then in their intro- definition of via docendi does not come from Scripture, councils, ductions or conclusions claiming insight, victory, and nirvana, creeds, or confessions. It is not a part of any of the ordinary and as far as their method was concerned. What I do find objection- traditional theological subjects from creation to eschatology. It is able is the claim that all subsequent research must follow the a philosophical abstraction from the practice of biblical study. same procedures or method. Another aspect to method that makes it problematical is that it is anachronistic to the study of Scripture. It is extraneous to Scripture and superimposes agenda and presuppositions that do not arise from Scripture itself. Hence it violates one of its own presuppositions, namely, consistency. Method is not consistent with the document it seeks to clarify. Method is an abstraction. Is When Methodenlehre dominates the God driven by method? Scripture is a faith document. history of biblical study prior to Eschatology in Aristotle is very different from eschatology in the Renaissance, all sorts of Paul. A document should be approached for what it is and to whom it is addressed. The task of interpretation is to lay out the distortions occur. message of Scripture. Otherwise it is ripped out of historical con- nb text and made to float on the horizons of Western philosophical inquiry. Methodenlehre is a modern discipline. Scripture should not be expected to have a Methodenlehre. The argument here is based on historical, theoretical, and My own concern about method and Methodenlehre is not just practical considerations. Historically, Methodenlehre is itself a that it has come to dominate modern historical studies —I am historical discipline. Theoretically, the history and variety of thinking specifically of the use of the historical-critical method methods —to say nothing about the variety of interpretations — for the study of the Bible and “social history” for the study of the show that method is not neutral or objective, that is, never a sta- Reformation —but that it distorts the study of the history of the tic starting point. Practically, the actual exercise of interpretation, church prior to the rise of Methodenlehre. To put it bluntly, for which produces variances on methods, shows that method pro- three-fourths of the church’s life, method did not exist. And for ceeds from interpretation, not the other way around. a few hundred years after that, it was only one of many new kids on the block. To force everyone prior to the discovery of method IS METHOD THE NECESSARY PRIOR DISCIPLINE? to have a method is anachronistic. To make such a claim, that method dominates or drives interpre- To ask about Augustine’s method is horrible. It turns history tation, limits the interpretation to what is consistent with the upside down. Luther said that the Holy Spirit was a master method. For over thirty years of teaching and researching histor- rhetorician, but not a method-ist. To ask about Augustine’s rules ical theology and for forty years of observing changes in biblical for the study of Scripture is consistent with his document On methods of interpretation, I have come to see what a shackle a Christian Doctrine. To ask about Luther’s method—likewise his method can be. When a professor is an adherent to one method, hermeneutics and exegesis —would make as much sense as to ask then the student must pursue research within the confines of that about Luther’s inclusive language, racial toleration, multicultur- method. In the old days of German theological scholarship, it alism, or ethic of cloning. Questions do have their time and took a generation of students to go beyond their professor and place. Method is not a timeless question. forge a new corrective to the method. Now these students change When Methodenlehre dominates the history of biblical study methods at will, which only goes to prove that a new method prior to the Renaissance, all sorts of distortions occur. Again comes as a result of new research, not a new method. these distortions are too embarrassing to mention by authors’ When it comes to understanding Scripture, interpretation is names. What I have in mind here is the study of historical figures in the driver’s seat, not method. To make rules of interpretation on the basis of Methodenlehre, where these figures are studied for the necessary prolegomena to the actual interpretation preju- their “methods” of biblical interpretation. This is usually based dices the result at the start. Rules are restrictive and delimiting. on their prefaces or introductory sections to their commentaries If you want to talk about method, be realistic. We begin with (the Argumentum), or methodological-sounding statements the text, the Book. We begin with eyes, hands, minds, questions, made elsewhere. The resulting study claims to portray the histo- issues, goals, and yes, deadlines. The task is study and interpre- ry of biblical methodologies. The main flaw is not just that tation. How to read the Book? The best way is to start by read- method did not exist, but that the authors’ actual interpretation ing —slowly.⁷ of Scripture does not seem to follow their stated methods in the  

Argumenta and elsewhere. A biblical commentator’s actual Not only is method not the necessary prior discipline, namely, interpretation —not its methodological justification —is the most the prolegomenon, upon which interpretation is built; it never has important source for the history of biblical study. been so, and it never should be. To make method dominate inter- To put this a little more imaginatively and daringly: to study pretation exceeds what method is good for. Systems of particular the Argumenta of historical figures —let us say, Augustine, points of view are built not on method but on particular points of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin —and take their methodological- view. About the only thing that is built on method is method. sounding statements at face value, and then write a history of Hemmingsen’s work On Methods included a discussion of a hermeneutics is utter nonsense. Such authors in the history of method for method. It is easy to imagine where the logic of a biblical interpretation did not assume that “method” was a nec- method for method leads: more method. essary step prior to interpretation. What they wrote in their pref- Luther’s well-known rules for biblical interpretation —prayer, aces were time-honored claims about literal and spiritual inter- meditation, and experience —are consistent with the text under pretation, without ever thinking that they should follow their investigation and are the kind of prior preparation that yields fruit- “method” in their practice of interpretation. I do not know how ful results.⁸ Method is abstract, removed from the sacred page. The else to explain that these historical authors did not practice what method-ist seeks a neutral point of entry so as not to prejudice the they preached in their introductions. In other words, it never results. Scripture’s response to neutrality is hardly a point of entry, occurred to them that method drives interpretation, especially since God says, “I will spew them out of my mouth.” Scripture since method did not exist. For historical authors, biblical study rather speaks the language of prayer, song, and meditation. drove biblical study. Approached in such a vein, the results are very rewarding. LOGIA

NOTES . Author’s meaning of terms: “interpretation” means to under- sumption, it is best read carefully and slowly. If good food takes time, stand and explain; “method” means the manner of proceeding; certainly food for the soul takes an abundance of time. () Read it slow- “study” means immersion into the text or reading; Methodenlehre ly,   . We often come to Scripture with many other things means the question, problem, or topic of method. on our mind. We are not ordinarily tuned in to the extraordinary. It is . Rudolf Bultmann and his immediate students were explicit better to grasp a little well than to try for too much and miss it all. about theology’s necessary relation to philosophy, which carried over () Read it slowly, over and over, . Take it as it comes, verse by into the post-Bultmannians’ discussion of method as well. verse. () Read it slowly, over and over, forwards and . To read . The Ebeling school has done much for promoting the under- backwards means to take the chapter and start with the last verse and standing of the Word of God in Luther’s theology via a discussion of take it verse by verse backwards. If you are very familiar with Scripture the hermeneutics of the young Luther. Hermeneuticians have built on and are accustomed to reading only forwards, you are likely to skip and the idea of the power of the text of Scripture for the transmission of jump precisely because you are so familiar with the material. If you also understanding. read backwards, it forces you to concentrate more. () Read it slowly, . Author’s meaning of term: “objective” means a static starting point. over and over, forwards, backwards, and . The procedure of . See my study “De Exegetica Methodo: Niels Hemmingsen’s De reading sideways is important because that is how Scripture interprets Methodis (),” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed. David itself. To read sideways means to read across the terrain of Scripture. It Steinmetz, Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies  means to check out parallel verses in both Testaments. () Read it slow- (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, ), –, –. ly, over and over, forwards, backwards, sideways, and, above all,  it. . See my chapter “The History of Scripture in the Church,” in The St. Augustine says that we are to enjoy God and not to use him. Things Bible in the Churches, ed. Kenneth Hagen, rd ed. (Milwaukee: are to be used. God is to be enjoyed. Since Scripture is all about God, its Marquette University Press, ), –. proper use is that he should be enjoyed. .I offer seven rules on how to read the Bible to my university stu- . Luther’s “rules” are sometimes called the principles of biblical dents, here abbreviated: () Read it. This rule is important especially for interpretation, which are to be considered before interpretation can those who think they know a lot of Scripture. The trained theologian is fruitfully begin. “Principles of biblical interpretation” are necessary most apt to skip step one, since he has read it all before. () Read it and important to have clear in mind. Whether they must be discussed . Since the goal of reading Scripture is not the quantity of con- first before interpretation can take place effectively is another matter. Lutheran Hermeneutics

D P. S

j

     the sacraments and preaches time they were written. Scripture did not bring startling new reve- the gospel. Church liturgy determines how he administers the lations even to its first hearers. So, for example, Paul draws his prin- E sacraments. How he preaches is not predetermined. Within ciple of justification from Genesis: Abraham believed God and it the context of confessional Lutheranism hermeneutics or biblical was counted to him as righteousness. The first hearers of the interpretation is not an autonomous science reserved for the lec- Gospels knew that Jesus had been crucified and raised from the ture halls, but an art practiced within the church for the purpose dead. Hermeneutics, however, is a church activity. Since the of preaching. Often, however, in a perceived inability to interpret Enlightenment, universities have claimed an almost exclusive right the text, the preacher takes refuge in the sermons and outlines of of interpretation. Churches deal with faith; university scholars have others and so in effect distances himself and his sermons from the the hermeneutical privileges. Though findings of the professional Bible. Homiletics and hermeneutics become separate and virtual- scholars who work outside the church are of value, ultimately the ly unrelated disciplines. right of interpretation belongs to the church in which the Scriptures But sermons are for persuading people and hermeneutics originated. The Scriptures are the church’s book. draws meaning out of text. Thus a separation of the two is the The perspective that the biblical texts originated with the Holy road for disaster. A lack of confidence in interpreting the text may Spirit, who creates faith in Christ and took form in the church come from the false belief that hermeneutics is rigidly bound to which confesses Christ requires a thoroughly christological inter- one particular method or the application of certain rules. These pretation of the entire Bible and not merely a few isolated or even allegedly objective principles of interpretation take the place of the majority of the texts. The inspiring Spirit proceeds from the Son Scriptures themselves and become a subsidiary dogmatics. They and was given by the crucified (Jn :) and resurrected Lord to his function as judge and jury. Hermeneutics becomes not what the apostles (Jn :), so the Spirit is as much the Spirit of Jesus as he Bible says but what somebody else says. The Bible remains the for- is the Spirit of God. Zionism, millennialism, all forms of fanaticism, mal canon, but commentaries, hermeneutical principles, and lec- and the Reformed view that the Bible is an ethical codebook all ture notes become the functioning canons. Lutheran hermeneu- come from a partially or completely non-christological interpreta- tics must avoid these pitfalls. tion of the Bible. At the very least, a non-christological reading of Several perspectives set the boundaries of the hermeneutical the Bible is symptomatic of other, often more serious problems. task. First, the Scriptures are inspired. This has two ramifications: Hermeneutics precedes homiletics. For the sake of argumenta- () They are distinguished from all other literature —including tion, let us reverse the order and begin with homiletics and move to contemporary productions, a distinction that Helmut Koester interpreting the divinely inspired text. St. Paul described his own finds impossible. For him the category of sacred literature does proclamation as a preachment of Christ and him crucified. But how not exist. Our response is that words taken from the secular arena did he come to this conclusion? St. Paul’s christological preaching, into the sacred take on a new and (for the world) unrecognizable far from being an alien intrusion into the Old Testament, was meaning. Studies provided by Kittel are of limited and often no derived from a christological hermeneutic of the Old Testament. ultimate value. () Verbal inspiration means that the Bible’s words (An aside: where St. Paul was determined to preach only Christ, are God’s words. Plenary inspiration means all Scripture serves some Lutherans have determined to preach St. Paul.) Both Paul and God’s redemptive purposes and demands our attention. The Jesus were convinced that Christ had to die and rise from the dead assessment that one passage of Scripture is to be preferred over because the Scriptures required this. In other words, this was a another in setting forth these purposes is a subjective judgment. hermeneutical conclusion. Though the New Testament writers do A second perspective for hermeneutics is that the Scriptures have select certain verses or episodes from the Old Testament, the totali- their origin in the church (which includes Old Testament Israel). ty of the Scriptures, and not just this or that verse, speak of the The Scriptures thus preserve what the church already believed at the necessity of Christ dying and being exalted by God (Mt :). The christological hermeneutic is not an exclusive but inclusive princi- ple. It embraces the entire Bible, not merely some verses to the D P. S , a contributing editor for L, is Chairman of exclusion of others. Both the Emmaus account and the appearance Systematic Theology and Professor of Dogmatics and Exegetical of Jesus to the disciples make it clear that the entire Old Testament Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. is to be read christologically (Lk :, ). A christological her-    meneutic involves the reader or hearer of the Scriptures intimately philosophy. The purpose of the Bible for the Reformed is not God with the Scriptures as the words connect him with Jesus’ life, death, coming to the aid of man, but man serving God with holy living. and resurrection. Christ was put to death for our sin and raised for Accordingly sanctification takes the place of Christology as the our justification. Lutherans recognize this as the source and center predetermined goal of hermeneutics. The gospel serves the law, of C. F. W. Walther’s understanding that all the Scriptures serve the and the focus is not what God has done in Christ but what the law and the gospel. So the Scripture has at its first level an historical Christian can and must do for God. reference that involves and requires a christological interpretation. Biblical interpretation is on one side determined by the histor- Christology is inherent in and intrinsic to the original events or ical incarnation, incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, and on the other words. The words of the Bible tell about what happened in history, side by the actualization of that incarnation in eucharistic bread but they also tell us something about Jesus. Moreover, the words of and wine. A christological hermeneutic is inherently a sacramen- Scripture also involve the Christian who by baptism is included in tal one, because it requires that it express itself in a preaching that Christ. So in speaking of Christ, the entire Bible tells us something invites the hearers to find Jesus in the sacrament of his body and about ourselves. The Jonah account provides an example. blood. The Gospels were written not that our souls should find Historically it is the account of a “near-death experience” of a reluc- Christ at God’s right hand, as the Reformed believe, but that we should find him with both our bodies and souls in his sacraments. I cite Luther as an exponent of the christological hermeneutic with hesitation, for Luther was only doing what the Scriptures Without a totally christological themselves require. Robert D. Preus claimed that for Luther “the entire Scriptures were Christocentric in content.” Luther himself hermeneutic the veil of Moses hangs said, “Christ is the sum and truth of Scripture.” Or again, “The over the eyes of the interpreter. Scriptures from beginning to end do not reveal anyone beside the Messiah, the Son of God, who should come and through his nb sacrifice carry and take away the sins of the world.” And still again, “One must not understand Scripture contrary to Christ, but in favor of him; therefore Scripture must be brought into relation- tant prophet whom God rescued from the sea: “For thou didst cast ship to Christ or must not be regarded as Scripture.”* The words me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was round of Jesus in this matter should suffice; I cite Luther for those who about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me” (Jonah :). believe that a Luther quotation provides conclusive evidence. Within the context of Israel’s history Jonah’s story continues the The grammatical details, the structure of entire biblical books story of God’s deliverance of Israel, especially the deliverance from and their parts, and the original languages of the biblical books will Egypt by passing through the sea. What God did in making Israel a always remain at arm’s length for every pastor and scholar, no mat- nation he later did for Jonah. According to Jesus, Jonah’s plight and ter how learned he thinks he is. Grammatical rules are only approx- rescue sets the pattern for his own death and God’s deliverance of imate explanations of the structure of ancient languages by scholars him by resurrection (Mt :). All three accounts —deliverance living much later. Just how certain can we be whether a genitive is from Egypt, the fish, and the grave —find a focus for the Christian an objective or subjective one? Was the original speaker aware of in baptism, which is a dying and rising with Christ, and as such this distinction? Did the category even apply then? A person versed anticipates and actualizes the death of our bodies and resurrection in biblical Hebrew may be less than competent in biblical Greek. A on the last day. The water that drowns us is the means of deliver- person versed in the epistles of St. Paul may not find the Gospels as ance. The God who delivered Israel, Jonah, and Jesus delivers us accessible. Linguistic knowledge will always remain partial and the now and will continually deliver us. This christological hermeneu- principles of interpretation open to revision. Solomon’s prediction tic involves and provides the foundation for the law and gospel of an endless supply of books and St. John’s claim that not all the motif: the God who kills is the God who resurrects. Only that which books in the world could contain all the acts and words of Jesus find is dead can God make alive. Bugenhagen hit the nail on the head some kind of fulfillment in the endless production of commentaries when he said that the Psalms have a first referent to the author, then and hermeneutics. The biblical treasure, which is inspired by the to Christ, and then to us. Holy Spirit, is so vast that no mortal (including the professional The christological principle is not one hermeneutical principle scholar) can claim to have exhausted the meaning and techniques among several, but the foundation, goal, purpose, and content of of the holy writers. Rather, Christians can be certain that all the all biblical interpretation. Without it we are left with grammatical Scriptures point to Christ. Not finding Christ throughout the rules, disjointed linguistic data, an historical account of an ancient Scriptures suggests that the principles of interpretation are not as people, and for some, reworked legends and tales about Jesus, or rock solid as their practitioners claim. When this happens, there is in the case of the Old Testament, an inferior, morally undeveloped no other choice but to forsake the paths beaten into our minds by religion. Without a totally christological hermeneutic the veil of the commentators and teachers so that we may enjoy the christo- Moses hangs over the eyes of the interpreter: he really does not see logical grandeur of the biblical scenery. God save us from the day what the Bible is all about because he does not see Christ. This when we hear the Scriptures read and do not find Christ in a way in applies to the Jews but in a certain sense to the Reformed. Their which we did not see him before. LOGIA hermeneutic is not wrong because it is not Lutheran, but because *Robert Preus, “Luther: Word, Doctrine and Confession,” Lutheran it is guided by an anti-incarnational and hence anti-sacramental Synod Quarterly , no.  (December ): –. R “It is not many books that make men learned ...but it is a good book frequently read.” Martin Luther

j

Church Growth” (Bill Thompson), “solid theology” (Phil Review Essay Bickel), “a fine job” (David Luecke), “a marvelous service to the church” (Stephen Carter), “a high quality book” (Elmer       Matthias), “a milestone in Lutheran evangelical writing” (Erwin  Kolb), “worth its cost several times over just for the definition of Church Growth principles from a confessional viewpoint” (Norbert Oesch), and “one of the most significant writings of An Evaluation of Kent Hunter’s Confessions these latter days of the twentieth century” (Gerald Keischnick). This list contains mission executives at the highest level of the Confessions of a Church Growth Enthusiast: An Evangelical, church, district presidents, candidates for synodical president, Confessional Lutheran Takes a Hard Look at the Church Growth the head of the Pastoral Leadership Institute, professors, and Movement. By Kent Hunter. Lima, Ohio: CSS Publishing “successful” pastors. Company, . Paper. .. Hunter’s theology is the theology of the entire Church Growth Movement within the Lutheran churches today. His the- h Kent Hunter is a prolific author, speaker, and advocate for ology is a major force within Lutheranism. This theology the Church Growth Movement, especially among Lutherans. requires deep and critical analysis, and it requires vigilant His most recent book, Confessions of a Church Growth response. Enthusiast: An Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran Takes a Hard Hunter’s theological effort fails. Rather than dressing the Look at the Church Growth Movement, is an apology for the Church Growth Movement in Lutheran apparel, Hunter pre- Church Growth Movement in the face of the many criticisms the sents a theology that is thoroughly un-Lutheran. It is a theology movement has received of late. It purports to expose these criti- that begins with a two-tiered understanding of the church and cisms as “biased,” “uninformed,” “morally and ethically fraudu- then invades every article of faith with this ecclesiology. lent” (), and “ridiculous” (). Hunter wants to show that the theology of the Lutheran Confessions is not only compatible Two Types of Church: The Pentecostal Connection with church-growth methodology, but also that true Lutheran To Hunter there are two types of churches. The first church confessionalism actually promotes the Church Growth is that which gathers. It is a weak church. It needs to be Movement. So he uses Martin Luther, the Lutheran Confessions, changed. The second church is that which scatters (). This C. F. W. Walther, and Francis Pieper, among others, to promote church, to Hunter, is defined in active terms. The church must his view of missiology. The idea is worthy. It would be nice for be doing in order to be the church. The first type is the “tradi- both church-growth advocates and confessional Lutherans if tional” church. The second type of church is the church that has they could find common theological ground. accepted the “mission paradigm” advocated by Hunter and the Advocacy of church-growthism, or attempts to defend the Church Growth Movement. The traditional church is “passive” movement from a Lutheran perspective, are nothing new. and sees itself as “receiving.” It is a “spectator” church where Hunter’s defense is noteworthy on two accounts. First, “the word and sacrament are ritualized.” It is a church “turned Confessions presents the clear and consistent theology of the inward on itself” (). The “mission” church, on the other Church Growth Movement. For this we owe Hunter a debt of hand, is active, involving the “priesthood of all believers” in its thanks. Rarely has the theology of the movement been so clear- ministry (). “The traditionalists are gospel-reductionists — ly presented by one of its advocates. Second, Hunter’s theology limiting where and how the Gospel can be utilized to reach all is not merely his own. Twenty-seven pastors and administrators peoples” (). But “in spite of all the rhetoric of those who within the Lutheran Church —Missouri Synod endorse the book. claim ‘confessional purity’ the truth is that Church Growth rep- They call it a “must read” (John Heins), “the answer” (Robert resents the authentic Reformation evangelical movement of Scuderi), “a breakthrough and challenge to return to our focused Christianity” (). Reformation roots” (Dale Olson), “a textbook to train pastors” How does a church move from level one to level two? Hunter (Dave Anderson), “the expression of my own feelings regarding offers a simply formula: “(D+Rx)HW + PG = Changed church.”   

This means diagnosis plus prescription times hard work plus the word. Because the church exists by grace alone its essence is pas- power of God will lead to change in the church. So when the sive. The essence of the church is the word of the gospel, the voice church-growth principles are added to the traditional passive of the Lamb. Now, obviously, Christians also do something. church, it is able to move to the next level of congregational life. “Faith is a living busy active powerful thing so that it is impossi- Hunter provides the analogy of “the Holy Cross Home Run.” ble for it not to do good without ceasing” (FC SD , ). The First base is a “Relationship with Jesus.” Second is “Fellowship essence of the church, however, is not in its doing but in its receiv- with other Believers.” Third is “Discipleship in the Local church.” ing what God has done. We are purely passive in the article of A home run is “Empowered Ministry in Jesus’ Name” (–). justification. This article defines the church passively. Many churches are stuck somewhere between second and third and do not reach the highest level of congregation. The Central Article of the Faith A strong resemblance exists between Pentecostalism in its clas- Lutherans, of course, believe the great commission. Hunter sic form and the Church Growth Movement. Church growth has shows that the earliest Lutherans had an urgent sense of mission. simply applied to the church that which Pentecostalism applied to But Lutherans do not make Christ’s commission their central arti- the individual. Pentecostalism also postulates a two-tiered cle. Lutherans consider the doctrine of the justification of the sin- Christianity. Some are justified and forgiven but have not experi- ner before God by grace for Christ’s sake through faith as the cen- enced the second-level Christianity proposed by Pentecostalism. tral article of the faith, the article by which the church stands or They are saved but still in the enemy’s war-camp. With the neces- falls. Justification “is the chief article in the entire Christian doc- sary prodding these carnal Christians can be brought to the sec- trine” (FC SD , ). The article of justification is central because ond level of Christianity. They can experience the baptism of the it alone can give true consolation to the sinner. It is also central Spirit and be filled with the Spirit. At this point they become because it is against this doctrine that all other doctrines must be vibrant witnesses for God, their prayer life explodes, and they are evaluated (Ap , ). If any other article of faith replaces able to read the word and receive the sacraments with more focus justification by grace as the chief article, then the entire system of and power. theology will ultimately be corrupted. Not surprisingly then, Hunter dedicates his book to C. Peter His two-tiered view of the church forces upon Hunter a Wagner, pioneer of the Church Growth Movement. Wagner’s  different material principle of theology. The article that gives Look out, the Pentecostals are Coming is an unabashed endorse- definition to all others is “The Great Commission.” “I believe that ment of Pentecostal strategies in creating new churches. Hunter’s God has raised up the modern Church Growth Movement to and Wagner’s contribution to the developing two-tiered theology restore the church to the biblical priorities which He intended” of Pentecostalism is its application to congregations. Without the (). “The Great Commission is . . . the primary purpose of the “mission paradigm,” says Hunter, churches are traditionalistic and church” (). Hunter relates a brief anecdote in which a couple felt ritualized. In these churches the word and sacraments have not they were failing in their ministry until they “allowed themselves created a “great commission church.” But when these dying to be the tools in the hands of the Lord who wants to build the churches move to the second level they explode with the power of church. It was then they began to practice genuine Church God. Every criticism that the Lutherans over the centuries have Growth. This is the essence of grace” (). applied to Pentecostalism and to enthusiasm can also be applied This central article has other names. Earlier church-growth to the Church Growth Movement. The only difference is that the practitioners called it “Church Growth eyes.” Hunter speaks of application has moved from the individual to the congregation “thinking like a missionary” (, ). Elsewhere and through- and the church. out he speaks of a “paradigm shift” or a “mission paradigm” in Lutherans have no such doctrine of the church. The classical which the church learns to think in new ways in order to “let Lutheran definition of the church sees no gradations of churches, God take control of his church” (). To Hunter, the primary just as it sees no gradation of individuals within the church. purpose of the church is to grow. It is no wonder that Hunter Lutherans, like Luther, define the church as those who gather can offer his book “In memory of Martin Luther and Donald around the word and sacraments. In Lutheranism the church is McGavran, heroes of the Christian Reformation in theology and always defined in passive terms. “The church is the assembly of all practice” (). Hunter believes that the emergence of the Church believers among whom the Gospel is preached in it purity and the Growth Movement in these latter days is as important as the holy sacraments are administered” (AC ). “Thank God a child Reformation. This is a small wonder. He has replaced of seven years knows what the Church is, namely the holy believ- justification by grace with the great commission as the central ers and lambs who hear the voice of the their shepherd. Holiness article. . . . consists in the Word of God and true faith” (SA , ). “I This replacement is clearly evident from Hunter’s polemics. The believe that there is upon earth a little holy group and congrega- exclusive target of Hunter’s frequent invective is “traditionalists.” tion of pure saints under one head, Christ, called together by the Holy Ghost in one faith, . . . I am brought into it and incorporat- Church Growth has helped me and many others rediscover ed into it by the Holy Ghost by having heard and continuing to the genius of the Lutheran protestant Reformation. The hear the Word of God which is the beginning of entering it” (LC power of the Reformation was expressed by our forefathers , ). Notice the passive concepts. The church, upon assembling, in the commitment to say, in so many words, “Up with is preached to and receives. The church listens to the voice of the grace, down with tradition.” Their attitude was, “If it is use- shepherd. The church is headed by Christ and incorporated by his ful and helpful, keep it; if it is not, change it” ().  

The church-growth paradigm shift, claims Hunter, “is a major no longer a man. A ministry or mission of Christ can be a mission change for people trained in systematic theology, especially tradi- about Christ according to the church-growth paradigm. But it tionalists who come from a world perspective of the Reformation” could never be a ministry in which the man Christ Jesus acts (). Hunter’s novel historical revisionism views the Reformation today. Yet, according to Hunter, this is all right, because the Holy not as a response to the works-righteous Roman Catholic theolo- Spirit compensates by taking over and applying the “mission side gy of Luther’s day, but to outdated traditions. of the cross.” So the crucified Jesus is far away from the ministry of the church, except as the content of the message. He is no See how easy it is to practice salvation by works? To make tra- longer speaking the message. It is not the incarnate God who still ditional forms more important than a commitment to grace- feeds us, washes us, and speaks to us today. “The Spirit is the driven communication is to depart from the evangelical her- bridge between the suffering side of the cross and the mission side itage of the Reformation. Church Growth is not the enemy but of the Cross” (). This is more than a mere confusion of the the advocate for the essence of what it means to believe in God’s incarnation and the humiliation. This statement is a radical grace. (, emphasis Hunter’s) redefinition of the cross. Hunter calls himself a confessional Lutheran, thus implying The difference between Lutheranism and the Church Growth that he subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions. What do these Movement is clear. The Lutheran reformation was based on the Confessions say about the two natures in Christ? doctrine of justification, not on the “great commission.” For example, Melanchthon condemns the use of the rosary because We believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, the Roman church taught that merit was earned through it. His that is in deed and truth, exalted according to His human evaluation was based on the surpassing value of the merits of nature to right hand of the almighty majesty . . . because He Christ (AC , ). In contrast, Hunter cautions against point- was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy ing “a finger at the Roman Catholics, who say the Rosary or Ghost in His mother’s womb.... This Majesty He always Hail Mary in repetitious fashion, without recognizing that any had (FC SD , –). worship ritual can become rote and meaningless” (). Both “We reject . . . That because of the property of the human Lutherans and the Church Growth Movement oppose rosaries nature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the same and the Hail Mary, but for different reasons. These reasons time in more than one place, much less everywhere, with His reflect the central teaching of each. To Lutherans all changes in body (FC SD , ). worship forms were intended to serve the gospel of justification by grace alone. Forms were rejected if they violated the doctrine Why does Hunter so clearly and easily contradict the very of justification (AC , ); otherwise they should not be the Confessions that he purports to defend? Because his central occasion for controversy and were retained by the Lutherans teaching forces him to do so. His radical redefinition of the cross (AC , ). Not so with Hunter; to him traditions are mea- is necessitated by his two-tiered concept of the church. As there sured differently. “The litmus test for whether or not the local are two types of church so even the cross has to have two sides. congregation should keep a tradition or not is this: Does it help or He is forced to define the cross in terms of the great commission hinder the church in fulfilling its mission?” (, emphasis rather than the great commission in terms of the cross. No Hunter’s). longer does the cross inform us that disciples are made by bap- tizing into the death of Christ and teaching the doctrine of the Christology blood atonement. Rather, the great commission informs us that Corruption falls upon Hunter’s system of theology in virtually “we are in partnership with God” (), because of “the multipli- every article. His new paradigm forces a Reformed, almost cation that comes about through His death and resurrection. It Gnostic view of Christ upon his theology. According to Hunter moves the mission of God from the one (Jesus) to the many (His the cross of Christ has two sides, “the suffering side and the mis- disciples)” (). The suffering and death of Jesus serve the great sion side of the cross” (). How do these “two sides of the cross” commission. And that is the essence of the Church Growth explain the person of Christ? Movement. What is incarnational ministry to Hunter? “The desire to let the Jesus, through His death on the cross, moves from the limi- Gospel get through to the target audience with the least amount tation (self-imposed) of being in human form. As God in of resistance is nothing other than the desire for incarnational man (the incarnation), Jesus was limited in His presence. He ministry” (). What is the humiliation of Christ? could only be in one place at one time and impact only those few around Him at that particular moment. However, Jesus emptied Himself. He stripped away all of His heavenly through the cross event, God’s plan of salvation moves to the culture in order to meet human beings where they are. He Spirit at Pentecost (). did away with all the things that were comfortable for Him, putting His target audience at such an important priority So who is Jesus? He is God in man who is not capable of that He literally emptied Himself of those things that were omnipresence, a singularly Reformed view that makes the bodily comfortable for Him. Of course He didn’t empty Himself in presence in the sacrament an impossibility, as every good the sense of denying His values or the essentials of the theo- Calvinist would assert. Jesus also, it seems, is either still limited or logical issues connected with the mission of God. But He  

emptied Himself of everything else because he had a purpose human beings without distribution” (). He deplores those who in mind (). limit the power of the gospel to the “worship service setting” (). These are praiseworthy concerns, although it is difficult to under- Observe how the atonement language of Scripture is transformed stand how one could refer to the sacrament “without distribu- into the church-growth language of Hunter. Hunter is not merely tion.” The sacrament is no sacrament without distribution. Still, offering a transliteration of Philippians  that will inspire people Hunter’s theology is flawed. The Calvinistic dualism so apparent to make sacrifices for the sake of the gospel. He is articulating the in Hunter’s christology appears again. Why? Because he has lost reason for the death of Christ. The great commission has replaced the corrective of the cross. The article of justification no longer justification as the central article. dominates. His two-tiered ecclesiology coupled with his notion of the great commission have defined the word and sacrament rather The Means Of Grace than letting these divine-human means of grace stand as vehicles The faulty theology trickles down into other articles of the of the salvation of Christ. faith. Hunter’s understanding of the means of grace is creative if Even when the means are spoken as having a salvific force flawed. He, happily, acknowledges that the word and sacraments there is still a nasty dualism present. For example, Hunter extols are the means of grace. Yet Hunter also makes a subtle but telling baptism. distinction between the word and the sacrament on the one hand and the great commission on the other. “Church Growth advo- Baptism, then, is not only a sacrament of salvation, but it is cates are concerned with the purity of the Gospel and, from the the Church’s entrance into Christ’s body, the living organism Lutheran perspective, the means of grace, but these are not an of the church. Jesus’ baptism was the inaugural event for His end in themselves. They are a means to a greater end, sharing the public ministry. Likewise, then, for the Christian, baptism is Gospel” (). The notion seems to be that there is a difference the commissioning of one’s place in God’s Great commis- between “word and sacrament” and “sharing the Gospel.” sion (). Hunter is not just sloppy in his talk. Again he writes: “There are those, however, who will emphasize the power of God at work To Hunter there seems to be a difference between salvation and through Word and Sacrament, to the exclusion of the human ele- entrance into Christ’s body. This difference is explained when ment” (). we apply his two-level understanding of church life. The one level of baptism is salvation. The second level is the great com- It is unfortunate that some would describe the mission of the mission level. Just as the cross “has two sides,” so baptism has church as proclaiming the Word and administering the two sides. Sacraments. While there is nothing intrinsically in error What really are the means of grace for Hunter? How can the about this statement, the implication is that the church holds church make sure that it is adding the proper power to the word the means of salvation and that people ought to come to the and sacraments? According to Hunter, Luther defined the church church (). by the word and sacrament because he was searching for the essentials. It was a time in which the Protestants [sic] were told Hunter, apparently, does not see the word and sacraments as they were not the church. They were defending themselves (). themselves containing the “human element.” To him, the means Now we must go forward. Beyond what the church is by are the divine element to which the human is added, forming a definition, Hunter tells us what the Church Growth Movement partnership (). would have the church do. This is a type of word-and-sacrament Nestorianism in which the human and divine sides of the means are separated. It is as The primary purpose of the church is to make disciples though the means of grace were purely divine. Then they are according to the great commission. It is to share the forgive- placed into the hands of people who have accepted the “Church ness of sins in Jesus’ name. To be witnesses to the ends of the Growth paradigm” and who “think like missionaries.” Once this earth. There are many means toward accomplishing that human element has been added to the gospel, the means have end. One is to maintain a clear confession of faith. Another become incarnational. “The means of grace are given to a is to help people discover their spiritual gifts. Another is to dynamic group of people who are sent to the world .... The equip people for the work of the ministry. Another is to pro- church is only gathered to be scattered” (). The use of the word vide worship services in the heart language of the people you “dynamic” gives the Lutheran theologian pause. Does God need are trying to reach. Another is meeting the felt needs of peo- “dynamic” people to spread his forgiveness? Can he use ordinary, ple in your community. All of these and many more are hapless, unimaginative, sinful people like me? Or must I be means to the greater end, which reflects the primary purpose dynamic? Can he work through “clay vessels?” Can he work of the church (). through “things that are not?” Can the word do it all while Luther drinks Wittenberg beer with Philip and Amsdorf? Hunter appar- What really is the primary means of grace? It is the Church ently says, “No!” Growth Movement itself. That is why Hunter can warn that “a Admittedly Hunter is concerned that “The Word is the power congregation that does not take on a mission posture within the unto salvation, but the Word must be preached. It must be shared. next  years will be nonexistent in . . .  years” (). What are The Sacrament, in all its power, is powerless for the salvation of the means of grace? The answer is “a mission posture.”  

One of Luther’s most significant contributions to theology, the Lutheran Confessions, which he claims to defend. He speaks built upon his doctrine of justification, is his understanding of this way because his system cannot accept the “where and when it the inherent power of the gospel. The gospel does not become pleases God” of Article  of the Augsburg Confession. powerful when and if something is added. It is powerful always When faced with the unanswerable question “Why some and because Jesus is both its content and its administrator. Every not others?” the Lutheran has learned to answer, “Don’t ask.” If false teaching can be evaluated and described in terms of what you do answer, you will become either a Calvinist or a synergist. that false teaching tries to add to the gospel to make it work. We simply say that faith is engendered “where and when God The word becomes powerful when it is preached by a spirit- wills” (AC V). But Hunter asks and he answers. Some are saved filled preacher or when the message is “anointed” by the spirit because they are more receptive. Some are saved because they are (Wesleyanism, Holiness Movements, Pentecostalism). The reached by a church that “has moved to the mission side of the word becomes powerful when the sovereign God wills it or cross.” Some are saved because they are brought into a church when preached to the elect (Calvinism). The word becomes that does more than preach the word purely and administer the powerful when placed into the teaching office (Romanism.) sacraments rightly. Some are saved because “the communication The word becomes powerful when combined with the willing path [has taken] the form of country-western culture, including heart (Arminianism). The word becomes powerful when the country-western songs with Christian content” (). Some are “meaning of the words,” combines with the “power with which saved because the pastor, recognizing the “blue collar lifestyle” of these words are spoken,” and the “existential reception of the a group within the community, moved the service to the gym, content” and the “correlation of these” into a “constellation in changed it to a contemporary service, expected casual attire, and which the words become the Word” (Paul Tillich). The word stressed the less formal aspects of the worship service (). becomes powerful in an “I/thou encounter” (Barth). The word Hunter speaks synergistically because if he did not he would have becomes powerful “when we get out of God’s way,” or when to reject one of the basic principles of the Church Growth placed into the hands of a church that has accepted the “mission Movement, namely, that the gospel needs the Church Growth paradigm” or “thinks like a missionary,” or that has become a Movement or churches will die. “great commission church” (Hunter and the Church Growth Movement). To Luther, and we might add, to the Holy Spirit, The Church’s Unity the word is powerful because in it Jesus speaks and forgives. “At As the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit is the unifying whatever hour, then, God’s word is taught, preached, heard, principle of Pentecostalism, so the doctrine of “the mission par- read or meditated upon, there the person, day and work are adigm” is the central and unifying principle of the Church sanctified thereby, . . . because of the Word which makes saints Growth Movement. This is why Hunter can link Martin Luther of us all” (LC , ). and Donald McGavern as if the two share a common theologi- Hunter’s bad theology of the means of grace, not surprising- cal bond. Hunter also links Luther with Calvin and Wesley. ly, leads him into synergism. Whenever the inherent power of “Anyone who reads the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, the word is questioned, then people substitute for it “their own John Wesley, or any of the other reformers, quickly sees that they preparations and works” (AC ). And what are the preparations are concerned . . . with the deep theological issues of the and works of the Church Growth Movement? In the speaker it is Reformation” (). Wesley lived over two hundred years after the development of the “mission paradigm.” In the hearer it is Luther and explicitly denied justification by grace through faith. “receptivity.” But Hunter is able to link him with Luther. Why? Because, allegedly, they both believed in Church Growth. Disunity is not Church growth advocates even identify unchurched people the result of doctrinal differences to Hunter, but of a denial of his as being in certain stages of receptivity.... They clearly version of the great commission, such as traditionalists are wont adhere to the truth that while the Holy Spirit is the one who to do. Hunter also has a tendency to minimize or disparage any brings a person to faith, the receptivity of the person can be type of unity of doctrine within the church. For example, stronger or weaker at any particular point (). Hunter praises the work of Robert Schuller, defending his Bible studies: “One is quickly immersed in a thorough, long term Contrast this with the words of the Formula of Concord: learning process which moves into the whole counsel of God.” But what of Schuller’s doctrine? “While one might not agree in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of with all of the doctrinal content [of Schuller’s Bible study], the unregenerate man are utterly unable by their own natur- depending on denominational perspective, it is easy to realize al power to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, that proper attention is given to the depth of God’s teaching.” So effect, do, work, or concur in working anything. Before Hunter can disagree with Schuller but also praise him for teach- regeneration there is not the least spark of spiritual power ing the “whole counsel of God.” Hunter can refer to the remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare Lutheran Church as “my denomination” () or a “branch of himself for God’s grace (FC SD , ). Christians” (). By doing so he minimizes all theological differences between the various churches. Nowhere do the It is difficult to find within these words or between these lines any Lutheran Confessions refer to the followers of Luther as “a notion of receptivity. Why does Hunter use such synergistic lan- denomination” or a “branch of Christianity.” The authors of the guage? Certainly he must know that his position is condemned by Formula of Concord were “willing, by God’s grace to stand with   intrepid hearts before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ and involved in ministry or in acts of pastoral care in the tech- give and account of [their doctrine] and neither privately nor nical sense (). publicly speak or write anything contrary to it” (FC SD , ). Is it even conceivable that these men would have risked life limb Certainly this idea of the ministry affects the pastor’s job and staked eternal salvation on a “branch of Christianity”? description. For example, although Hunter mentions the office But Hunter goes further. He claims that public debate of doc- of the keys at least eight times, nowhere does he indicate that the trinal disagreement is wrong, embarrassing, and harmful. He pastor has any responsibility in administering the office of the likens various church leaders to “generals” who “don’t all agree keys. Rather, an everything.” But as long as we can believe of each other that we are all going to heaven, then despite “that different point of the head of the church does not exist without the body. Jesus view, . . . that different doctrine, . . . that different emphasis, . . . Christ has chosen to attach Himself to the body and make that different style of worship,” we should not “‘go public’ with Himself known through believers in the world. And He has disagreements before the foot soldiers.” This “confuses, divides entrusted to them the means of grace and the Office of the and hands the victory to the enemy, whose strategy is to divide Keys (). and conquer” (, ). Such extreme doctrinal indifference cer- tainly is not confessional. The first Lutherans condemned, The keys, then, are not speaking the gospel in the place of Jesus. rejected, and warned against every false doctrine that robbed Rather, they are keeping the head alive by making him known. Christ of his glory. Why is Hunter so indifferent to false doc- To Hunter, “equipping soul savers” is far preferable than “saving trine? Because his “church-growth paradigm” is more important souls” (). The church gathers, not for its minister to forgive and more unifying than “agreement in the doctrine and all its sins, but “the church in its gathered state is a staging ground, an articles, and the right use of the holy Sacraments” (FC Ep. , ). equipping area to prepare God’s people for the real work of min- istry” (). The Office of the Ministry Hunter’s interpretation of certain biblical passages is especial- To Hunter the job of pastors is neither to preach the gospel ly telling. He refers to Ephesians :– often, and understands it nor administer the sacraments. While such an understanding of to mean that God has given apostles, prophets, and pastors “to the ministry would further the notion of justification by grace, equip saints so that they can do the work of the ministry” (). the great commission requires something more. In the church- Second Corinthians : is applied not to pastors as stewards of growth paradigm, for a congregation to move from the first level God’s mysteries, but to all Christians (). When Paul in to the higher level it must activate the “priesthood of all believ- Romans  asks how people can hear unless someone is sent ers.” So, to Hunter, the task of church leaders is nothing more (), and when John recounts Christ’s sending his ministers in than to activate the people of the church to carry out the “great John  (), these, to Hunter, refer to all Christians, and not commission.” The job of a pastor is to “cast a vision” (), or to specifically or in any way to pastors. In fact, to Hunter there “serve as inspirer” (), so that the people can be ministers. To seems to be no indication anywhere in the scripture that God has Hunter God has established the “office of ministry” for the sake established an office of the ministry and appointed men to it, nor of order. “Someone is provided to be an equipper, trainer and does Hunter’s theology need an office of the ministry. encourager” (). Hunter contends that God “has a lot to say The Lutheran Confessions, of course, hold to quite a different about the function of ministry, . . . and less to say on the office view. Clearly the keys are given to the whole Christian church of ministry” (). The cleavage between office and function is a of saints, as Melanchthon asserts strongly in the treatise (Tr ). reflection of the two-tiered understanding of the church. Those Just as clearly, God through the church appoints men to be churches in which the office of the ministry performs its func- ministers of these keys to the church. These ministers are not tions have “an institutionally-centered view of mission [which] appointed to inspire, energize, or motivate others, much less to is totally contrary” () to God’s will. Rather, pastors (Hunter cast visions. Rather, “on account of the call of the church, they usually refers to them as church workers or leaders) are to “lib- represent the person of Christ and not their own persons” (Ap erate the energies of the people, inspire confidence, and arouse , ). “The Church has the command to appoint ministers” enthusiasm” (). Once that happens the “great commission” is so that she can hear the voice of her Lord. “For we know that attained. Who then are the ones who actually minister the gospel God approves this ministry and is present in it. It is good to to Christ’s sheep? extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise” (Ap , ). The ministry spoken of in the Augsburg The ministry or pastoring is not done by a special person, Confession is not “every man a minister” (), as Hunter avers, but is the work of God’s people. The word “pastor” is relat- but the ordained ministry. Further, the purpose of called and ed to the idea of shepherding or caring for another person. ordained ministers according to AC  is “so that we may obtain The word for “ministry” is similar to the concept of service this faith” by the preaching of the gospel and administering of to other people. Since these are both spiritual gifts they are the sacraments. distributed by the Holy Spirit to all sorts of members of Why does Hunter promote a doctrine of the ministry so the church, both men and women. There is no biblical different than the view presented by the Augsburg Confession? argument against anyone who is a Christian being His two-tiered doctrine of the church demands it. What if a   church has a minister of the gospel who feeds the sheep with Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic word and sacrament, and yet church-growth diagnosticians Development. By Bernhard Lohse. Translated and edited by Roy determine that the congregation is not “thinking like a mission- A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, . Hardcover. ary?” A confessional Lutheran would still joyfully praise the  pages. Lord for his abundant grace and gifts since these are bestowed through the office of the ministry. But a church-growth diag- h Students of Martin Luther and the Reformation have benefited nostician would have to assert that the church is ill or lacking greatly over the years from the efforts of Fortress Press to produce some fundamental blessing. When the “functions” of the min- English translations of some of the more important works coming istry are taken from the called servant of Christ and placed into from Germany. The last of three volumes on Luther by Martin the hands of all Christians, then the theological system is forced Brecht was published in English translation by Fortress in , pro- to redefine pastors as cheerleaders or visionaries. viding a definitive biographical study for modern Luther studies. A new translation of the Book of Concord has just been published in Conclusion . Also among these vital books for every Lutheran pastor’s The Church Growth Movement is a broad and seemingly study is this work by one of the greatest German Luther scholars of amorphous thing. Ostensibly, it advocates, among other things, the later twentieth century, Bernhard Lohse, which appeared in its sensitivity to people, an understanding of them and their needs. It German original in  as Luthers theologie in ihrer historischen challenges the church to reach out for the lost. It pleads that Entwicklung und in irem systematischen Zusanunenhang. Christians share their faith and their Lord with others. It exhorts Lohse’s study provides something not attempted since Julius the church “to work toward the building of God’s kingdom” and Köstlin’s Theology of Luther in : an analysis of Luther’s theolo- “to lift high the cross” (). What Christian could possibly oppose gy both in terms of its historical development and its systematic these things? Who could gainsay a holy repetition of Pentecost context. Such a study has long been vitally needed. Luther studies with thousands and thousands of sinners being brought into the have been plagued by systematic analyses wherein the interpreter’s kingdom through the great commission? In fact, these sincere theology comes through perhaps more clearly than Luther’s in his desires are felt and have been felt by all Christians since the time own historical context. As Lohse states about many recent Luther of Jesus. These sentiments are neither new nor unique. Christ studies in an introductory chapter, “lines of convergence with the through his church was saving people long before there was a theological and political history of the [author’s] time can easily be Donald McGavern, a Fuller Theological Seminary, a Kent Hunter, drawn” (). Lohse’s historical approach begins in part  with an or a Church Growth Movement. analysis of the theological and ecclesiastical situations on the eve of The Church Growth Movement’s unique and identifying fea- the Reformation. An analysis of Luther’s own development in part ture is not its zeal for the lost, but its theology. Kent Hunter’s , set against this background, enables the reader to follow Lohse chief article of faith is “the mission paradigm.” For him, those through a careful study of when and how Luther’s distinctive churches that do not use this paradigm are simply not pleasing to impulses emerged over against both his medieval background and God. His ecclesiology is Pentecostalism gone corporate. “Mission his conflicts with Rome and the emerging left-wing movements of paradigm” churches are those that do not limit themselves to the the sixteenth century. Through this historical approach Lohse “suffering” side of the cross but that bridge over it to the mission avoids the pitfalls of focusing too strongly on decisive moments side. In these churches the word and sacraments then lead to the and instead looks at Luther’s whole career as a theologian. “great commission.” Such churches experience “the essence of Lohse’s analysis of Luther’s “reformation discovery,” for exam- grace” when they rid themselves of empty traditions and break ple, skillfully charts a course that declines to endorse either the down cultural barriers of those who are receptive to God. In view which emerged from the Luther renaissance initiated by Karl “missionary-thinking” churches, the clergy inspire and encour- Holl, namely, that Luther’s Reformation theology is already clear age while the ministers, that is, all Christians, take up the voca- in Luther’s earliest lectures on the Psalms (–), or the view tion of pastor. Unity in the Church Growth Movement is based argued since the s that Luther did not have his “tower experi- not on a common confession of the doctrine of the gospel, but on ence” discovery of the justifying righteousness of God until late in a common acceptance of the church-growth paradigm. All arti-  or even . Lohse shows, rather, that the Reformation theol- cles of faith are measured against the movement’s understanding ogy of justification by faith was emerging throughout this period. of the “great commission.” Definable points of development and clear indication in the Hunter’s theology is consistent. It is widespread, as witnessed sources demonstrate that the issue is a complex and not a simple by its many endorsements. It is the theology of the Church one. God’s passive righteousness is already known by Luther in Growth Movement and its advocates. But it is a theology that , yet the vital concept of the certainty of salvation emerges deviates from confessional Lutheranism at virtually every turn. only later. Throughout part , Lohse brings such clarifying and precise developments in Luther’s theology to the fore. Klemet Preus A systematic treatment is helpful for the reader seeking to Glory of Christ Lutheran Church research a particular locus in Luther’s theology. Lohse provides Plymouth, Minnesota this in the third part of this study. The result is that, by reading sections of part  in correlation with topics as they emerge in the historical development of Luther’s theology, one can dive into the   whole system of Luther’s theology while studying its emergence “The Way to Heavens Doore”: An Introduction to Liturgical through his early lectures, his attack on indulgences, the crisis of Process and Musical Style. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By his dispute with Rome, and through his later disputes with radi- Steven Plank. Edited by Robin Leaver. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., cal tendencies, with Erasmus, with Zwingli, and with the . Hardcover.  pages. Antinomians. Or one can simply look in part  for subjects of interest and be directed by references, in many cases, to sections h This second in a series of Studies in Liturgical Musicology treated in their historical development. Of particular interest to focuses on text-painting in the liturgy. Series editor Robin Leaver Lutheran pastors are Lohse’s balanced and erudite treatments of notes that the frequent divorce between liturgy and music allows sola scriptura, of law and gospel (with sections on Luther’s under- musicians to concentrate solely on the ‘performing’ aspects of standing of the law’s twofold use as well as a treatment of the third worship without troubling themselves with understanding the use of the law in Lutheran theology), of the two kingdoms, and of theological principles and liturgical imperatives of worship. eschatology, including Lohse’s clear statement that there is it no Similarly, it allows clergy to assume that they have no need to doubt that Luther held to the “immortality of the soul,” even understand the musical aspects of worship, expect for music’s while he acknowledges Luther’s use of phrases teaching “soul basic propaganda value (ix). sleep” (). Lohse wisely relegates treatment of Luther’s unfortu- The purpose of this volume is “to raise some of the issues and nate statements concerning the Jews to an excursus, for they are, then to invite and encourage the reader to make further studies as Lohse notes, “a marginal theological issue, not at all part of the into the relationship between music and its functions within central themes” (xi). specific liturgical forms” (x). This English edition by Fortress Press has its strengths but also The intriguing title of the book is derived from a poem by the its significant flaws. Helpful are the inclusion of the Latin and English poet and cleric George Herbert (–), who described German texts in the footnotes, with English translations cited church music as “the way to heavens doore.” In surveying the close from the American Edition of Luther’s Works and references list- relationship between liturgy and music, Plank writes primarily for ed to the Weimarer Ausgabe. Usually the title and date of the two groups: “music history students who seek a contextual under- specific treatise is also noted, though sometimes incorrectly, for standing of their subject, and practitioners of church music who example, where the date of the Bondage of the Will is given as  look to explore broader aspects of their vocation” (xi). (), and AE  is incorrectly cited as AE  (). The book thus Plank teaches musicology and early music at Oberlin College in provides something absolutely essential: entrance into Luther’s Ohio and is also an active church musician. He combines his own writings. One could spend a lifetime of research in Luther’s knowledge of both fields into six chapters: “Liturgy and Music,” life and thought with this book as the key. On the other hand, “Time and Text,” “The Daily Office,” “The Mass,” “Liturgical Music Fortress has failed to provide an accurate edition. Typographical as Homily,” and a very brief “Coda” as chapter . “Liturgy and errors are not infrequent. Dates are sometimes wrong. In one case, Music” draws musicians and theologians together in the context of a crucial negative (nicht) is absent in the translation (); on page the historic liturgy. “Time and Text” explains the Christian church  there is almost a whole paragraph transposed from page  year as sacred time with sacred words. “The Daily Office” and “The that makes the paragraph unintelligible. The result of such exten- Mass” offer a layman’s overview of the mass and its offices along sive errors is that a beautifully designed and nicely bound book is with their rituals and music. “Liturgical Music as Homily” provides nevertheless seriously flawed. It is to be hoped that Fortress Press a look at the English anthem and the Lutheran cantata as two exam- will issue a page of errata and invest the time and expense neces- ples of liturgical music with a homiletical purpose. sary to produce a much improved subsequent printing. A page The highlight of Plank’s work for Lutheran readers will certain- listing abbreviations should also be supplied. In the present edi- ly be his overview of Bach’s cantatas as liturgical music for the sake tion, you need to have access to Siegfried Schwertner, of preaching the gospel. Plank notes that the cantata is based on Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und the Scripture lessons for the day and functions as a sung sermon Grenzgebiete (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, ) in order to deci- (). Plank passes the vital litmus test of knowing that Bach was pher the abbreviations! not a Pietist and cites excellent sources on Bach and Pietism by Such disappointments do not cloud my overall enthusiastic Robin Leaver. The author analyzes the text painting in BWV /, endorsement for this important book for English readers. Lohse’s /, and /. Editor Robin Leaver may deserve most of the cred- work surpasses all other studies. It provides most helpful guidance it for this section, but it is a welcome alternative to the plethora of into Luther’s own writings, so many of which are also available in Bach material that assumes Bach was in fact a Pietist. English. His historical approach is a desperately needed corrective The other strength of Plank’s book is his knowledge of tune and to systematic studies that have simply distorted much of Luther’s text, music and theology. Unlike many musical sources that ignore theology. Every Lutheran pastor should purchase this book and the text and theological resources that ignore the music, Plank is use it as a tool for understanding the reformer who brought the conscious of the reciprocal relationship between the two fields. gospel back to a church that had corrupted it, whose theology, According to Plank, the question is “not what musical style(s) is grounded in Holy Scripture, is a desperately needed light for our traditionally associated with particular liturgical texts, but rather own day. what liturgical process is active and how does a particular musical John Arthur Maxfield style function within that process” (–). For example, Plank Ph.D. Candidate, Princeton Theological Seminary notes that the omission of the Gloria during Advent and Lent Director, Luther Academy “demonstrates again the way music colors the context” ().  

The weakness of addressing a church issue in a secular univer- . A continuum of vocal sound ranges from declamatory sity setting is the need for theological resources that will find speech to sung word as revelation and response mecha- acceptance in the postmodern university. Plank succeeds in Bach nisms. studies, as noted above. His sources for the work as a whole, how- . A mandate exists for the saints to continue the Imago Dei ever, are mixed. His three primary referents are James McKinnon’s process by creatively composing new songs of praise. Music in Early Christian Literature, Joseph Jungmann’s The Mass . Instrumental accompaniments (specifically, timbres that of the Roman Rite, and Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy. blend with the human voice) are used to aid in the vocal McKinnon’s work is a book of primary readings and can hardly go response to the Godhead. astray. Jungmann, of course, writes from a uniquely Roman . Instrumental heralding (specifically, the trumpet call) is Catholic perspective. Gregory Dix is popular for promulgating the used to announce the revelation of the Godhead. four-part scheme for celebrating the Lord’s Supper (Lutheran . The exhibition of emotion in the performance of the music Book of Worship), contra the Lutheran three-part plan (The exists owing to the use of a variety of Greek verbs such as Lutheran Hymnal, Lutheran Worship, Christian Worship, say, sing, rejoice, cry, and a variety of sounds from nature. Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary). . The postures for the performance of music in worship In the final analysis Plank successfully introduces music histo- involve more than just sitting and standing. ry students to the liturgy. Yet he offers very little to our confession . The music of worship includes the use of the sounds of that is not already available in Lutheran Worship: History and nature from all creation, both animate and inanimate. Practice; Commentary on The Lutheran Book of Worship; Christian . A sense of unity (koinonia) is perceived via the dynamics of Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical; and Christian Worship Manual. antiphonal and responsorial response by the various Even from the perspective of music history students, his brief tour groups. of the mass and daily office is easily trumped by the much more . Old worship (proskuneo), motivated by reverential fear detailed and readable account in Jeremy Yudkin’s Music in having a vertical master-to-slave nature, merges with a new Medieval Europe. worship (proskuneo), motivated by love having a horizontal We must study and digest the vital topics in liturgical process host–to-guest nature. Theology becomes doxology as the and musical style. But we will study the issues through the filter of solemn act of worship. Wittenburg, not Rome or Canterbury. . Music dramatically involves all the senses of humanity and Brian J. Hamer all the collective resources available in all Creation Christ The King Lutheran Church (–). Riverview, Florida Seel’s approach to scripture is straight biblicism. The book originated as a DMA church music dissertation in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. Robin Leaver, A Theology of Music for Worship Derived from the Book of who has earned a reputation as a closet Lutheran, informs Revelation. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By Thomas Allen (warns?) us in the Editor’s Foreword, “[The book’s] respectful Seel. Edited by Robin Leaver. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., . biblicism reflects the evangelical perspectives of the author and of Hardcover.  pages. the seminary for which the dissertation was written” (v). The author approaches Revelation (and all of Scripture) as a “show- h Thomas Seel introduces the third volume of this series by me-a-passage” book of detailed rubrics for church music, instead noting the reciprocal relationship between theology and music: of a book of the revelation of God in Christ to be read aloud and “When the two become separated, music in worship becomes preached in Christian worship. With the absence of a how-to () entertainment, () music to set the mood, and/or () an ‘aural manual for church music dropping out of heaven after Pentecost, lubricant’ which serves as a transition between other parts of the Seel forces the Apocalypse into such a mold and thwarts the service” (). With this promising preface, Seel seeks to show “that nature and function of holy scripture. He finds in Revelation the the writer of the Apocalypse used the breadth of his multicultured precedent for soloists, ensembles, quartets, offstage choirs, new life experiences to portray the fulness of the vision he received types of sounds, improvised music, and even support for laser from the Godhead” (). Seel notes that Revelation is not a col- light shows (). His work recalls those who think that references lection of unrelated visions and music, but “the music provides to clapping hands in the Psalms are stage directions for contem- the basis of a well conceived theology of music in worship. The porary worship and that house churches in Acts are support for thesis of this study breaks new ground and has not been addressed cell group Bible studies. In that sense, he breaks no new ground. directly in any other study to date” (). In the final analysis, this is merely a theology of music for worship After a lengthy introduction to his theological and musical contrived from the Book of Revelation. moorings, Seel attempts to break this “new ground” by exploring To be sure, the ongoing work of Studies in Liturgical Musicology the origin and use of “pray” (proskuneo) in Revelation, the musi- holds a great deal of promise. The series has a stellar editor and a cal forms in Revelation, performing groups, performance prac- legitimate aim to synthesize music history and church music. But tice, a theology of music for worship, and implications for today’s this particular volume is not worth the price of admission. church musicians. The denouement of his study is a list of ten characteristics of music in worship from the Book of Revelation: Brian J. Hamer  

Hymnology: A Collection of Source Reading. Studies in Liturgical be done by the music which they sing in their most impression- Musicology . By David W. Music. Edited by Robin A. Leaver. able years” (). Lanham, Maryland, and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., . Are their any weaknesses to this volume? The scope and Hardcover.  pages. breadth of the topic in a -page book will be its greatest strength and weakness at the same time. David W. Music succeeds in pro- h Robin A. Leaver of Westminster Choir College notes in the viding the overall panorama of hymnology from Pliny the Foreword to this volume, Younger to Vatican , but the balance along the way is somewhat obscured by Music’s Baptist roots. Luther receives fewer than five Discussions of these matters [of hymnology] can, of course, pages of attention, a fraction of the space allotted for Isaac Watts be found in numerous studies of the development of and other English writers. Along the same lines, many of the hymnody, but documentary sources, which present the English documents are presented in their original Old English, issues within the contemporary thought forms and presup- which may be awkward for some readers. Similarly, some of the positions, have been inaccessible in a single source until the German phrases from the Reformation section are untranslated. publication of this volume! (x). One may also wonder why Music ends with Vatican , yet reality suggests most people’s knowledge of church history barely David W. Music divides the readings into five broad categories: stretches back to the s or to their baptism, whichever came The Early Church and the Middle Ages, The Reformation, English first. Perhaps the author also wants the reader to see the parallels Hymnody, American Hymnody, and Vatican . Subdivisions of between the Council of Laodicea and the failed reforms of Vatican each chapter and an index allow the reader to proceed immedi- , nearly  years after the fact. ately to the author or document of personal choice. Each selection These concerns aside, the strengths of Hymnology: A Collection is introduced by the author with a concise and helpful summary of Source Readings far outweigh its weaknesses. As a whole the of the historical context of the individuals and their writing(s). selections are well chosen from a vast field of literature, accurate- Familiar readings are included from Ambrose, Augustine, Egeria, ly introduced, and surprisingly applicable to our own sung con- Luther, Zwingli, Isaac Watts, John Wesley, and Ralph Vaughan fession of the faith. (As an aside to pastors and interested laity of Williams. But the main attraction of this volume is certainly the the LCMS: buy and read this book before . It will help us more obscure readings from Palladius, Cassiodorus, Sozomen, (LCMS) all answer the question, “How came we here?” as we Notker Balbulus, Clement Marot, and even The Boston Handel approach our next hymnal and as we seek a hymnody which is at and Haydn Society. once catholic and evangelical.) Highlights of the book for Lutheran readers include Sozomen’s Brian J. Hamer (c.– c.) comments on the chaos that results when people of different doctrinal positions try to sing together: “Leontius, the bishop of the opposite faction, who then presided over the church of Antioch, did not dare to prohibit the singing of hymns to God Music in Early Christian Literature. The Cambridge Readings in which were in accordance with the Nicene doctrines, for he feared the Literature of Music. By James McKinnon. General Editors: to excite an insurrection of the people” (). The words of the John Stevens and Peter le Hurray. Cambridge University Press, Roman Catholic Nausea Blancicampianus on Lutheran hymns . Hardcover.  pages. teaching Lutheran doctrine have lost none of their weight: “I say in addition that it will not be very easy for them (namely the h This is a parallel volume to Oliver Strunk’s Source Readings Protestants) to agree with us, because it will be necessary after in Music History: Volume One: Antiquity and the Middle Ages peace is established to do away with those German songs, which (W.W. Norton , ). Whereas Strunk offered primary read- they use very much in many of their churches” (). The Preface ings from secular sources from Plato through the Middle Ages, to the pietistic Geistreiches Gesangbuch sounds remarkably similar McKinnon’s book “aims to be inclusive rather than representative to the preface of some songbooks used in the LCMS. It is even in its selection of material and to be a resource for the serious stu- described as a “new songbook” and is arranged according to the dent of music history rather than merely a pedagogical resource in order of salvation instead of the seasons of the church year (). the manner of the typical anthology of source readings” (vii). The response of the theological faculty of the University of (This reviewer first encountered the book in a graduate course in Wittenburg () notes how the editors of the Gesangbuch omit music history at a secular university.) McKinnon also narrows the hymns that pray for the preservation of true doctrine, confuse scope “from the New Testament to approximately  ..” (vii) people about the origin of texts and tunes, and fill their songbook and narrows the focus to Christian writers, as the title implies. with false doctrine and “high questionable phrases” (). To read McKinnon divides his anthology into eleven broad categories the response of the Wittenburg faculty and insert The Other and proceeds in chronological order. Readings are included from Songbook or twenty-page bulletins of praise music and home- direct New Testament citations, the Apostolic Fathers, the Greek made liturgies in place of Geistreiches Gesangbuch is an enlighten- Apologists, nonpatristic Christian literature, and the standard ing experience. And what faithful pastor or church musician array of Christian writers through St. Augustine. Familiar authors would not be thankful for Ralph Vaughan Williams’s words about include Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of children and music: “Children at all events have no old associa- Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory tion with any particular tune, and incalculable good or harm may Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Jerome. Readers will   appreciate lesser-known citations from Tatian, Athenagoras, tences to give the context of the reading. A bibliography and index Novatian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Pahomius, Isidore of Pelusium, help the reader navigate the tightly written and presented materi- Nilus of Ancyra, Sozomen, and Hilary of Poitiers. al. To be sure, this is no light reading. While under two hundred Highlights for pastors and church musicians include one of the pages, the quotations are brief and rich, as opposed to Strunk’s first known references to the office of cantor (attr. Pseudo Source Readings, which are more lengthy but read quite easily. The Ignatius) in the fourth century: “I greet the subdeacons, the read- scope is narrow, the material is challenging, and even the type is ers, the cantors, the porters, the laborers, the exorcists, and the quite small. To answer the obvious question, yes, many readings confessors” (). Comments from Tatian (fl. c. ) on proper are included that are not in found in standard sets of the church decorum in church music may become a celebrated quote among fathers, including some never before available in English. confessing evangelicals: “I do not wish to gape at many singers nor Purchase and digest Music in Early Christian Literature. It will do I care to look benignly upon a man who is nodding and be infinitely valuable to anyone looking for catholic support for motioning in an unnatural way” (). Novatian’s (d. c. ) the oft-heard dictum, “Tune follows text as style follows sub- thoughts show his awareness of the different cultural use of stance.” instruments in the Old and New Testaments: “That David led Brian J. Hamer dancing in the sight of God is no excuse for the Christian faithful to sit in the theatre, for he did not distort his limbs in obscene ges- tures while dancing to a tale of Grecian lust” (). Basil the Great (c. –) tells youth of the edifying use of instruments among The Bestman, the Bride, and the Wedding. By Michael L. McCoy. the ancients and warns against contemporary [sic] music: Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, .

The passions born of illiberality and baseness of spirit are h At first glance a reader might think that this is a practical naturally occasioned by this sort of [contemporary] music. book offering advice to those about to be wed. But upon further But we must pursue the other kind, which is better and leads reading and exploration, the reader will find a very nice “treatise” to the better .... Such is the difference in filling one’s ears on St. Paul’s letter to the Christians at Ephesus :– (especially with wholesome or wicked tunes! And since the latter type verse ). Those who grew up reading C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of now prevails, you must have less to do with it than with any Narnia, or who read them to their children, will enjoy the same utterly depraved thing (). style of writing in Pastor McCoy’s excellent novel. The scriptural allusions are fantastic as the history of the fami- Two quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (c. –) are worth ly of God is traced from the creation to that final wedding banquet the price of the book. First, he compares Christian celebrations to around the throne of the bridegroom, the Lamb of God who takes pagan parties: “Let us take up hymns rather than tympana, away the sin of the world. While this work is very captivating and psalmody rather than shameful dances and songs, a well rendered hard to put down, it is at the same time a book that offers a good applause of thanksgiving rather than theatrical applause, medita- measure of practical advice. It offers encouragement and comfort tion rather than debauchery” (). Moreover, he comments on the to the faithful pastor. It offers a great sense of admonition to the Christian wedding and the need to exclude frivolous entertain- pastor who might think a little too highly of himself and his ment and music: “Among good things, one is the presence of accomplishments (crediting himself with the greatness of the Christ at weddings (for where Christ is, there is good order).” church and its growth). It offers encouragement and comfort to Therefore, if Christ is present in the liturgy, Gregory concludes the body of Christ, the church. that the following pairs are incompatible: “bishops with jesters, To the faithful pastor it offers encouragement and comfort for nor prayers with dancing, nor psalmody with aulosplaying”(). the long haul. The faithful Bestmen (pastors) are the ones who (I write this review having just explained to the mother of a bride- truly enjoy joining the Bride (the church) in the Great Dance to-be why I would rather they did not play a CD of Enya for pre- (divine service). It is the faithful Bestman who has no problem service wedding music in our sanctuary.) bearing the Chain Stole (the marks of the church: word and sacra- If the reader’s appetite is not yet whetted, here is one more snip- ment) or the Black Wool Robe (a symbol of the office using wool pet from Hilary of Poitiers (c.–) on singing the Psalms in so that the Bestman won’t get too comfortable in his office). It is Christ: the faithful Bestman who is able to keep the Bride out of the reach of Thanatos and his net (using the Chain Stole), yet has no fear of There should be no doubt that the things mentioned in the the time when he himself must be gathered into the net. It is the psalms must be understood in accordance with the teaching faithful Bestman who is given the privilege of escorting the Bride of the Gospel, such that regardless of the person in which the to the Great Wedding. prophetic spirit has spoken, it should nonetheless be referred To the pastor who thinks too highly of himself and his own in its entirety to the recognition of the coining of the Lord works there is great admonition. It is the unfaithful Bestman who Jesus Christ, his incarnation, passion, and kingdom, and to forgets the blessings or the necessity of the Great Dance. It is the the glory and excellence of our own resurrection (). unfaithful Bestman who sees no need for the Chain Stole and Black Robe and gets a little too comfortable in his office and thus Every author is introduced with a concise summary of his life loses sight of what marks the church. It is the unfaithful Bestman and significance. Each selection is prefaced by one or two sen- who always seems to be seeking to justify his “ministry” by sur-   rounding himself with yes-men. It is the unfaithful Bestman who A Little One amidst the Shadows. By Michael L. McCoy. does not want to deal with Thanatos. It is the unfaithful Bestman Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, . who thinks that without him the Bride would be lost and the wed- ding would never take place. h The second volume in The Chronicles of Peniel is as intrigu- To the body of Christ, the church, the bride, there is much com- ing, attention-getting, and attention-holding as the first, The fort and encouragement to be found in the three-hundred-plus Bestman, The Bride, and The Wedding. The scriptural allusions are pages of this work. Despite the variety of Bestmen (both faithful every bit as inspiring. They only serve to emphasize the point that and unfaithful) by which the Bride must be escorted, a remnant is Pastor McCoy seeks to get across to his audience. always maintained. It is that remnant that truly values the In this volume the reader, be he pastor or layman, will find Bestman, despite the one filling the office. Knowing that the one both admonition and encouragement. There is admonition: even filling the office does not the office make, the bride and her chil- this reviewer, a called and ordained servant of the word with six dren find comfort in knowing that the Great Dance is still years of parish experience, was almost sucked into believing the efficacious. There is comfort in knowing that there will be a faith- various characters that the author uses to show how crafty and ful Bestman to escort her to Wedding Hall for the marriage feast wily the old evil foe really is. Thanks be to God that, being of the Lamb in his kingdom, which has no end. steeped in the word of life, one is able to hear that little voice that The Bestman, the Bride and the Wedding is a book that everyone keeps telling one, “There is something here that is not quite what should read, but especially pastors. Pastors should read it for it seems to be. That is not quite right.” The depictions of Satan encouragement either to remain faithful or to regain that faithful- disguised as an angel of light are captivating. ness to the word of God and our Confessions. There is encouragement in that the reader, being steeped in the Michael R. Scudder word of life, will readily see that a thorough knowledge of this Admissions Counselor word will enable one to recognize even the slightest variation Concordia Theological Seminary from the truth. Pastor McCoy makes this point himself in the Ft. Wayne, Indiana Afterword as he describes how the book came to reality in the lives of people to whom he was giving pastoral care in the days just prior to the submitting of the final manuscript. It is encour- aging to be so familiar with the real thing (the word of life) that you immediately recognize the imitation (the devil and his wicked angels). It is the same style of training used for bank tellers as they learn to recognize counterfeit money. This volume is much easier to get into after first having read volume one. While it is not absolutely necessary to do so, it will be helpful to be familiar with the author’s style of writing. Again this book should be a part of a church’s library as well as the pas- tor’s as they seek to be encouraged and equipped to serve the word become flesh. Michael R. Scudder

A CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS

The editors of L hereby request manuscripts, book reviews, and forum material for the following issues and themes:

ISSUE THEME DEADLINE Reformation  Wittenberg and Rome April ,  Epiphany  A Symposium on Prayer  Fellowship July ,  Eastertide  Lutheran Education October ,  Holy Trinity  Vocation  Sanctification January , 

Send all submissions to the appropriate editors and addresses as listed on the inside back cover. Please include IBM or Macintosh diskette with manuscript whenever possible. (Specify word processing pro- gram and version used.) Submit all articles to the Coordinating Editor: Erling T. Teigen •  Pearl St. • Mankato, MN •  • or .@compuserve.com • All submissions must be accompanied by an abstract of the article,  words or less. Please write for style sheet. L Forum S S  C

  This I can testify with a good conscience —I’ve given it my O T utmost in care and effort, and I never had any ulterior motives. I have neither taken nor sought a single penny for it, In , during the sessions of the imperial diet at Augsburg, Luther nor made one by it. Neither have I sought my own honor by was kept at the Coburg castle, where he could both be kept safe and it; God, my Lord, knows this. Rather, I have done it as a ser- still close enough for consultation. While there, Luther busied vice to the dear Christians and to the honor of One who sit- himself with translating. On the day of his arrival, he wrote to teth above, who blesses me so much every hour of my life that Melanchthon: “Out of this Sinai we shall make a Zion and build I had translated a thousand times as much or as diligently, I three tabernacles: One to the Psalter, one to the Prophets, and one should not for a single hour have deserved to live or to have to Aesop.” Luther wrote an open letter on translating and instructed a sound eye. All that I am and have is of his grace and mercy, Wenceslaus Link to release it for publication. indeed, of his precious blood, and bitter sweat. Therefore, God In this work, Luther defends his translation of Romans :, willing, all of it shall also serve to his honor, joyfully and sin- where he added the word “alone” to the phrase “by faith” when cerely. Scribblers and papal asses may blaspheme me, but real the word was not originally there. Here we see Luther’s keen Christians —and Christ, their Lord —bless me! And I am more intent on translating in service to the proclamation of gracious than plentifully repaid, if even a single Christian acknowledges justification in Christ. This excerpt is found in AE : –. me as an honest workman. I care nothing for the papal asses; Luther’s defense is not a good example of temperance, but no they are not worthy of acknowledging my work, and it would doubt gives a sense of the ill will he himself suffered for a decade. grieve me to the bottom of my heart if they blessed me. Their blasphemy is my highest praise and honor. I shall be a doctor And why should I talk so much about translating? If I were to anyway, yes even a distinguished doctor; and that name they point out the reasons and considerations back of all my words, shall not take from me till the Last Day, this I know for cer- I should need a year to write on it. I have learned by experi- tain.... ence what an art and what a task translating is. Therefore I Ah, translating is not every man’s skill as the mad saints will tolerate no papal ass or mule to be my judge or critic, for imagine. It requires a right, devout, honest sincere, God-fear- they have never tried it. He who desires none of my translating ing, Christian, trained, informed, and experienced heart. may let it alone. If anyone dislikes it or criticizes it without my Therefore I hold that no false Christian or factious spirit can knowledge and consent, the devil repay him! If it is to be criti- be a decent translator. That becomes obvious in the transla- cized, I shall do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leave tion of the Prophets made at Worms. It has been carefully my translation in peace. Let each of them make for himself done and approaches my German very closely. But Jews had one that suits —what do I care? a hand in it, and they do not show much reverence for Christ. Apart from that there is plenty of skill and craftsmanship there. So much for translating and the nature of the A   L F may be reprinted freely for study languages! and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding Now, I was not relying on and following the nature of the that appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces are languages alone, however, when, in Romans [:] I inserted written by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast- head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending them the word solum (alone). Actually the text itself and the mean- to Rev. Joel A. Brondos,  S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. ing of St. Paul urgently require and demand it. For in that very When possible, please provide your work on a .-inch passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doc- Windows/ compatible diskette. Because of the large number of trine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without unsolicited materials received, we regret that we cannot publish them any works of the law. And Paul cuts away all works so com- all or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers should understand that views pletely, as even to say that the words of the law—though it is expressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not God’s law and word —do not help us for justification [Rom necessarily reflect the positions of the editors. :]. He cites Abraham as an example and says that he was    justified so entirely without works that even the highest redeemed us with His blood. In short, we can stand the loss work —which, moreover, had been newly commanded by God, of our possessions, our name, our life, and everything else; but over and above all other works and ordinances, namely cir- we will not let ourselves be deprived of the Gospel, our faith, cumcision —did not help him for justification; rather he was and Jesus Christ. And that is that. justified without circumcision and without any works, by Accursed be any humility that yields or submits at this faith, as he says in chapter , “If Abraham was justified by point! Rather, let everyone be proud and unremitting here, works, he may boast, but not before God.” But when all works unless he wants to deny Christ. With the help of God, there- are so completely cut away—and that must mean that faith fore, I will be more hardheaded than anyone else. I want to be alone justifies —whoever would speak plainly and clearly about stubborn and to be known as someone who is stubborn. Here this cutting away of works will have to say, “Faith alone I bear the inscription “I yield to no one.” And I am overjoyed justifies us, and not works.” The matter itself, as well as the if here I am called rebellious and unyielding. Here I admit nature of the language, demands it. openly that I am and will be unmovable and that I will not yield a hairbreadth to anyone. Love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” ( Cor. :) therefore it yields. But not faith; it will not stand for anything. As the common saying has it, , ,  “A man’s reputation, faith, and eye cannot stand being played T U L with.” So far as his faith is concerned, therefore, a Christian is Luther did not mind his reputation for hardheadedness in mat- as proud and firm as he can be; and he must not relax or yield ters of the faith (fides quae). In all other matters, one needs love, the least bit. For at this point faith makes a man God ( Peter but in regarding matters of doctrine, we should not be humble or :). But God does not stand for anything or yield to anyone, relenting. Here are two excerpts: the first is found in Day By Day for He is unchanging. Thus, faith is unchanging. Therefore, it We Magnify Thee, daily devotional readings in Luther, page , should not stand for anything or yield to anyone. But so far as translated from WA , . The second is from the American love is concerned, a Christian should yield and stand for every- Edition of Luther’s works (AE : –). thing; for here he is only a human being.

I. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth ( Cor :). This is so great a good that no human heart can   grasp it (therefore it necessitates such a great and hard fight). U C It must not be treated lightly, as the world maintains and C. F. W. Walther, Explanation of Thesis , D, “Adiaphora,” in many people who do not understand, saying we should not The True Visible Church, theses delivered at St. Paul’s Lutheran fight so hard about an article and thus trample on Christian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, beginning August , , at love; rather, although we err on one small point, if we agree the sixteenth Central District Convention. Translated by Fred on everything else, we should give in and overlook the Kramer, printed in C. F. W. Walther, Essays for the Church difference in order to preserve brotherly and Christian unity (CPH, ), : –. and fellowship. No, my dear man, do not recommend to me peace and We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul of unity when thereby God’s Word is lost, for then eternal life Lutheranism, is not found in outward observances but in the and everything else would be lost. In this matter there can be pure doctrine. If a congregation had the most beautiful cere- no yielding nor giving way, no, not for love of you or any monies in the very best order, but did not have the pure doc- other person, but everything must yield to the Word, whether trine, it would be anything but Lutheran. We have from the it be friend or foe. beginning spoken earnestly of good ceremonies, not as though The Word was given unto us for eternal life and not to fur- the important thing were outward forms, but rather to make ther outward peace and unity. The Word and doctrine will use of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans know create Christian unity or fellowship. Where they reign all else that although one does not have to have these things (because will follow. Where they are not, no concord will ever abide. there is no divine command to have them), one may neverthe- Therefore, do not talk to me about love and friendship, if that less have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beauti- means breaking with the Word, or the faith, for the Gospel ful and are not forbidden in the Word of God. does not say love brings eternal life, God’s grace, and all heav- Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished “outward enly treasures, but the Word. ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar orna- ments,” [Ap ] but has left them free. The sects proceeded II. differently because they did not know how to distinguish On no account should we humble ourselves here; for they between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the want to deprive us of our glory, namely, the God who has Word of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt created us and given us everything, and the Christ who has and of his adherents and followers in Germany and in   

Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies and reminded by the solemnity of the divine service that one is in church ornaments in order to prove by our actions that we the house of God, in childlike love to their heavenly Father, have a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and know also give expression to their joy in such a lovely manner. how to conduct ourselves in things which are neither com- We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception manded nor forbidden by God. or feeling or taste among all believing Christians—neither dare We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, it church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent account of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poor that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls consciences by imposing human ordinances on them with the in which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, while command: “You must keep such and such a thing!”; the sects our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin what serve the great God publicly before the world. God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the Saxon Christians are still without a true understanding of their liber- Church order published by the Synod, which is the simplest ty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies. among the many Lutheran church orders) would be highly It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find desirable because of its usefulness. A poor slave of the pope the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism finds one and same form of service, no matter where he goes, in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a by which he at once recognizes his church. person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please With us it is different. Whoever comes from Germany with- the deluded American denominations just so they won’t out a true understanding of the doctrine often has to look for accuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid his church for a long time, and many have already been lost to of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed our church because of this search. How different it would be if in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that the entire Lutheran church had a uniform form of worship! they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them? This would, of course, first of all yield only an external advan- It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in tage, however, one which is by no means unimportant. Has our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in not many a Lutheran already kept his distance from the sects many congregations. The prejudice especially against the because he saw at the Lord’s Supper they broke the bread responsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of course instead of distributing wafers? still very great with many people —this does not, however, alter The objection: “What would be the use of uniformity of the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father ceremonies?” was answered with the counter question, “What Augustine said, “Qui cantat, bis orat —he who sings prays twice.” is the use of a flag on the battlefield?” Even though a soldier This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the Why should congregations or individuals in the congregation flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the want to retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! For footsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from being first of all it is clear from the words of St. Paul ( Cor. :) ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess in that the congregations of his time had a similar custom. It has the passage quoted: “It is not true that we do away with all been the custom in the Lutheran Church for  years. It cre- such external ornaments.” ates a solemn impression on the Christian mind when one is  

F B  O would take you!” I have heard many such prayers in the past. This is blasphemy and it would be better if they played at it Luther’s Prayers, edited by Herbert F. Brokering (St. Louis: if they cannot or do not care to do better. In my day I have Augsburg Publishing House, ) and originally translated by prayed many such canonical hours myself, regrettably, and Charles E. Kistler, contains many examples of how the Holy in such a manner that the psalm or the allotted time came Scriptures and daily struggles shaped Luther’s prayer life. These to an end before I even realized whether I was at the begin- prayers are collected with several themes in mind: The ning or the middle. Catechism, Home and Family, Word and Sacraments, and the Though not all of them blurt out the words as did the above Church. It might serve well as a confirmation gift. The following mentioned cleric and mix business and prayer, they do it by excerpt is a portion of Luther’s A Simple Way to Pray, written at the thoughts in their hearts. They jump from one thing to the request of Master Peter the Barber. The translation found in another in their thoughts and when it is all over they do not this edition (pages –) is actually Helmut T. Lehman’s trans- know what they have done or what they talked about. They lation from volume  of Luther’s Works, published by Fortress start with Laudate and right away they are in a fool’s paradise. Press. It seems to me that if we could see what arises as prayer from a cold and unattentive heart we would conclude that we You should also know that I do not want you to recite all these had never seen a more ridiculous kind of buffoonery. But, words in your prayer. That would make it nothing but idle praise God, it is now clear to me that those who forget what chatter and prattle. Rather do I want your heart to be stirred they have said have not prayed well. In a good prayer one fully and guided concerning the thoughts which ought to be com- remembers every word and thought from the beginning to the prehended in the Lord’s Prayer. These thoughts may be end of the prayer. expressed, if your heart is rightly warmed and inclined toward So, a good and attentive barber keeps his thoughts, atten- prayer, in many different ways and with more words or fewer. tion, and eyes on the razor and hair and does not forget how I do not bind myself to such words or syllables, but say my far he has gotten with his shaving or cutting. If he wants to prayers in one fashion today, in another tomorrow, depending engage in too much conversation or let his mind wander or upon my mood and feeling. I stay however, as nearly as I can, look somewhere else, he is likely to cut his customer’s mouth, with the same general thoughts and ideas. It may happen nose, or even his throat. Thus if anything is to be done well, occasionally that I may get lost among so many ideas in one it requires the full attention of all one’s senses and members, petition that I forego the other six. as the proverb says, “Pluribu, intentus minor est ad singula If such an abundance of good thoughts comes to us we sensus”—“The one who thinks of many things, thinks of noth- ought to disregard the other petitions, make room for such ing and does nothing right.” How much more does prayer call thoughts, listen in silence, and under no circumstances for concentration and singleness of heart if it is to be a good obstruct them. The Holy Spirit himself preaches here, and one prayer! word of his sermon is far better than a thousand of our This in short is the way I use the Lord’s Prayer when I pray prayers. Many times I have learned more from one prayer than it. To this day I suckle at the Lord’s Prayer like a child, and as I might have learned from much reading and speculation. an old man eat and drink from it and never get my fill. It is It is of great importance that the heart be made ready and the very best prayer, even better than the Psalter, which is so eager for prayer. As Sirach says, “Prepare your heart for very dear to me. It is surely evident that a real master com- prayer, and do not tempt God” [Sirach :]. What else is it posed and taught it. What a great pity that the prayer of such but tempting God when your mouth babbles and the mind a master is prattled and chattered so irreverently all over the wanders to other thoughts? Like the cleric who prayed, “Deus world! How many pray the Lord’s Prayer several thousand in adjutorium meum intende.” [Make haste, O God, to deliver times in the course of a year, and if they were to keep on doing me; Ps. :]. “Farmhand, did you unhitch the horses?” so for a thousand years they would not have tasted nor prayed Domine ad adjuvandum me festina. [Make haste to help me, one iota, one dot, of it! In a word, the Lord’s Prayer is the O Lord.] “Maid, go out and milk the cow.” Gloria patri et greatest martyr on earth (as are the name and word of God). filio et spiritui sancto. [Glory be to the Father and to the Son Everybody tortures and abuses it; few take comfort and joy in and to the Holy Spirit.] “Hurry up, boy, I wish the ague its proper use.   

T C S

This letter appeared in the Lutheran Witness, circa . The knowledge of our hymns if there is to be no opportunity to ELS and WELS have published new hymnals, and the LCMS is sing them? Shall we more and more confine ourselves to the planning to have its new hymnal ready in . Does it take a singing of the liturgy and let the hymns fall into desuetude? generation for a hymnal like TLH to overcome initial criticisms Some of us are going to keep the doxologies, just as we are and become endeared to the hearts of pastors and people? There going to continue the use of “Gott sei gelobet” as the doxology were numerous protests in the s about The Lutheran after the Communion service despite the attempt of the com- Hymnal (TLH), but today we hear no such complaints about mittee at first to eliminate that. We do not want to be stub- TLH —though the same kinds of concerns were raised with born, but we will keep everything that is a help to our faith Lutheran Worship (LW). and because of such holy associations is precious to us. So we will have the variation of two, three or four hymns—all My people want the “uniform service.” Just what shall we do? according to the new hymnal. How are we to achieve unifor- Simply to tell us that we shall follow the new hymnal gets us mity? Some will have no doxologies, and some of us will keep nowhere. It seems to me that at least five pronounced varia- them even though the set-up in the new hymnal seems to dis- tions are possible in following the new hymnal. With hundreds courage their use. of pronounced individualists among the clergy and thousands So we shall expect this letter, or one of similar import, to be of them among the laity (with the usual percentage of maver- printed in the Lutheran Witness as a contribution to the discus- icks among both), must we not expect every variation to be sion of the plea “to follow the service exactly as it is written.” We found somewhere? And since the hymnal encourages (the have tried to understand exactly what is written, and we are con- word is used advisedly) variations, is that not an open invita- fused no end. We want to be in on the uniformity. We can’t tion to go a step further? and then another step? (Let’s not figure it out. We want four hymns and the doxology; we may engage in any logomachy over that expression “open invita- prefer to omit the Gloria in Excelsis; we like the triple Hallelujah tion,” since I have in mind the practical result rather than the (second version); our neighboring congregation feels best with intention of the committee.) I hope my forebodings will two hymns, the single Hallelujah, the Gloria in Excelsis and prove to have been needless, but is not the set-up perfect for being seated during the Epistle-lesson, while we still think that anything but uniformity? one ought to stand when the Lord’s Word is being read. We both Especially are these forebodings buttressed by a perusal of are following the new hymnal order of the morning service and the rubrics concerning the hymns. We were told time and time arrive at such diverging customs. Which one of us cannot under- again that one of the glories of our Church is the congrega- stand what uniformity really is? tional singing of hymns. Yet following the new hymnal, we Since we want to conform and the neighboring congregation may use two or four songs. In the  hymnal the rubrics read always wants to be a little “different,” we will naturally expect “shall” for three hymns, plus a doxology, which was at least you to label them as the non-conformists and prove it to them optional. Some of us still used four hymns and a doxology. from the new hymnal. We are unable to do so, for when we Now we are getting down to two “shall” hymns, plus two confront them with the hymnal, they can prove their case: optional and not even the mention of a doxology to be sung They are following exactly what is written —and so are we. Yet by the congregation. How are we going to keep alive the the services are so different from each other in many details.  

A C R C  W  W Do you or your loved ones hold membership in any societies? Henry Hamann offered his perspective in his book On Being a Carl Halter and Carl Schalk edited A Handbook of Church Christian: A Personal Confession (Milwaukee: Northwestern Music (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ). Historical Publishing House, ) pages –. perspectives that pastors might well like to address with organists or worship committees are found in this book. The following There are hundreds of clubs and societies in the world devoted selection is from pages –. to certain aspects of human life, organizations that bring together different groups of people in order to make possible By the closing decades of the th century it was apparent that a furthering of their particular interests. Must all of these too a new movement was making a slow but steady impact on the make the bringing into being of a better world an essential part worship and hymnody of Lutherans in America. That move- of their program? The suggestion is preposterous. Everybody ment was a confessional revival, a reawakening of interest in knows that involvement in one or more of these clubs devoted and commitment to the historic creeds and confessions of the to special interests does not prevent its members from working Lutheran church and, together with that commitment, a for world betterment at the same time. There is no contradic- reawakening of interest in the traditional worship forms and tion between the specific organization and its special aim, on practices of the Reformation. The confessional revival was the one hand, and the necessary aim of world betterment on the provoked, in part, by a climate of theological laxness, a condi- other. Why, all of a sudden, the indignation when Lutherans say tion that drove many back to a serious study of the writings that the church has been given a special commission by the of Luther and the Confessions of the church. Lord that does not include action for world betterment, and While the gradual change from freer and more informal ser- that the state is a different institution of God with a purpose vices to more ordered worship was clearly evident among many that does include such action. For the Christian, involvement mid-century immigrant groups that brought with them a com- in one organization does not preclude involvement in another; mitted confessionalism from the continent and from Christians are involved in both. Christians are members of the Scandinavia, the confessional revival was a force that was felt church and citizens of the state and can act in both areas of life among all Lutherans, including those with deep roots on the and in both capacities. American continent. It was significant that the leaders of the We can pursue reason and common sense in this matter in confessional revival in America —e.g., Charles Porterfield Krauth, another direction: The church and church leaders have no Matthias Loy, and C. F. W. Walther —were among those who in special competence in matters of government and the mea- various ways also contributed to the revival of worship. sures needed to bring about a better world. What is needed In part the confessional revival among Lutherans in here is a knowledge of human beings, of personal and social America was a reaction against the “new measures” of revival- ethics, of economics and politics, and all the rest —not forget- ism, an approach that continued to find a good deal of sup- ting a knowledge of what is possible as well as of what is ideal port among some Lutherans. But even such a prominent and desirable. In all parts of society there are people —religious Lutheran clergyman as William A. Passavant, who had been and non-religious—who possess competence in these areas. brought up in a period of revivalism and was active in a vari- The church, as church, has nothing to give to the solution of ety of educational, missionary, social, and philanthropic the problem of world betterment that is any more to the point endeavors, gradually abandoned it. Opposition to revivalism, than what any intelligent Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist who as well as to the more liberal brand of “American has the facts and knows his business can give. The proper Lutheranism” promoted by S. S. Schmucker from Gettysburg, ordering of society belongs to the law, and in this matter we was strengthened by the Lutheran immigrants from the don’t even need our Bibles and the ethics of Jesus. Heathen German and Scandinavian countries, as well as by the arrival folk and unbelievers also show the work of the law written from Europe of new books and periodicals. Antiquarian in their hearts. copies of liturgical orders from the th and th centuries were eagerly sought out, as were older books of dogmatics.   

T because God has decided to make all things new. So hear this word from the cross: It is finished! And that’s final! And all it Professor emeritus Gerhard O. Forde preached this sermon on takes now, miracle of miracles, is that you just be still, listen and Good Friday in  at Pilgrim Lutheran Church in St. Paul, wait. In that end is a new beginning. Amen! Minnesota. It was part of a Tre Ore Service that included ser- mons on each of the seven words from the cross.

John :, “When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished!’ And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” It is finished! Over. But not just ended. Completed. Perfected.     What is finished? A life, for one thing. The life of one who L o M asked nothing of us but only gave himself to us. The life of one  S who chose us in spite of the fact that we did not choose him. The life of one who did not count equality with God as some- From F. V. N. Painter’s Luther On Education, pages –. thing to be snatched at, but became obedient unto death, even death on a cross; one who was despised and rejected, from Luther’s love for music was remarkable. He had a good voice, whom we hid our faces. Now it is over. It ended the only way and played skillfully on the guitar and flute. Among the loveli- such a life could end among us —cast out, mocked, crucified. est scenes in his happy home at Wittenberg are those in which, But it is not just over. It is finished, perfected, completed. He in company with chosen friends, he sought recreation from has reached in this awful place his goal. It is perfected just his arduous labors in the holy joys of sacred song. The tributes because he goes all the way to death. He goes the way none of he paid to music are many and beautiful. He desired the us could go. He bears our sins in his body. He shows us in his young to be diligently exercised in vocal and instrumental body what sin is, who we are, what we think about God and music, and insisted on musical attainments as an indispens- what we do to one another. Because his life is over now, we can able qualification in the teacher. His influence on the musical no longer say we don’t know. We can no longer turn aside. The culture of Germany is important. truth is out. That task is finished. As John put it elsewhere, we By means of suitable hymns and tunes, many of which he are convicted of sin because we did not believe in him. composed himself, he popularized Church music and enabled It is finished! What is finished? A mission. God is finished with worshiping congregations to unite in the singing. In the us. God’s way with sinners comes to its end here. God has said schools that were established under the influence of Luther here all he has to say to us as old beings, fallen creatures. His and his co-adjutors, music formed a part of the regular course wrestling with us throughout the ages, his struggle to get us to see of instruction. It was honored not only as a useful adjunct in is over. He has tried in many and various ways through priest and public worship, but also as a source of beneficent influence prophet and king to get it said. Now he has finally done it. He has upon the character and life. The following passages—a few out made his last move. He has no further plans. He has spoken to us of many —will serve to show Luther’s regard for music: through his Son, through this life that ends on the cross. He “Satan is a great enemy to music. It is a good antidote bowed his head and gave up his spirit. And so it is over. That is all against temptation and evil thoughts. The devil does not God has to say. But again, it’s not just over. It is completed. God stay long where it is practiced.” gave his Son for this, as a ransom for sin. He gave him over into death, let him bear the iniquity of us all. It pleased God so to do “Music is the best cordial to a person in sadness; it soothes, because in the end he had one thing to say, the one thing we find quickens, and refreshes his heart.” so hard to believe: You are mine and I mean to have you back! “Music is a semi-disciplinarian and school-master; it makes And so it is finished, perfected, completed. This word from the men more gentle and tender-hearted, more modest and cross is not finally a cry of defeat, but a cry of victory. There! It is discreet.” done! It ought to be clear now that God wants nothing of us but that we should believe in him, trust him as a God of sheer mercy. “I have always loved music. He that is skilled in this art is The ancient foe is defeated, the power of sin is broken, death is possessed of good qualities, and can be employed in any- robbed of its sting. God has found a way to be God even for the thing. Music must of necessity be retained in the schools. likes of us. He has found a way to save sinners. A school-master must be able to sing, otherwise I will hear So it is finished! What is finished? We are finished. You, nothing of him.” friend, are finished. You are through. Never mind that things “Music is a delightful, noble gift of God, and nearly relat- still go on pretty much as before. All that you were is ended, ed to theology. I would not give what little skill I possess over —the refusal to take God at his word, the selfishness, the in music for something great. The young are to be con- hatred, the prejudice, the grasping at being God, the despair at tinually exercised in this art; it makes good and skillful not being good enough, the desperate protecting of self and the people of them.” fear of death. All of that has no purpose, no point, no future. You are through. God has put an end to all that. God has finally “With those that despise music, as all fanatics are wont to had enough. But it is not just over. It is completed. That’s do, I am not pleased; for music is a gift bestowed by God  

and not by man. So it also banishes Satan, and renders men having such a hard time ahead? The demands of such a love joyful; it causes men to forget all wrath, uncharity, pride, can get things terribly wrong, Law wrong. Not love, but faith. and other vices. Next to theology, I esteem and honor Faith has nothing to point to of itself, not even how much love music. And we see how David and all the saints clothed it’s got going. Faith has nothing to say about itself, but only their pious thoughts in verses, rhymes, and songs; because what it is given, given as the Lord gives his gifts with his words in times of peace music rules.” (externum verbum, AC ), words which are his to do and to give what they say. Peter would not let Jesus be such a Christ, Luther encouraged gymnastic exercises, which he regarded such a Son of the living God; he attempted to take control of salutary both for the body and the soul: “ It was well consid- the words given him to confess; he would stop Jesus doing ered and arranged by the ancients,” he says, “that the people them his way. should practice gymnastics, in order that they might not fall Recently at the Jordan, at Jesus’ baptism, the name hwhy dd<[, into reveling, unchastity, gluttony, intemperance and gaming. was laid on him by the one whom he here recalls: “my Father Therefore these two exercises and pastimes please me best, who is in heaven.” Suffering Servant/Son is taken up by Satan namely, music and gymnastics, of which the first drives away in the temptations, in ways that offer alternative ways for his all care and melancholy from the heart, and the latter pro- doing his names: non-Calvary, theology-of-glory ways. Satan duces elasticity of the body and preserves the health. But a speaks again at Calvary: “If you are the Son of God, come great reason for their practice is that people may not fall into down from the cross.” Peter speaks for Satan even with a heart gluttony, licentiousness, and gambling, as is the case, alas! at full of love. “This shall never happen to you.” courts and in cities. Thus it goes when such honorable and You can confess saying all the right words, with a heart full manly bodily exercises are neglected.” of love for an alternative Christ, and be the mouthpiece of Satan. The seminary attempts to fill you up with all the right words, and you are daily tempted to take them over, and run them the way you figure they ought to run. They aren’t your words to run as you may wish to make them run. They are his .    words and he runs them as the Christ, the Son of the living S P ’ C God, who goes to Calvary, identified as the Suffering Servant The Confession of St. Peter has traditionally been commemorat- who “makes himself a sacrifice for sin.” Yours too, all of them, ed on January . This was the case in  when the Rev. Dr. even your satanic attempts to commandeer him. That too, that Norman Nagel preached on Matthew :–. especially, he would bring you to repentance of. Jesus turned and looked at Peter, and Peter went out and There was no indulgence for Peter. He did antichrist. Jesus wept bitterly. Feed my lambs. Pastor my sheep. Feed my sheep. exorcized him. “Get behind me Satan.” Our Lord certainly You cannot be a bigger sinner than Peter with his satanic does not beat about the bush. Christology. Ohne Kreuz keine Christologie (Martin Mahler). Poor old Peter, what had he done to get wiped out like that? Nevertheless, Jesus did not give up on Peter. The Confession of St. Peter can hardly be improved upon. He hadn’t cooked it up. It was given him from the highest possi- Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that ble source. Jesus says so. “Flesh and blood has not revealed he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Can’t get a more your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, solid confession than that, so solid that Jesus says that is what strengthen your brethren. he will build his church on —playing with Peter’s name. Peter confessed what was given him to confess. What went Have you ever thought of Jesus praying for you like that? You wrong was by his subordinating that to the way he figured might ask him. things out and how they ought to go. He subordinated “the The good news is not in some Peter, mighty hero of the Christ, the Son of the living God” to his definition of the faith, prince of the church, Number One Pope. That’s law Christ and so then also of the living God: to how he worked stuff. Rather, Peter, greatest possible sinner who had such a these words, to what worked for him. Savior, who was yet the biggest sinner of us all, for he had the How Jesus works the words, does the words, how Jesus does lot, and he answered for the lot at Calvary. Such is the Christ, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” he tells with his predic- the Son of the living God. tion of the passion. That destroys “the Christ, the Son of the And then there are the chummiest words we hear from living God” as confessed by Peter. Peter’s confession, given Jesus spoken to Peter. How’s about taxes? What do you think? him to confess, he denied. He would not let Jesus do his being We are sons who are free, but we’ll pay it anyhow, and Jesus the Christ his way, but would lay on Jesus the sort of Christ he arranged for the shekel for the tax “for me and you.” Ground wanted him to be. level stuff, and with a chuckle. That’s where it’s at for the two Now the Gospels make it clear that Peter was a pretty emo- of them together. There is something special with Jesus and tional chap, great on gut reactions, and by his emotions he Peter, and with you too. He doesn’t do quotes by numbers. usually got things wrong. He certainly loved Jesus, and so was You sinner, repentant, forgiven, for Christ’s sake, for Calvary’s it love for Jesus that prompted him to protest against Jesus’ sake, here, today. How about those vocabs? What do you say? CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Ulrich Asendorf Paul Lehninger Clarence Priebbenow Pastor, Hannover, Germany Professor, Wisconsin Lutheran College, Milwaukee, WI Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church Oakey Queensland, Australia Burnell F. Eckardt Jr. Alan Ludwig Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, IL Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary Richard Resch Novosibirsk, Russia Kantor and Professor of Church Music Charles Evanson Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Seminary for Evangelical Theology Cameron MacKenzie Klaipeda, Lithuania Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary David P. Scaer Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Ronald Feuerhahn Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Gottfried Martens Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, Robert Schaibley Lowell Green Germany Pastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran Church Professor, State Univer. of New York at Buffalo, NY Colorado Springs, CO Kurt Marquart Paul Grime Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Jobst Schöne Executive Director, LCMS Commission on Fort Wayne, IN Bishop Emeritus, Selbständige Evangelische Worship, St. Louis, MO Lutherische Kirche, Germany Scott Murray Kenneth Hagen Pastor, Memorial Luth. Church, Houston, TX Bruce Schuchard Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Lake Mills, Wisconsin Norman E. Nagel Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Harold Senkbeil Matthew Harrison Pastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN Oliver Olson Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Carl P. E. Springer Steven Hein Minneapolis, Minnesota Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL Headmaster, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran High School, Colorado Springs, CO Wilhelm Petersen John Stephenson President Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines Horace Hummel Seminary, Mankato, MN Ontario, Canada Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary St. Louis, MO Andrew Pfeiffer David Jay Webber Professor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia Rector, Saint Sophia Lutheran Theological Arthur Just Roger D. Pittelko Seminary Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Ternopil', Ukraine Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Jon D. Vieker John Kleinig Hans-Lutz Poetsch Assistant Director, LCMS Commission on Worship Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide South St. Louis, MO Australia, Australia Pastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany William Weinrich Daniel Preus Arnold J. Koelpin Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Director, Concordia Historical Institute Professor, Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN Fort Wayne, IN St. Louis, MO Peter K. Lange George F. Wollenburg Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Topeka, KS President, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT

STAFF Michael J. Albrecht, Editorial Associate Gerald Krispin, Editorial Associate Tom Rank, Editorial Associate Pastor, St. James Lutheran Church West St. Paul, Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton Pastor, Scarville and Center Lutheran Churches, MN Alberta, Canada Scarville, IA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Joel A. Brondos, L Forum and Alan Ludwig, Copy Editor Erling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator Correspondence Editor Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Professor, Bethany Lutheran College, Pastor, Zion Luth. Church, Fort Wayne, IN Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] Mankato, MN [email protected] [email protected] Martin Noland, Editorial Associate Charles Cortright, Editorial Associate Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL Robert Zagore, Editorial Associate Pastor, St. Paul’s First Lutheran Church, North [email protected] Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Niles, MI Hollywood, CA [email protected] [email protected] John T. Pless, Book Review Editor Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN [email protected]

SUPPORT STAFF Dean Bell, Advertising, L Tape Reviews Patricia Ludwig, Layout and Design Denise Melius, Advertising, L Books & Hendrum, MN [email protected] Novosibirsk, Russia Tapes, Subscriptions, Northville, SD [email protected] [email protected] Robert Franck, L Digest  Pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, David Magruder, L Digest James Wilson, Cartoonist, Deer Lodge, MT Duluth, MN [email protected] Pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, [email protected] Duluth, MN Mark Loest, Cover Design Sarah Rausch, Proofreader, Aberdeen, SD [email protected] [email protected]