Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Logia 10-1
Document related concepts
Transcript
Logia a journal of lutheran theology L B T Epiphany 2001 volume x, number 1 ei[ ti" lalei', wJ" lovgia Qeou' logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theology that promote the orthodox theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. We cling to God’s divinely instituted marks of the church: the gospel, preached purely in all its articles, and the sacraments, administered according to Christ’s institution. This name expresses what this journal wants to be. In Greek, LOGIA functions either as an adjective meaning “eloquent,” “learned,” or “cultured,” or as a plural noun meaning “divine revelations,” “words,” or “messages.” The word is found in Peter :, Acts :, and Romans :. Its compound forms include oJmologiva (confession), ajpologiva (defense), and ajnv alogiva (right relationship). Each of these concepts and all of them together express the purpose and method of this journal. LOGIA considers itself a free conference in print and is committed to providing an independent theological forum normed by the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. At the heart of our journal we want our readers to find a love for the sacred 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. Therefore, we confess the church, without apology and without rancor, only with a sincere and fervent love for the precious Bride of Christ, the holy Christian church, “the mother that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God,” as Martin Luther says in the Large Catechism (LC , ). We are animated by the conviction that the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession represents the true expression of the church which we confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. C A The cover art illustration is from a lithograph by Labouchere, printed by W. Zawitz, Berlin. Shown are Martin Luther (center) with (left to right) Philipp Melanchthon, Johannes Bugenhagen, and Caspar Cruciger translating the Bible. Original in the collection of Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis, Missouri. The following is a translation of the information printed at the bottom of the lithograph: “Painting by Labouch`ere [i.e. e-grave], Printed J. Hesse in Berlin, Engraved by Jab” “Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger Translating the Bible” The cover art is provided by the Reverend Mark Loest, Assistant Director for Reference and Museum at Concordia Historical Institute. L is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, S. Wacker Drive, Suite , Chicago, IL , E-mail: [email protected] v WWW: http://www.atla.com/ FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AC [CA] Augsburg Confession AE Luther’s Works, American Edition Ap Apology of the Augsburg Confession Ep Epitome of the Formula of Concord FC Formula of Concord LC Large Catechism LW Lutheran Worship SA Smalcald Articles SBH Service Book and Hymnal LOGIA (ISSN #–) is published quarterly by the Luther Academy, Lavant Drive, Crestwood, MO . Non-profit postage paid (permit #) at Cresbard, SD and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to L, , rd Ave., Northville, SD . Editorial Department: Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Unsolicited material is welcomed but cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient return postage. All submissions must be accompanied by a 300 word or less abstract of the article. Book Review Department: - Truemper Way, Fort Wayne, IN . All books received will be listed. Correspondence Department: Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Letters selected for publication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed or computer printed, and must contain the writer’s name and complete address. SC Small Catechism SD Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord SL St. Louis Edition of Luther’s Works Tappert The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Trans. and ed. Theodore G. Tappert Triglotta Concordia Triglotta TLH The Lutheran Hymnal Tr Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope 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 (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. Copyright © . The Luther Academy. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission. CONTACT US YOUR FAVORITE WAY Phone E-mail S Website Mail ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ -- [email protected] www.logia.org , 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: h L often publishes articles that take some unusual approaches to theological questions. This may not be out of place for a journal that regards itself as a kind of “free conference in print.” But even by this standard the article “The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Relationship to Justification” by Scott R. Murray (Holy Trinity , –) had to leave many readers scratching their heads. In this article Murray claims that the so-called receptionist view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper is a synergist denial of justification because it makes man’s action of eating and drinking the cause of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament. Repeatedly throughout the article Murray asserts that according to receptionism the act of eating and drinking causes the presence of Christ’s body and blood in and with the bread and wine. He also asserts that “consecrationism is shorthand for the teaching that the Word of God alone causes the sacramental union of the bread and the body of Christ and the wine and the blood of Christ.” He goes so far as to assert that “modern-day receptionists readily admit that the reception itself causes the presence.” It is this last claim that was especially puzzling to this reader, since in more than twenty years of rather intensive study of this subject I have never run across even a single modernday receptionist who believed that the act of reception causes the presence of Christ. I would be very interested to receive a list of these people. To be sure, the majority of orthodox Lutheran theologians since the time of the Reformation have held the opinion that Christ’s body and blood are present only at the distribution and reception of the elements, but I have never met, heard of, or read anyone who believed that anything other than the words of Christ were the cause of his presence (FC , Neg. ). The belief that only Christ’s word is the cause of the presence is held by everyone or nearly everyone that could be called a receptionist, so this belief certainly cannot be used as a definition of consecrationism in opposition to receptionism. I don’t know anyone in the Lutheran church that would meet Murray’s definition of a receptionist. Murray presents no examples to justify his claim. Although he laments that his theological hero Francis Pieper held the receptionist position, he acknowledges that the evidence in Pieper’s dogmatics does not fully support this claim of his, since Pieper cites with approval the statement of the Formula of Concord that the words of Christ are the cause of the presence (Pieper , ff.). Murray attributes this to a “felicitous inconsistency” on the part of Pieper, but the problem here lies not with Pieper, but with Murray’s failure to understand and to state Pieper’s position correctly. Pieper was a receptionist in the sense that he held the opinion that Christ’s body and blood are present only at the distribution and reception, but neither he nor any other receptionist that I know saw any contradiction between this belief and the belief that Christ’s Word is the only cause of his presence. The dispute about receptionism and consecrationism has been a vexing question for confessional Lutheranism for a number of years and shows no sign of going away, but the point of difference has never been the cause of Christ’s presence, since there has not been any disagreement about this. Despite Murray’s disclaimers, the issue has always been whether it is possible to fix dogmatically the time when Christ’s presence begins. In the past the majority of orthodox theologians have held the opinion that the presence began at the time of distribution and reception. A minority held the opinion that the presence begins at the consecration. Neither party made this a divisive issue for the church, since it is not possible to answer this question dogmatically from Scripture. It really is not proper to label these two groups of theologians as receptionists and consecrationists since, in general, neither party understood this as a divisive issue, but as a theological opinion. If the label consecrationist has any validity, it is as shorthand for those who insist on fixing the beginning of Christ’s sacramental presence at the consecration and who insist that this issue is divisive of church fellowship. Recently, there has been some movement toward healing the fractures that this issue has caused in European Lutheranism. Articles like this one, which so distort the respective positions and perpetuate caricatures, will not contribute to an understanding and resolution of the issues. John F. Brug Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Mequon WI Preparing A New Bible Translation in Luther’s Day A J. K j L before him the potential of printing in the service of the gospel. The transcription of this one man’s words and works today comprises over one hundred folio volumes of approximately seven hundred pages each. For those who felt that such scholarly enterprise was a comfortable activity compared with the hard work of the knight in armor or others who must suffer heat, frost, dust, thirst, and other discomforts, Luther had an answer. “I would like to see the horseman who could sit still for a whole day looking at a book, even if he did not have to compose, think, or read or worry about anything else.” “A pen is light, to be sure,” he mused, “but at the same time the best part of the human body (the head) . . . has to bear the brunt and do the most work. Some say of writers that three fingers do everything, but the whole body and soul take part in the work.”¹ The greatest product of Luther’s pen remains his translation of the Bible into German.² The great reformer was quick to acknowledge that all his writing efforts were unimportant compared to the text of the Holy Scriptures. In a Christmas sermon published in December, , shortly after his New Testament first came out, Luther frankly told the congregation: ble translating Job, on account of the grandeur of his sublime style, that he seems to be more impatient of our efforts to turn him into German than he was of the consolations of his friends.” And then he added with a chuckle, “Either he always wishes to sit upon his dunghill, or else he is jealous of the translator who would share with him the credit of writing his book.”⁵ To learn what it meant to prepare a new Bible translation in Luther’s day, therefore, we must enter the craftsman’s shop, watch him at work, note his techniques, share his problems, and listen to the counsel of experience. Heinz Bluhm in his book Martin Luther: Creative Translator assures us that the effort is rewarding. Luther’s Bible exemplifies for him what a translation ought to be. There are “many breathtaking discoveries to be made in [it],” he relates. “I for one have found every step exciting, and I am convinced others, too, will find their own ventures into this rich field equally rewarding.”⁶ Even non-technicians in the language arts need not fear to step into the dear doctor’s study. The end product of his efforts may remain foreign to us who no longer read the German Bible. But in spite of the language barrier, the venture can prove beneficial for those who are willing to catch the spirit of the master at work and to learn from his experience. You see from this babbling of mine the immeasurable difference between the word of God and all human words, and how no man can adequately reach and explain a single word of God with all his words . . . . Go to the Bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more than a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, taste, and abide in the simple and pure word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion.³ LUTHER’S NEW BIBLE TRANSLATION Luther was by no means the first German to attempt a new translation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular. We have long ago laid to rest the “Protestant legend” that for centuries Rome had hidden the Bible out of man’s reach until the young friar, Martin Luther, while rummaging through a monastery library, discovered it and translated it. Ever since the advent of Gutenberg’s press in about the demand for Bibles in the people’s language was growing, especially in the Holy Roman Empire. Prior to Luther’s rendition, no fewer than fourteen High German Bibles and four Low German editions appeared on the market. In addition, countless Plenaria, selected Bible readings translated for use in the mass, were in circulation. But we have overshot the mark if we imagine that Luther began his work in a friendly atmosphere. The orthodox Roman Catholic questioned whether such ventures were advisable. The authorities opposed promiscuous Bible reading and translation on the 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, he was only covering a deeper concern, shared by many: “Who would enable simple and uneducated men, and even women, to M This awe and reverence that Luther felt for God’s word indicate his primary motive for translating the Bible. But in no way does the story of the Bible translation end there. Translation work involved more than respect for the Holy Scripture. The transfer from language to language taxed Luther’s writing talents as no other work. The same man who confidently challenged the Roman church by affirming, “God’s word is supreme above all the words of men,”⁴ likewise complained to his friend Spalatin about the difficulties in translating that word: “We have so much trou- A J. K is professor of religion and social studies at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, Minnesota, and a L contributing editor. pick out the true meaning?”⁷ He was not half as harsh as the Dominican Mensing, who voiced his antagonism in no uncertain terms. “The Scripture can deceive,” he declared. “The church cannot deceive. Therefore it is perfectly clear that the church is more than the Scripture.”⁸ Luther molded these men into a translation team whose advice he sought in five major text revisions before his death. nb One of Luther’s consistent opponents capped the argument against translations by using the Scriptures themselves: Holy Writ warns us, when our Savior says, “It is given to you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables, that seeing they see not, and hearing they understand not.” Who are those to whom the Lord says, “To you it is given?” Surely it is to the Apostles and their successors, the rulers of Christ’s flock. And who are they that should learn by parables? Surely such people who would be better off not knowing the mysteries, lest they gain a greater damnation by misusing them. For “precious stones are not to be cast before dogs,” and in all likelihood these are the ignorant lay people.⁹ Such loose talk could not deter Luther from his resolve to translate. His own experience in the church had taught him that “all holy teachers . . . count as nothing over against a single passage of Holy 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 schemed to tear people away from Scripture,” he said. But “every Christian should know the ground of, and reason for, his faith and be able to maintain and defend it if necessary.” One month before he set his hand to the translation task, he wrote to a friend, “I am born for my Germans, whom I want to serve.”¹¹ As Doctor of the Bible and lecturer on the same at the University of Wittenberg, Luther felt the great burden of his call. At the urging of his friends, especially Melanchthon, he almost abruptly resolved to provide a readable German Bible for the benefit of the people. Little could Luther forecast at the beginning what a wealth of experience this work alone would bring. In retrospect he could boast without blushing, “The Scriptures are a vast forest, but there’s no tree in it that I haven’t shaken with my hand.”¹² The New Testament translation was finished in eleven weeks in . The Old Testament yielded more reluctantly to his efforts. “We are sweating over the work of putting the Prophets into German,” Luther confessed. God, how much of it there is, and how hard it is to make these Hebrew writers talk German! They resist us, and do not want to leave their Hebrew and imitate our German barbarisms. It is like making a nightingale leave her own sweet song and imitate the monotonous voice of a cuckoo, which she detests.¹³ Despite the difficulties, the entire Bible came off the press twelve years after the New Testament. But what Luther learned along the way did not leave him satisfied with the finished product. From the beginning, he had 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 sought in five major text revisions before his death.¹⁴ He liked to refer to them affectionately as his “sanhedrin.” With the modesty of a master craftsman, he credited their participation in the translation process, saying, “If all of us were to work together, we would 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 I could get.”¹⁵ In the final analysis, however, the work was still Luther’s, and he bore the responsibility. Fortunately we still possess the protocol of the and – meetings of the revision commission. They remain for us one of the richest sources in getting behind the scenes in the translation process. Present on a regular basis were Melanchthon, a skilled philologist and specialist in Greek; Matthew Aurogallus, Hebrew consultant; Caspar Cruciger, professor of theology; and Luther’s famous secretary, George Roerer, who also doubled as corrector for the Lufft printers. On occasion John Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Veit Dietrich, Bernard Ziegler, and Caspar Aquila also attended. The protocols of the meetings reveal that Luther not only chaired the sessions, but also had the final say regarding additions or corrections to the Bible text. One of Luther’s table companions has preserved the scene of these meetings for us. (The scholars usually assembled in the Black Cloister a few hours prior to the evening meal.) Luther prepared himself by reading his own text, and by obtaining information from Jews and linguistic experts, including elderly Germans, who helped him find appropriate words, as when he had several rams slaughtered in his presence, so that a German butcher could tell him the proper name for each part of the sheep. After that he came into the consistorium with his old Latin and with his new German Bible, as well as with the Hebrew original. Melanchthon brought the Greek text along and Cruciger both the Hebrew and Chaldean Bible. The professors also had their rabbinical commentaries available. Bugenhagen, who was thoroughly acquainted with the Latin text, had this in front of him. Each one had studied the text that was to be discussed and had examined Greek and Latin, as well as Jewish, commentators. The chairman introduced the text, gave each an opportunity to state his point of view, and listened to the comments that were based on linguistic scholarship or the early authorities. Wonderful and informative discussions are said to have taken place, of which Master George took notes, which were afterwards printed as glosses and annotations on the margin of the printed Bible.¹⁶ Reading the minutes of the Psalms’ revision, we can savor the roles of both the master and his assistants. When the discussion proceeded to his satisfaction, Luther would often end it with the approval, “That’s it!” (das wers) or “I’m satisfied” (mihi placet). At times he firmly answered, “That’s the way I translated before and that’s the way it stays!” or else he freely admitted that he had not found what he wanted: “We just don’t have a German word.” At other times he felt they had found a perfect expression, but it seemed too daring to place into the text. He would then voice his regrets with a sigh, “That would have been nice!”¹⁷ A sample of Roerer’s minutes illustrates the method of procedure in preparing the text revision. The men regularly conversed in Latin, interspersed with German. The committee in this case was considering Psalm : in the edition of the Psalter. There Luther had translated: “Therewith you bring joy into my heart, but they get gross when they enjoy corn and must.” Luther began the exchange by getting at the meaning of the words with paraphrases. “Make my heart rejoice,” he said, that is, Thou art the joy of my heart, I have no other joy but Thee; it is Thou that makest my heart rejoice. They puff themselves up because they have so much wine and corn; they do not care for the joy of the heart, but the joys of the belly they desire. Thou makest the heart rejoice, but they are troubled about nothing. In that way the thought was thrown around, seeking expression in words. Now Melanchthon had evidently added something, for Luther continues, Yes, that is spoken right softly, genuinely Philip-like and soft stepping. I will speak clearly. They desire to be emperors and though they had an abundance of bread and wine, that is, they attain plenty, they are still not profited, but they only wish that they have to eat and to drink. The meaning of the Psalm verse is: The righteous suffer want, while the ungodly eat and drink. They regard, seek, and value much corn and much wine. They believe in Mammon. Let them have it. Thou delightest my heart, even though they have their fill of corn and wine.¹⁸ After the meaning of the text was established in this manner, we are not surprised to read the following simple and smooth rendition of Psalm : in the edition: “Thou delightest my heart, even though they have abundant wine and corn.” If this exchange among friends helped to sharpen the understanding of the Bible text, it also compelled Luther to formulate his principles of translating for his co-workers. On one occasion he noted, “Dr. Forster and Ziegler conferred with us about our version and gave us much help.” “I gave them three rules,” he said and then proceeded to spell them out.¹⁹ But, as often happens, the opposition forced him to discuss at length the basic issues of translation. His Roman antagonists had combed through his German Bible and indicated irregularities and additions that had crept in. To counteract what they felt was the sinister influence of the Luther Bible, a “reliable” New Testament translation () came out under the guidance of the ardent Roman Catholic Jerome Emser. Comparisons revealed that the man actually had plagiarized much of Luther’s work and then, in the days before the copyright, palmed off the finished product as his own. Stung by the unfairness of such action, Luther used the opportunity to make public a defense of his New Testament. He published it under the title On Translating: An Open Letter. For the readers’ benefit Luther shared the problems he faced in transferring the New Testament into a living German. Within a year he followed with a companion pamphlet, in which he candidly revealed similar difficulties he encountered in bridging the gulf between the Hebrew Old Testament and the German. It was sold under the title Defense of the Translation of the Psalms. These two pamphlets, added to the minutes of the committee meetings, stand out as mines of information on Luther at work in translation. In them the craftsman opens his heart and our eyes to the secrets of his art. Luther also produced a revised edition of the Latin Vulgate for use among the cultured class. nb But Luther did not isolate his work on the Bible text from concerns about its practical use among the people. In the twenty-four years between the Wartburg stay and his death in , he had done more than translate the Bible into German and preside over its revision. He also produced a revised edition of the Latin Vulgate for use among the cultured class. More important, for the common folk Luther composed “Prefaces” to accompany the books of the Bible. He intended these introductions to help the reader discern the message of God’s word in each book. “Necessity demands,” he explained, “that there should be a notice or preface, by which the ordinary man can be rescued from his former delusions, set on the right track, and taught what he is to look for in this book, so that he may not seek laws and commandments where he ought to be seeking the gospel and promises of God.”²⁰ Among the biblical books, the Psalms came in for special treatment. Since the Psalter served best as a Christian prayerbook, the Doctor put out a separate printing of summaries (Summarien) consisting of brief paraphrases of each psalm’s essential message. From the very first edition of the printed Bible, he also placed notes or glosses in the margins. The annotated Bible gave helpful interpretive comments for the reader to ponder. Not a year passed in the life of this busy man without some work related to the Bible publication. From the Wittenberg presses alone twenty-one different editions of the New Testament and eleven editions of the complete Bible appeared during Luther’s lifetime. Dr. Luther’s new Bible translation was a life-long effort. TRANSLATING INTO THE VERNACULAR The translation of the Luther Bible speaks for itself. At least, so Luther would have us believe. With characteristic modesty he offered his Bible to the world for criticism. “I translated . . . to the best of my ability,” he stated. “I have compelled no one to read it, 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 piece of work.”²¹ In response, the German-speaking world has ever since applauded his effort as a high-water mark in the development of their language. Even Luther’s bitterest opponent, John Cochlaeus, admitted to the popularity of the Luther Bible: “The taylor and the cobbler, yes even women and other simple idiots who become adherents of the new Lutheran Gospel, eagerly read (his New Testament) . . . although they have only learned to read a little German.” Cochlaeus has provided us with one clue to the secret of Luther’s success as translator. The Reformer consciously sought to shape the translation to meet the people’s need. He selected those words that could be read and understood by all classes of people. He took the raw material from court language and from the marketplace. By his own analysis, the language of the Saxon court was peculiarly suited to his purposes because of its universal appeal in the empire. “I speak in agreement with the usage of the Saxon court, which 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 Saxony] have been able to unite all local dialects into one form. Thus it will be possible for me to be understood in different sections of the country.”²³ While the official language of his province provided a base of operation from which to work, the word choice in Luther’s Bible is actually a blend of the dignity of the court and the directness of street language. On one occasion Luther confessed, I try to speak as men do in the marketplace. Didactic, philosophic, and sententious books are, therefore, hard to translate, but narrative easy. In rendering Moses, I make him so German that no one would know that he was a Jew.²⁴ Luther himself attributed the freshness of his style over against that of others to his ventures out among the common folk: We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to speak German, as these asses do. Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. That way they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.²⁵ One illustration will help us understand Luther’s concern. The Scripture passage comes from Matthew :. Jesus is making the point that our speech reveals what is in the heart, just as 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 mouth speaks.” “Tell me,” Luther asks, “is that speaking German? . . . What is ‘the abundance of the heart’? No German can say that . . . . For “abundance of the heart” is not German, any more than “abundance of the house,” “abundance of the stove,” or “abundance of the bench” is German. But the mother in the home and the common man say this, “What fills the heart overflows the mouth.” That is speaking good German, the kind I have tried for.²⁶ Luther supplemented this deep sensitivity to modes of expression in the mother tongue with an equally great concern for reproducing the text from the original language. His Hebrew studies began early in his career. Already as a student at Erfurt University, he had obtained, soon after the book appeared, a copy of the first Hebrew grammar published in Germany. Later he worked from the Brecian edition of the Hebrew Bible, put out by the Soncino Press. But Luther’s Hebrew knowledge was, for the most part, self-taught. “I have learned more Hebrew by continuing to read and by comparing one text with another, than by working with a grammar,” he freely admitted. “I am no Hebrew student according to the rules of linguistics, for I go my own way, unbound.”²⁷ He selected those words that could be read and understood by all classes of people. nb By this expression Luther meant that he was not satisfied with a mere grammatical approach to the study of Hebrew. He wanted to savor the language in its own uniqueness. “The Hebrew language has its own flavor, which distinguishes it from Greek, Latin, 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 not have a word of their own for many things and who must therefore borrow parts of other words and combine them into a new one.” The word heart is a good example. “With the word ‘heart’ we mean a part of our bodies,” he informs us. But we say also that someone has no heart, and then mean that he is afraid and fearful. We also use the expression “my heart tells me.” And “his heart burns in him,” by which we mean that he is angry. The Hebrew, however, has a distinctive word for all such cases. And yet this language is simple, and at the same time majestic and glorious.²⁸ In the preface to the edition of the Psalms, Luther further explained the importance of knowing the original language. The Hebrew language is so rich that no other can compare with it. It possesses many words for singing, praising, glorifying, honoring, rejoicing, sorrowing, etc., for which we have but one. Especially in sacred and divine matters is it rich in words. It has at least ten names with which to name God, whereas we have only one word. It may therefore be rightly called a holy tongue.²⁹ We can well imagine from this description the difficulties Luther experienced in transferring expressions from the richness of the Hebrew language to the vocabulary of the Saxon peasant. Learning Greek proved to be less difficult for Luther, even though he began to study Greek later than he did Hebrew. The earliest trace of its use we find in his lectures on the book of Romans in . During that year the renowned teacher Erasmus had come out with the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. This edition, based on some late copies of the ordinary Byzantine text, was a landmark in the history of Bible transmission. If previously 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 lectures on Homer “in order to become a Greek.” But we overestimate Luther’s knowledge of Greek if we imagine that he made the initial translation of the New Testament in such a short time without the aid of other translations. The second edition 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 Luther both used and rejected many of the annotations of Erasmus. The same holds true concerning the Vulgate, which he had lying close at hand for constant reference. In Luther’s eyes, however, a person who knows the languages has taken only the first step in translating. The real task lay in conveying the thought of a passage. This cannot always be done merely by translating words from one language to another. If one follows this procedure, the result can often prove disastrous. The translation becomes wooden and unintelligible. Take Psalm for example. In his initial effort Luther had translated word for word: “Let my soul be filled as with lard and fat, so that my mouth may make praise with joyful lips.” The Hebrew image of a soul filled with lard and fat must have conjured up a most humorous picture, especially to the generally rotund German folk. The sense was lost by such a literal transfer. So Luther reworked the phrase. “By ‘lard and fat’ the Hebrews mean joy,” he reasoned, just as a healthy and fat animal is happy and, conversely, a happy animal grows fat, a sad animal loses weight and grows thin, and a thin animal is sad. . . . [Thus] we have relinquished the Hebrew words and rendered the passage in clear German like this, “It would be my heart’s joy and gladness, if I were to praise thee with joyful lips.”³⁰ By rewording he had successfully removed the stumbling-block for those who read God’s word in the vernacular. From this perspective we can begin to understand why Luther frequently took a crack at those who artificially bound themselves to grammar. Such word-bound translations he called “rabbinical.” In opposition to the woodenness of the grammarians, Luther followed the rule “that wherever the words could have given or tolerated an improved meaning, there we did not allow ourselves to be forced by the artificial Hebrew [Gemachte Grammatica] of the rabbis into accepting a different inferior meaning.”³¹ Luther knew he was running “quite a risk (by) relinquishing the words and rendering the sense.” “For this many know-it-alls will criticize us, to be sure,” he anticipated, “and even some pious souls may take offense.” Despite the objections, Luther called for a responsible freedom in translating the text. “What is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway?” he asked. And then he answered his own question by explaining the methodology he followed. “Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. . . . Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows.”³² In Luther’s eyes, however, a person who knows the languages has taken only the first step in translating. nb Another instance underscores the point. In Psalm Luther avoided a literal translation because it did not carry the meaning to the reader. Word for word the text would read, “When their hair is gray they will still bloom and be fat and green.” “But what does this mean?” he asks. The psalm had been comparing the righteous to trees, to palm trees and cedars [verse ], which have no “gray hair,” neither are they “fat” (by which a German means an oily or greasy substance [schmalz], and thinks of a hefty paunch). But the prophet here intends to say that the righteous are such trees, which bloom and are fruitful and flourishing even when they grow old.³³ Luther gleaned this thought not merely from the text but from other portions of the Scriptures. The word of God teaches that the righteous abide forever. Psalm : says of the righteous that “his leaf shall not wither.” And Christ himself declares that “every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, must be rooted up,” Matthew :. Therefore in a free rendition Luther transferred “When their hair is gray they will still bloom and be fat and green” into the more intelligible “Even when they grow old, they will nevertheless bloom, and be fruitful and flourishing.” In doing so, he was well aware that this sort of treatment “may perhaps irritate Master Know-it-all, who does not bother about how a German is to understand this text but simply sticks to the words scrupulously and precisely, with the result that no one understands the text.” But he did not care, because the burden lay with the critic. “We have taken nothing from the meaning, and we have rendered the words clearly.”³⁴ None of Luther’s textual renditions has stirred up more criticism than his addition of the word “alone” to the text of Romans :: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law.” The defense of that addition to the German text forms the core of his open letter On Translating.³⁵ At stake in this passage was not only the principle of idiomatic translation, but also the heart of Luther’s biblical theology. We all rec- ognize “justification by faith alone” as the watchword for the Lutheran Reformation. But the argument in favor of the retention of the word “alone” in the Bible text has receded into the background for non-German-speaking Lutherans. The simple truth is that the word “alone” does not occur in the original Greek text. And Luther felt free to quote the passage without the addition, as he did in the Smalcald Articles. In considering the meaning of the passage, however, he flatly asserted that the “alone” conveys the sense of the text. “It belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous.” The explanation is simple: “It is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein) [alone] along with the word nicht [not.]” Luther illustrates this trait by various German examples, as, for instance, the farmer who comes to town and brings alone (allein) grain and no (kein) money. In transferring Paul’s words into German idiom, therefore, Luther contended that the German instinctively feels the force of an “only.” “Actually the text itself and the meaning of St. Paul urgently require and demand it,” he pointed out, since the passage deals with a main point of Christian doctrine. In it “Paul cuts away all works so completely . . . [that] whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this . . . will have to say, ‘Faith alone justifies us, and not works.’ The matter itself, as well as the nature of the language, demands it.”³⁶ 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 Scripture. For him responsible freedom in translation applied only to the selection of words in one idiom that best conveyed the meaning of a corresponding set of words in another. But one was not free to pervert the meaning of a text by the choice of words. Finding the right word was one matter; finding the right meaning was another. What then does “literal” mean when it refers to the sense or meaning of a text? For Luther it stood in contrast to the generally accepted manner of interpretation in his day. At the university he had learned to look at a Bible passage in four different ways. The meaning could be taken literally, in a historical sense; allegorically, as a picture of the church; tropologically, with reference to the moral state; or anagogically, as rising above the literal sense to a future blessedness. Thus Mount Zion could refer historically to the home of the Jews; allegorically, to the temple or its representatives; tropologically, to righteousness; and anagogically, to the blessedness of eternal life. But after Luther’s breakthrough to an understanding of Scripture in terms of God’s revelation of himself in law and gospel, he discarded the old formulas. “One must not do such violence to the words of God as to give to any word a meaning other than its natural one, unless there is clear and definite Scripture to do that,” he asserted.³⁷ Since his Roman opponent Jerome Emser defended the manifold sense of Scripture in his translation work, Luther countered by saying, “Even though the things described in Scripture mean something further, Scripture should not therefore have a twofold meaning. Instead, it should retain the one meaning to which the words refer.” In this connection Luther made the well-known statement, “The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer and adviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have no more than the one simplest meaning which we call the written one, or the literal meaning of the tongue.”³⁸ How does one then establish the simple, literal sense of a passage? Here, according to Luther, Scripture itself comes to our rescue. Each passage has both a historical and a theological context. “Scripture,” he affirmed, “is its own interpreter” for those who would hear.³⁹ In a marginal notation Luther explains for us his understanding of the larger context of Scripture. It has to do with Moses and Christ, with the law and the gospel, with the purpose of the old covenant and the new. If the Old Testament can be interpreted by human wisdom without the New Testament, I should say that the New Testament has been given to no purpose. So Paul concluded that “Christ died to no purpose” if the Law were sufficient. . . . Others make a detour and purposely, as it were, avoid Christ, so do they put off approaching Him with the text. As for me, when I arrive at a text that is like a nut with a hard shell, I immediately dash it against the Rock [Christ] and find the sweetest kernel.⁴⁰ Luther kept these concerns for a literal translation, so understood, constantly before him. We find them reflected in a table conversation in the year , at the height of his translation efforts. There Luther enunciated two rules that he followed in translating the Holy Scripture: First, if some passage is obscure I consider whether it treats of grace or of law, whether wrath or the forgiveness of sin [is contained in it], and with which of these it agrees better. By this procedure I have often understood the most obscure passages. Either the law or the gospel has made them meaningful, for God divides his teaching into law and gospel. The law, moreover, has to do either with civil government or with economic life or with the church. . . . So every prophet either threatens and teaches, terrifies and judges things, or makes a promise. Everything ends with this, and it means that God is your gracious Lord. This is my first rule in translation. The second rule is that if the meaning is ambiguous I ask those who have a better knowledge of the language than I have whether the Hebrew words can bear this or that sense which seems to me to be especially fitting. And that is most fitting which is closest to the argument of the book. The Jews go astray so often in the Scriptures because they do not know the [true] contents of the books. But if one knows the contents, that sense ought to be chosen which is nearest to them.⁴¹ While these rules of translation helped Luther unfold the sense of the Bible text, they do not always solve the ever-present problem of finding the right words to express the meaning. There were times, especially with regard to doctrine, when Luther could not find German expressions to cover the meaning of the text. At such times he discarded his hopes of speaking the people’s language. He simply translated the words from the original with little regard for the German ear. A good example is Psalm :. The verse reads: “Thou hast ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive.” Luther could have translated in a more readable fashion, “Thou hast set the 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 pointed out how much depends on these words. The passage “does not imply merely that Christ freed the captives,” he said, “but also that he captured and led away the captivity itself, so that it never again could or would take us captive again . . . death can no longer hold us, sin can no longer incriminate us, the law can no longer accuse our conscience. . . . Therefore out of respect for such doctrine, and for the comforting of our conscience,” Luther concluded, “we should keep such words, accustom ourselves to them, and so give place to the Hebrew language where it does a better job than our German.”⁴² “As for me, when I arrive at a text that is like a nut with a hard shell, I immediately dash it against the Rock [Christ] and find the sweetest kernel.” nb The same holds true for the Greek New Testament. Citing the passage in John where Christ says, “Him has God the Father sealed,” Luther admitted it would have been better German to say, “He it is whom God the Father means.” But God’s placing a seal on the Christ was too important a biblical teaching to have been watered down by an inferior translation. So Luther preferred in this instance to violate the German language rather than depart from the word sealed. “I have been very careful to see that where everything turns on a single passage,” he recited as a rule of thumb, “I have kept to the original quite literally.”⁴³ We cannot help but admire a man who set out to bring a faithful translation of God’s word to his people and followed through without turning aside. After reviewing basic problems and difficulties that Luther experienced in transferring the word from language to language, we are able to listen with great sympathy to his own description of the translator’s craft: “Ah, translating is not every man’s skill as the mad saints imagine,” he said. “It requires a right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing, Christian, trained, informed, and experienced heart.”⁴⁴ At the same time, we miss in Luther’s soliloquy one trait that helped to set Luther apart as translator, that is, a poetic soul. Those who read the German Bible testify to its beauty and warmth, to its rhythm and flow. From the very beginning of his work on the text, Luther aimed to produce more than a faithful translation. He wanted a text that was crisp and pleasant to hear. By his own admission he read Holy Writ “as though it had been written yesterday.” And he wished his translation to be read in the same way. He adapted his language to any mood, to the tenderness of the Christmas story as well as to the terrors of the Apocalypse. He employed all the skills of the poet’s craft: an added syllable for the sake of rhythm, the use of alliteration, assonance, and rhyme. All is so naturally conceived that it does not appear artificially contrived. Gifted with a natural talent for language, Luther did not work according to rules but from inner necessity. In the midst of the Psalms’ translation, he wrote to his friend Eobanus Hessus, “I must acknowledge that I am one who is more deeply moved, more carried away, more strongly inspired by poetry, than through any prose style. Since that is true in general of me you can understand how much more this is true in relation to the Psalms.”⁴⁵ But in seeking a readable text, he especially had the people in mind. He could rightfully boast how smoothly the story of Job reads in the German, even though he sometimes looked three weeks for one word. “One now runs his eyes over three or four pages and does not stumble once—without realizing what boulders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along as 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 Luther was translating the Bible, he constantly read his sentences aloud, testing the accents and cadences, the vowels and consonants for their melodic flow. He did this because German was really a language (Sprache). It was meant to be spoken aloud by the tongue (lingua), not written; heard, not read; for a word has 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 public reading of the book. By means of sentence structure and meaningful punctuation, he made the Bible a book to be heard. He transmitted its sounds in such a way that the silent reader can hear it as living, spoken words. He even suggested that a person who reads the Bible by himself would do well to read it aloud, in order that the Bible might literally “speak to him.” This was an ancient tradition and Luther himself observed it. In the final analysis, the twin goals of producing a faithful and readable translation always remained before Luther throughout his life. He never claimed his work to be perfect and constantly revised his translation as new insights came to him. His personal desk Bible was filled with such jottings. At the same time, he stood in awe of the task for which he felt he had been called as a Professor of the Holy Scriptures, namely, to bring God’s word to his people for their comfort and joy. “I think that if the Bible is to come up again,” he said, “we Christians are the ones who must do the work, for we have the understanding of Christ without which even the knowledge of the language is nothing.”⁴⁸ To this we say, “Amen.” CONCLUSION: LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE We cannot leave off observing the preparation of a new Bible translation in Luther’s day without taking the finished product into our hands for a moment. Even a casual paging through the text will reveal many features that underscore Luther’s intent to bring the Scriptures to the people. A number of woodcut illustrations decorate the pages. Especially striking are the twenty-one full-page pictures of the visions of St. John in Revelation. We may also be struck by the fact that the text is not divided into verses. Versification started at the middle of the century. Only the chapter divisions are marked. Luther did provide an index to the Bible. And in running our eyes down the familiar listing, we realize, if we have not done so before, that Luther’s printed Bible reflects the ancient church’s attitude toward the biblical canon. He includes books of the Old Testament Apocrypha because “they are good and useful to read,” though they are not to be placed on the level of the Holy Scripture. The order of the books in the New Testament also reminds us that some epistles were spoken against in the early church. Contrary to the order in the Vulgate, Luther regularly numbered the New Testament books from –, ending with John. He then added Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation without numbers at the end. In the text itself, later editions of the Luther Bible marked the beginning and the end of the regular Gospel and Epistle lessons for each Sunday. This was done for the benefit of both pastor and parishioner. But aside from the text, perhaps the most useful additions were Luther’s introductions to the various biblical books and the notations on the Bible’s margin. For those of us who do not use Luther’s German Bible, the English translation of the Bible Prefaces gives us the flavor of Luther’s writing. They are classics and deserve to be read. Luther also added comments in the margin for the guidance of the common folk. A sample of these “glosses,” as they were called, will help us understand their character. Our reference is Exodus . In this passage Moses asks to see God face to face. God denies the request and tells Moses to be satisfied in knowing God by his name. And then adds, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.” To this scene Luther commented in a side-note: All this refers to Christ; how he should live, preach, die, and rise in the midst of Moses’ people, who will not see his countenance, but only see him from behind. That means, they will see Christ by faith in his humanity, but not yet [see] his divinity. And this is the Rock on which all believers stand in this life. Yet this is entirely a gift of God without our merit. Therefore he says, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.⁴⁹ Luther’s insight leads each reader directly into the heart of the Scripture’s gospel message. That very gospel also moved Luther to work countless hours in preparing his translation. “I gave it my utmost in care and effort,” he related, and I never had any ulterior motives. I have neither taken nor sought a single penny for it, nor made one by it. Neither have I sought my own honor by it; God, my Lord, knows this. Rather I have done it as a service to the dear Christians and to the honor of One who sitteth above, who blesses me so much every hour of my life that if I had translated a thousand times as much or as diligently, I should not for a single hour have deserved to live or to have a sound eye. All that I am and have is of his grace and mercy.⁵⁰ We cannot, however, leave the workshop of the translator without hearing his closing wish. We have learned the problems and difficulties that a translator faces. We have recognized the joys of accomplishment. We may use the insights from Luther’s preparation of the German Bible as a springboard for a discussion of translation today. But we have overlooked something very basic if we do not feel the force of Luther’s admonition to his people, “Now you have the translated Bible. Only use it well also after my death.”⁵¹ LOGIA NOTES . WA , – (). . This is the opening statement in Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), vii. . WA , (); SL , . . WA , ()—against Eck in the Leipzig Debate. . WA Br , (); SL a, –. Letter to Spalatin, February , . . Bluhm, xv. . This is part of the Edict of the Archbishop of Mainz, translated in Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible (New York: Cambridge University Press, reprint), . . Wilhelm Walther, Luthers Deutsche Bibel (Berlin, ), . . Deanesly, . The quotation comes from “The Apologie of Fredericus Staphylus,” counselor to Emperor Ferdinand. . WA , (–); SL , . . WA Br , – (); AE , . Letter to Nicholas Gerbel, November , . . WA TR , No. (s); AE : . . Preserved Smith, Luther’s Correspondence (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society), : . Letter to Wenceslas Link, June , . . WA DB , xv–xvi. . WA DB , (); AE : , . . Johann Matthesius, D. Martin Luthers Leben (Berlin, reprint), –. . WA DB , xliii–xliv (). . WA DB , (); translated in M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, ), . . WA Tr , No. (–); AE : . . WA DB , (); AE : . . WA , –634 (); AE : ; from Luther’s Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen (On Translating). Hereafter only the American Edition will be cited for this work. . Walther, . . WA Tr , No. b. . WA Tr , No. a; translated in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (New York: Barnes & Noble Inc., reprint), . . AE : (). . AE : , (). . WA Tr , No. ; SL , . . WA Tr , No. ; SL , . . WA DB , . . WA , – (); AE : ; from Luther’s “Summarien ueber die Psalmen und ursachen des dolmetschens”(“Defense of the Translation of the Psalms”). Hereafter only the American Edition of this work will be cited. . AE : (). . Ibid., . . Ibid., , . . Ibid. . Ibid., , (). . Ibid., (). . WA , (); AE : . . WA , f (); AE : . . WA , f, line (). . WA , ff. (–); AE : . . AE : , (). . AE : (). . AE : (). . Ibid. . WA Br , (); translated in William J. Kooiman, Luther and the Bible (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, ), . . AE : (). . WA , (–); “Cum vox sit anima verbi.” See H. O. Burger, “Luther als Ereignis der Literaturgeschichte,” in Luther Jahrbuch, , –. . WA DB , ; AE : (). . WA DB , (). . AE : (). . WA , (). Bible Translations among Luther’s Heirs A E. S j noted that Luther produced a Bible translation that was intentionally in the common language of the German people. Unfortunately, many of Luther’s heirs use English Bible translations that are not in common English. This article explains contemporary translation theory and relevant linguistic concepts to help readers evaluate Bible translations for their own use. In addition, three case studies involving translation of idioms, unmarked and marked meaning, and inclusive language are included to demonstrate how translations should be judged. Concluding remarks offer a general evaluation of modern English Bible translations and urge that those who claim to be Luther’s heirs follow his example by using translations that clearly communicate the Word of God in translation. they used in everyday life. This is the real issue so far as Luther is concerned. He thought it was his task to make the Word of God as readily understandable as he could to the masses. That is why he translated as he did.¹ B Despite this commitment by Luther to make the Bible speak the language of everyday people, many of his English-speaking heirs, especially among the clergy, have not taken his example to heart. It is not uncommon to hear Lutheran pastors endorse translations that are not, in the aggregate, in everyday English—for example, the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). In some cases the pastors’ endorsement is implicit in the translations they use from the lectern or the pulpit. Anecdotally, when my son was in the fourth grade, we attended a Lutheran church where he heard, for the first time, the Scripture lessons read from King James Version. He turned and asked me what language the pastor was speaking, suggesting that it was, perhaps, German. Clearly, a ten-year-old boy who had attended Lutheran schools where the Bible is regularly used did not recognize Elizabethan English as his own language. Some apparently think that using the King James Version in the twenty-first century is realistic. We should ask ourselves whether Luther would have considered publishing a translation in the middle-German language as it was spoken four hundred years earlier in .. (akin to reading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales). That would certainly have been nonsensical. Even some modern translations, however, are not committed to common English. For example, consider these verses: LUTHER THE TRANSLATOR Luther’s translation of the Scriptures has often been characterized as a masterpiece of translation. It is also one of the first great works of German literature. That the Bible, composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can be seen as a great work of German literature is a tribute to Luther’s accomplishment: he made Holy Writ speak German to real, living Germans. The German that Luther used was that of the masses, not of the elite—and this was the genius of his work as translator. Thirty-five years ago Heinz Bluhm noted, For Luther there was no doubt about where the living language is to be found: in the house and in the marketplace. The language of daily life, as used by the common man unspoiled by Latin idiom, is the yardstick by which Luther measures real, natural German. Whatever other scholars may do and believe, he has, linguistically speaking, cast his lot with “the mother in the house . . . the children in the street, the common man in the market.” It is their language he listens to, it is their mouths he watches in order to determine the nature of truly idiomatic German. If a translation of the Bible is to reach the people, it must be couched in their language. Since his translation was most definitely made for the people, Luther did his utmost to put it in the language “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gn : NIV, ). “Or anyone who strikes another with a weapon of wood in hand that could cause death, and death ensues, is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death” (Nm : NRSV, ). “He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His 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 things on the earth” (Eph :- NASB, revised ). A S, formerly staff Pastor of Lutheran Home, Westlake, Ohio, and Adjunct Professor of Religion, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, is now Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University, River Forest, Illinois. One wonders how any of these can claim to reflect common 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 of wood in hand? Who would use a verb like purposed or a phrase such as an administration suitable to the fullness of the times? Surely Luther, if he were translating into modern English, would avoid these constructions. Yet such constructions are common in modern English Bibles. This situation is unfortunate since we, through the discipline of linguistics, possess a much broader knowledge of language than Luther could have dreamed. Luther had to rely on his own observations of German usage. We not only have the benefit of observing the current use of modern languages as Luther observed German in his day, but also possess the theoretical underpinning of modern linguistics to aid us. What is often called literal translation is more accurately called formal equivalent translation. nb So how are we to evaluate Bible translations? First of all, those of us who have been trained in the biblical languages need to move beyond evaluating translations based on a mechanical matching of English translations to the original on a word-byword basis. In addition, we must not rely on a simplistic reference to the English glosses (“meanings”) found in lexicons. Next, we must apply the findings of theoretical and practical linguistics. Finally, we need to understand the challenges of Bible translation so that we can better evaluate translations and use them intelligently. I will therefore offer a few suggestions as to how we can better appreciate the challenges of Bible translation. In addition, I will introduce a few concepts from the science of linguistics so that we can be less harsh in our condemnation of translators’ attempts to communicate in contemporary English. Hopefully, we can, at the same time, become more judicious in our choice of translations to use in preaching and teaching. TRANSLATION THEORY A few years ago at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature I attended a session that examined the translation technique of several ancient Targums to the Old Testament. One presenter analyzed a Targum by classifying the translator’s technique at various points as “literal,” “paraphrase, but accurate,” or “paraphrase and inaccurate.” After the presentation, when the moderator solicited questions from the audience, I asked whether the presenter found any examples of “literal, but inaccurate” translation. In reply, he asked me what my question meant. His presumption was that literal translation (whatever literal may mean) was inherently accurate, whereas paraphrase (whatever that means) can vary in its accuracy. Clergy and many scholars such as the one I questioned at the SBL Meeting often characterize Bible translations as literal or paraphrase, terms that are vague and often betray a prejudice against whatever translation is perceived to be a paraphrase instead of a true translation. Clearly those who exercise such prejudice need to become better acquainted with the theory of translation and the linguistic principles that support it. What is often called literal translation is more accurately called formal equivalent translation. In formal equivalent translation the translator attempts to match the original text of the source language in the target language on a word-by-word basis. In addition, the word order of the original is preserved whenever possible. The translation attempts to meet the semantic (meaning) challenge of translation as well as to preserve the form of the original (hence the 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 “literal but inaccurate” translation? Consider this translation of Psalm :: 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 mockers (NIV). This translation matches the form of the original fairly well. It only changed the word order slightly to match English preference, and it does not repeat the negative not twice to match the Hebrew.² This translation does preserve the conceptual sequence of the Hebrew: walk, stand, and sit. Yet despite its supposed literalness, this translation is not in common English. After all, what does “standing in someone’s way” mean in English? It signifies being an obstruction. Certainly, the Psalmist did not intend to say that one is blessed if he does not obstruct sinners in their sinful ways! Instead, the Psalmist was saying that one is blessed when he does not join sinners in their sinning. This verse from the NIV is an example of a translation that is literal but inaccurate. The problem with formal equivalent translation is that it places too great an emphasis on a language’s form as a semantic feature. Certainly, the form, especially word order, can be an important factor in the meaning of a text. This is particularly the case in languages such as Hebrew or Greek that are not as dependent on word order as is English. Form, however, does not usually serve as a reliable guide for translating idioms. In the case of Psalm : the problem is actually in English. The Hebrew “stand in the way of” is not an idiom; but when translated in a formal equivalent manner into English, the result is an idiom that means something other than the sum of the semantic values (meanings) of the individual words. In other cases, the problem can manifest itself in the opposite direction. Hebrew or Greek idioms cannot be translated merely by matching word-by-word because the result is almost never an equivalent idiom in English. Thus semantic matching from one language to another cannot always be accomplished on the level of individual vocables (words). In fact, a myriad of problems can manifest themselves in formal equivalent translation. The word order of an English translation may match the original, but may be awkward English. Greek tolerates long sentences, but English prefers sentences of no longer than twenty-five words.³ One lemma (root word) in Hebrew or ’ Greek may require different lemmas in different contexts in English. Wordplays that depend on sound may not be reproducible in English, and if the translation matches the word play it may sacrifice the meaning of the passage being translated.⁴ In addition, information that was implicit for the readers of the original text is left untranslated in formal equivalent translations because it does not appear in the form of specific vocables. However, the English reader may need that implicit information stated explicitly to appreciate the full meaning intended by the original author. While English translations have traditionally been more or less formal equivalent in their approach, formal equivalence is not an option in other languages. The past century has seen the worldwide effort of Bible societies and mission groups to translate the 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 equivalent translation). As the name implies, this technique focuses on making the translation function semantically in the target language in the same way that the original text functioned semantically for its original readers. It is, in effect, a thought-by-thought translation instead of a word-by-word translation. This technique is often labeled paraphrase. This is an unfortunate identification and one that is often used to imply that translations produced in 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 original languages. For instance, I have spoken to translators working in Africa who were translating the Bible into languages that had no term for crown. Another translator was translating the Bible for people who had never seen the ocean and, therefore, had no nautical terms whatsoever, not even a word for boat! The case of translation of the Bible into English is not as problematic as these cases, but there is something to be learned from them. Functional equivalent translation can be very accurate. Consider the following example: Nevertheless, functional equivalent translation is not without its pitfalls. Often scholars who have studied texts for years are not always agreed on information that is implied by the text. Nor are they agreed on the meaning of some idioms (or whether a phrase is an idiom) or on the exact meaning of some phrases or sentences. The most pervasive problem with functional equivalent translation is that translators are often tempted to place their own interpretation of the text into their translation. If we were to be honest, all translators do this to some degree, even if only in their choice among competing terms in the target language that could be chosen to translate a particular word or phrase. (Consider the Roman Catholic-produced New Jerusalem Bible’s constant translation of dikaiosuvnh with uprightness instead of the usual righteousness.) The most pervasive problem with functional equivalent translation is that translators are often tempted to place their own interpretation of the text into their translation. nb Moreover, in functional equivalent translation the translator can be tempted to place the interpretation squarely in the text. Take for example these passages from the New Living Translation (): Then all Israelites from Dan on Israel’s northern border to Beersheba on Israel’s southern border and from Gilead east of the Jordan River came to Mizpah. The assembly was united in the presence of the Lord (Jgs :, my translation). This messenger was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven (Mk :). Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven (Lk :). Paul said, “John’s baptism was to demonstrate a desire to turn from sin and turn to God. John himself told the people to believe in Jesus, the one John said would come later” (Acts :). This translation might be faulted by some for adding words that are not in the original, such as “on Israel’s northern border,” “on Israel’s southern border,” and “east of the Jordan River.” Yet this information was implied for the ancient Hebrew reader. The original readers would have immediately understood that people from all over Israel, even from the extreme north and south and east, came to Mizpah. The biblical phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” contains this information implicitly (cf. Sm :; Sm :; :; Kgs :; Chr :; Chr :; Amos :). Most English-speaking readers do not know that this is implied. In this case, functional equivalent technique makes this originally implied information explicit, giving the reader of the English the same meaning as conveyed to the original readers. All three of these passages contain the phrase bavptisma metanoivaß, usually translated a baptism of repentance. Considering the wide range of meanings that an English reader could assign to this phrase, almost no one found it objectionable. The relation between baptism and repentance is hidden in the word of. The NLT, however, assigns one possible meaning, one that is acceptable to a wide range of conservative American Evangelicals, but not to Lutherans. Our understanding of John’s baptism is not that it was a mere sign that one had repented or was willing to repent. Perhaps a more blatant example of the abuse of functional equivalent translation is the American Bible Society’s Contemporary English Version (). Its text often incorpo- rates the translator’s interpretation. Some of these, such as Matthew :, contain a theological bias: “This is my blood and with it God makes his agreement with you.” The CEV consistently translates diaqhvkh as agreement, despite the fact that agreement implies a two-way consent, whereas diaqhvkh implies only the consent of one party. While traditional translations of We need to avoid the hazards that beset both formal equivalent and functional equivalent translation. nb diaqhvkh, testament and covenant, are not common English words (they are hardly used outside of ecclesiastical or legal contexts), agreement is a poor alternative. A better choice would have been promise, which like diaqhvkh implies only the consent of one party. I suspect the choice of agreement was a theological one, even if it was not consciously theological. Most American Protestants do not understand the Lord’s Supper as a gift from God that brings us his favor in Christ’s body and blood. Instead, they understand it as a human response to the historical sacrifice of Christ. Thus the two-way commitment better fits their theological presuppositions. Nevertheless, the CEV also contains interpretations that do not appear to be theologically motivated. For instance, Samuel : reads: Saul was furious with Jonathan and yelled, “You’re no son of mine, you traitor! I know you’ve chosen to be loyal to that son of Jesse. You should be ashamed of yourself! And your own mother should be ashamed that you were ever born.” Certainly translating rm,aYOw" as yelled is appropriate here, considering that the text does tell us that Saul was angry. The usual translation said is rather insipid in this case. The other equivalents are questionable, however. Is tWDr“M'h' tw"[}n"AˆB,, (a twisted, rebellious son) really a traitor, a term that implies perhaps treason against the state? Or is Saul implying that Jonathan has betrayed him personally? Or is he implying that Jonathan has betrayed him both as his son and as his subject? Does ÚT]v]b;l] (“to your own shame”) mean “you should be ashamed of yourself ”? Instead, it means “you have disgraced (or brought shame upon) yourself.” Does ÚM≤ai tw"r“[, tv,bol]W (“to the shame of your mother’s nakedness”) really mean “your own mother should be ashamed you were ever born”? Rather, it means that Saul is implying that Jonathan is not his son. The CEV goes too far in its functional equivalence here. Perhaps this a better functional equivalent translation: Then Saul got angry with Jonathan. “Son of a crooked and rebellious woman!” he yelled. “I know you’ve sided with Jesse’s son. You have disgraced yourself. You act as if you are your mother’s son but not mine.” So what should we look for in a translation, and what kind of translations should we, as heirs of Luther, use in the lectern, the pulpit and Bible class? What kind of translations should we seek to produce? I would argue that we need to avoid the hazards that beset both formal equivalent and functional equivalent translation. 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 the original to the general reader.⁵ This always involves a balancing act. When is form to be preferred over function? When is function to override form? When can the translator preserve both? These are decisions translators and translation teams will constantly have to make. To illustrate, I would like to explore several case studies. Case Study 1 TWO IDIOMS IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL Two idioms used in Daniel offer a challenge to translate accurately while preserving the form of the original. The first occurs at Dan :. In this verse Nebuchadnezzar complains that his advisors, the Babylonian wise men, are engaged in delaying tactics. The king has demanded that they tell him what he dreamt and the dream’s interpretation. Of course, they cannot know what he dreamt, so when they delay, he threatens them. The Aramaic idiom for their delaying tactics is ˆynIbz] : ˆWTn“a' an:D[: i yDI hn:a} [d"y.: A typical English translation for this is “I am certain that you are trying to gain time” (NIV, cf. NKJV, NRSV, NJB). Other translations have “I know for certain that you are bargaining for time” (NASB, NAB [])⁶ CEV reads “You’re just stalling for time” (cf. NLT). The translations that use gain or bargain are formal equivalent, but they are not in the most natural English possible. CEV and NLT are striving for natural English and capture the meaning well with the word stall, but they have retained the form of the Aramaic with the addition of the words “for time.”⁷ After all, the typical English speaker would simply say, “You’re just stalling.” In Aramaic ˆbz can mean gain, but more commonly means buy and is probably a loan word from Akkadian, where the same root means buy, gain, or engage in commerce (thus the translation bargain).⁸ Therefore, we have a happy and unusually rare occurrence here: an Aramaic idiom that matches exactly an English idiom. The Aramaic says, “I know that you are buying time.” Thus, a natural English translation that would satisfy the need to be functionally equivalent and yet preserve the form is “I’m sure you’re trying to buy some time” (GW []).⁹ In this case GW has captured both function and form and is perhaps to be preferred. Another idiom is found at Daniel :, . In this case Daniel’s skill as a seer is characterized as ˆyrIfq ] i arEvm; ]. This is usually translated “able to solve [difficult] problems” (cf. NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, NLT, CEV). The Aramaic idiom, however, is literally “able to untie knots.” Thus NJB has “unraveling difficult problems” and GW has “untangle problems.” In this case, both NJB and GW have managed to preserve form without sacrificing function, whereas the other translations have opted for a purely functional equivalent approach to this idiom. This is true even of translations that in the minds of many are “literal”: NASB, NRSV, and NAB. ’ Case Study 2 UNMARKED VERSUS MARKED MEANING One concept we learn from linguistics is the semantic categories of unmarked meaning and marked meaning. Words, as we know, can have a range of meanings. But how do we know which particular meaning is being used by a speaker or writer at any given time? One of the ways we know is whether the meaning of the word is unmarked or marked by features in the context. The 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 one would assign to a word because of the context in which it was used. The word may be marked by the overall context, by its immediate context, or by specific words used in conjunction with it. Thus a group of computer users who are using the term boot are probably talking about turning on their computer and loading its operating system. The challenge that marked and unmarked meaning presents to translators is that the source language may employ a meaning marker that is not needed in the target language. Alternatively, the opposite may occur. The source language may employ an unmarked meaning, but to make the transition to the target language, the translator may have to provide marking for readers. These cases are examples where formal equivalent translation fails because it translates only form with little regard to function. I would like to offer one example of marked meaning in the original text that is often translated incorrectly. This is the prepositional phrase “of water” used as a marker. This marker is used in English in various ways, such as in the phrases “drop of water” or “cup of water.” This marker distinguished between drops of other liquids (for example, a drop of blood) or cups containing other beverages (such as a cup of coffee). In English, however, we normally do not mark bodies of water with this phrase. We do not say, “The Mississippi is a major river of water,” or, “The farmer drilled a well of water in order to supply water for his farm.” The reason is simple. English was shaped (and is often still used) in parts of the world where water is relatively plentiful. We expect that our wells will have water and our rivers will flow with it. We mark wells and rivers when they are empty: “dry well” or “dry riverbed.” In the case of well, we have to mark it only if it is not a well for water: “gas well” or “oil well.” (Or it may be marked by context. I might use well without explicitly marking it to mean gas well or oil well if I am speaking to a geologist.) Hebrew, however, was shaped in a part of the world where water is a precious resource. Parts of Palestine receive fewer than eight inches of rain each year. In this context one cannot assume that a riverbed will have water in it or a well will not be dry. Thus Hebrew (and hebraized Greek) marks bodies of water with the phrase “of water.” It is common to read English Bible translations that contain the unnatural phrases “well of water,” “streams of water,” “pools of water,” or “springs of water.”¹⁰ For instance, consider Genesis : in the NIV: Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. Omit “of water” and read it again. Absolutely no meaning is lost for the English reader, and it becomes more natural English. This retaining of the Hebrew marker where it is not needed in English is common in NIV, NASB, NRSV, NJB and NAB. Only NLT, CEV and GW recognize that the marker is not needed in English translation. The source language may employ a meaning marker that is not needed in the target language. nb This specific case illustrates two important principles. First, one cannot blindly use or eliminate a marker like “of water.” For instance, it needs to be retained in many passages such as Kings : (“jar of water”). One must know when the target language needs the marker and when it does not. Second, the retaining of the marker, even when it is not needed in the target language, may not obscure the meaning or mislead the reader. In this case, it does not obscure the meaning. Yet it does make the translations in many English Bibles awkward and unnatural. This is perhaps more insidiously damaging than having a wrong meaning. Repeated instances of awkward, unnatural English (an unfortunate side effect of over-reliance on form-equivalent translation) have convinced many that the Bible is difficult, obscure, archaic, and out of touch with contemporary needs. Case Study 3 INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE Inclusive language, once a controversial issue, is now an expected standard in many contemporary formal written and oral contexts. One can still hear uses of man to mean humankind, even occasionally on network news. Yet it is increasingly common, especially among younger adults, to find that the audience no longer accepts or understands terms such as man and men in the generic sense of person or human. Because of this trend, and because of allegations of some American theologians that the Scriptures, particularly in English translation, were unnecessarily gender-specific and male-biased, the convention of the LCMS asked its Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to study the theological implications of using inclusive language. The result of this study is the CTCR document Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language (BRIL).¹¹ BRIL very capably sets out and applies principles about the use of inclusive language in five sections: Introduction, Language about God, Language about Christ, Language Concerning Christians and People in General, and Summary. The short Introduction sets forth the basis for concern about this issue and how God’s revelation in the Scriptures is not to be dismissed as coming from a patriarchal culture. Therefore, BRIL states, “The language of the Scriptures is the foundational and determinative language which the church is to use to speak about God and the things of God” (). But perhaps more importantly, we have to learn to be more sensitive to actual language usage when we evaluate Bible translations. nb The next two sections, Language about God and Language about Christ, are well-reasoned and insightful, not only defending the traditional language referring to God in masculine images of Father and King and Christ as Son of Man, but also in countering feminist arguments that would have us change this historic and biblical language. Therefore, the first person of the Trinity is Father, not Mother or Parent. Christ is Son of God, not Child of God, and the Holy Spirit “is not to be understood as a feminine principle of the Godhead and/or described with feminine pronouns.” Yet BRIL does note that “feminine similes for God occur in the Scriptures, albeit rarely, and may also be used in appropriate ways” and devotes over three pages to the discussion of such texts and their interpretation by contemporary theologians (). All this is well and good. Nevertheless, when it comes to applying these same principles in the fourth section, “Language Concerning Christians and People in General,” BRIL has sometimes, in my opinion, overplayed its hand. Not that everything in this section is wrong. Much of it is well argued and sensitive to the use of terms in the original biblical texts. For instance, the document recognizes that a[nqrwpoß is often used in a generic sense in Scripture and can be rightfully translated person, human, or in the plural people, humans. (Presumably, though not stated, so occasionally can ajnhvr [e.g., Mt :, ; Lk :, ; Js :, , , ; :] and vyai [e.g., Ps :].) Other good examples are the approved renderings of impersonal pronouns in inclusive language (anyone, everyone, no one instead of any man, every man, no man), indefinite constructions (as in Cor : “Whoever boasts, boast in the Lord” instead of “Let him who boasts”), and the concession that sometimes ajdelfovi may mean “brothers and sisters,” not merely brothers. Despite these strengths, it is this fourth section that exhibits a number of weaknesses in its argumentation, especially when we are considering Bible translation. First, in subsection A, “Use of Words Not in the Biblical Text,” BRIL notes that there is often no good reason for changing the persons or number of pronouns merely to make them inclusive (–). For example, man becomes those in Psalm in the NRSV: Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked; but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams of water. In all that they do, they prosper. Or man becomes you in Galatians : in the NRSV: [Y]ou reap whatever you sow. BRIL correctly notes that the change to plural loses the directness of the singular of the original. It also recognizes that the change to second person from third person risks losing the possible universal application of the text by restricting the meaning to the original readers. The problem, however, is that BRIL offers no solution. If one does not get rid of man in the translation, one risks restricting the application to males in the minds of some contemporary readers. By not offering a solution, the document seems to imply that there is no solution. But of course there is: Blessed is the person who . . . he delights . . . He is like a tree . . . He succeeds in everything he does (Ps :–). A person reaps whatever he sows. (Gal :). In both cases the pronoun he is used, but its antecedent is inclusive, and it is doubtful that readers would mistake this as a reference to males only. Moreover, this subsection gives the impression that is it always incorrect to change number or persons in translation. While these devices should not be used routinely, there are places where they are proper and actually make the translation more understandable. One case is the frequent switching of grammatical persons in Leviticus, though the referent is the same. For instance, Leviticus : begins by stating, “If you bring a burnt offering;” and then switches to the third person to refer to the person bringing the sacrifice: “He will place his hand on the animal’s head” (Lv :). In English translation this switch of grammatical persons can leave the impression that someone other than the person bringing the sacrifice is placing a hand on the animal’s head. One solution is to switch the subsequent third person pronouns to the second person (“you will place your hand on the animal’s head”). Thus there are times when the translation actually is better when person or number is switched. These devices ought to be used sparingly, however. Moreover, BRIL is certainly correct in saying that they should not be devices merely to make the language inclusive. The other place where the document overreaches is in subsection F, “Christians as ‘Children’” (). The statement is made that “the actual language ought to guide and determine the way we translate and read.” This statement is true in itself, if by “actual language” BRIL means the original language of the Scriptures. The problem is that one cannot use this principle to argue ipso facto that uiJoi; qeou' cannot be translated “children of God,” as BRIL appears to do. The question is whether uiJoi; qeou' is ever used in an inclusive sense in Greek. To understand this issue, we must understand how words in language often function in a hierarchical relationship of meanings. For instance, we have the hierarchy: animal mammal whale human ape bird starling ostrich fish barracuda guppy insect ant bee ’ In the case at hand we have the English hierarchy: children sons daughters This hierarchy goes from the generic (gender inclusive level) to the specific (gender specified level) with these meanings: [offspring] [male offspring] [female offspring] BRIL’s logic seems to be that uiJoiv functions only on the bottom level where sons operates in contemporary English. We know, however, that sometimes a word can function at more than one level in a meaning hierarchy. One determines by context at what level a writer or speaker is using the word. In English, man used to function both at the generic level of human and the more specific level of male human, though it functions increasingly only at the more specific level in contemporary English. Moreover, that the existence of one or more synonyms at the more generic level does not keep a word from functioning at both levels. For instance, man used to function at the generic level although English had alternatives: human, person. Thus the old hierarchy in which man functioned in English was: human, person, man man woman The question becomes, What is the hierarchy in Koine Greek? Is it: tevkna uiJoiv qugatevra Or is it: 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 descendants of both sexes and that it is translated by uJioiv in the Septuagint. A good example is Chronicles :, where the “sons of Judah” (hd:Why“ ynEb)] are potential male slaves (µydIb[; )} and female slaves (]t/jp;v)] . Clearly, here the meaning of hd:Why“ ynEb] is “people of Judah” or “descendants of Judah.” Note that the Septuagint translates hd:Why“ ynEb] as uiJoiv and then states that they could be made douvlou" kai; douvla". 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 used to translate µynIB; when it carries any of these meanings. Thus BRIL’s principle that the actual language guides and determines translation does not in itself determine which sense of uiJoiv is intended unless we also take context into account. Moreover, the context of Galatians :, the example BRIL uses as an example of when not to translate uiJoiv as children (), would seem to be a perfect example of uiJoi; qeou' meaning “children of God.” Verse is explicitly gender-inclusive (there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus), as is verse , which switches from the uiJoi; qeou' of verse to the descendants (inclusive language) of Abraham (tou' ∆Abraa;m spevrma)! I would respectfully disagree with BRIL’s assertion that uiJoi; qeou' should never be translated “children of God,” although I agree with the principle that the actual language guides and determines translation. (That is, uiJoiv can be translated by the words sons, grandsons, children, descendants, depending on context, but it cannot be translated by other words such as father, mother, cousin, uncle, aunt, predecessor, which are related but not part of the semantic range of uiJoiv.) It is especially disappointing to read BRIL’s treatment of uiJoiv qeou' given its sensitive treatment of ajdelfoiv. In addition, to be evenhanded, BRIL should have pointed out that most translations (NIV, NASB, RSV, NKJV) have Paul calling Timothy “my son” in Timothy : and Timothy : despite the fact that the word used is not uiJoßv but tevknon. To be consistent BRIL should have asserted that “my child” would have been a better translation in these instances (see NRSV). (To my knowledge tevknon is never used on the more gender-specific level in Koine Greek that would correspond to son in English. It always appears to correspond to child.) Admittedly, these are not criticisms of BRIL’s principles, but of the application of those principles. But in this case, the applications are important. Let me use a biblical example as an analogy. When the Israelites were encamped at Mt. Sinai, God instructed Moses to place a fence around the mountain because anyone who touched the mountain would die (Ex :). Now suppose Moses had the fence placed up the mountain instead of at its base. It would have allowed someone to tread on the mountain and be killed. Suppose on the other hand that Moses, in an effort to ensure that no one touched the mountain, placed the fence an extra hundred yards from the mountain. Some people whose propensity is to challenge limits may have hopped the fence and found that they did not die. This could have led to many other people hopping the fence and the eventual death of a good number who did eventually tread on the mountain. If one does not get rid of man in the translation, one risks restricting the application to males in the minds of some contemporary readers. nb The point of this illustration is this: because of current sensibilities about gender issues in language, it is important we draw the line precisely where Scripture draws the line. If we put the fence too high up the mountain (that is, if we unjustifiably allow too much of the Scripture and our theological language to be converted to inclusive language), it will lead to harm. On the other hand, if we put the fence too far away from the mountain (in allowing too little of the Scripture and our theological language to be expressed in inclusive language), some will surely notice that the land on the other side of the fence doesn’t really cause harm. This is why we should commend BRIL in most cases, because it does draw the line carefully. Nevertheless, we should also be cautious about those places where it wishes to exclude inclusive language unjustifiably. Highly form equivalent NKJV NASB NAB NRSV 1985 1995 1991 1989 Mildly form equivalent NIV 1984 NJB 1985 CONCLUDING REMARKS In this essay I have touched on only a few of the challenges that face both Bible translators and those who evaluate and use the Bible in translation. I would advocate that we need to avoid both extremes of strict formal equivalent translation and unfettered functional equivalent translation. Instead, we should insist on a balance between function and form. In a way, I am arguing that we should view translation on a spectrum from rigidly formal to extremely functional. If we were to construct such a spectrum and place on it the translations mentioned in this essay, it might look something like the diagram below. Wherever one would place a particular translation on this spectrum, it is important to keep in mind that at any particular point the translation may be more formal or functional equivalent than it is in general. For instance, we saw above that in the case of Daniel :, that many of the translations on the form equivalent side of the spectrum used a very functional equivalent approach. Thus each instance of translation has to be evaluated independently. But perhaps more importantly, we have to learn to be more sensitive to actual language usage when we evaluate Bible translations, just as Luther was sensitive to the actual German language being spoken in the marketplace and the home. This means that pastors and academicians alike will have to abandon simplistic characterizations of translations as literal or paraphrase and the implied equations literal = good and paraphrase = bad. It also means that we have to be more sensitive to the balancing act that translators must perform so that we are not overly critical of their work. Finally, it means that those who claim to be Luther’s heirs should not simply seek to produce sound theology for their day. They should also strive to use and produce good Bible translations. Both, when done in humility and with a sensitive treatment of Holy Scripture, bring glory to God. LOGIA Mildly function equivalent i GW 1995 Highly function equivalent NLT 1996 CEV 1995 NOTES . Heinz Bluhm, Martin Luther: Creative Translator (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ; reprint ), –. . A more formal equivalent translation would read, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or in the way of sinners does not stand, or in the seat of mockers does not sit.” . Robert S. Laubach and Kay Koschnick, Using Readability (Syracuse: New Readers Press, ), -. . A clever translator, however, may be able to produce an adequate word play without totally sacrificing the meaning. . By general reader I mean average readers with no theological training or a modicum of theological training. Such a translation should avoid theological and specialized jargon whenever possible. See Andrew E. Steinmann, “Preaching without Confusing Jargon,” Concordia Pulpit Helps (, no. ): –; “Communicating the Gospel Without Theological Jargon: Translating the Bible into ReaderFriendly Language,” Concordia Theological Quarterly (): –; and “When the Translations of Catechetical Proof Texts Don’t Communicate,” Concordia Journal (): –. . The New American Bible is an American Roman Catholic translation conducted under the guidance of the Catholic Biblical Association. . In addition, NLT has read too much into [d:y" when it translates “I can see through your trick!” . R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, ), . . God’s Word is an American Lutheran Translation translated by God’s Word to the Nations Bible Society. .For instance, NIV uses “well of water” (Gen :,), “streams of water” (Dt :; :; Ps :; :; Prov :; Is :; :; Jer :; Joel :), “pools of water” (Dt :, Ps :; Is :); “springs of water” (Jos :; Jgs :; Ps :; Is :; Jer :; Jn :; Rv :; :; :). . Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language: A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (St. Louis: LCMS, ). Page references to this document will be indicated in the body of the text. Caveat Emptor! Let the Buyer — and the Reader — Beware! A B j to internet buying, stock trading, and other forms of e-commerce. With the rise of business transactions on the Internet have come warnings that say, Caveat emptor! —Let the buyer beware. Sometimes what is offered for sale on the computer screen is not necessarily what it appears to be. The same warning can also apply in the area of religion. Not everything labeled religious is always religious or good. This can be true in any number of areas. This essay is written to help make buyers and readers aware that a Bible translation may not always be what it appears to be. A partial basis for this essay is a book written by Robert Martin that examined the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible to see if it lives up to its own claims.¹ Martin’s book should be read and studied by every Christian and every Lutheran who considers using, or who actually does use, the NIV. Martin, a Baptist, wrote his book out of concern for the many Christian pastors and lay people who are bewildered by the large number of Bible translations currently flooding the religious market. This essay also notes the ties between a particular philosophy of Bible translation and inclusive-language versions of the Bible. Martin asks, What is the “pre-eminent trait of a good Bible translation?” His answer is that “accuracy of translation . . . is the overarching issue.” This is so because “the Bible is the Word of the living God . . . the inscripturated revelation to mankind of God’s mind and will and the inspired record of his redemptive work.” The church’s need for a Bible translation that is “an accurate and reliable standard of faith and practice supersedes every other concern.”² Martin gives two reasons for his examination of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible: () the NIV translators desired to do “for our time what the King James Version did for its day,” and () the claim that the “first concern of the [NIV] translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.” Because the NIV desires to be the modern replacement for the King James Version, Martin examines the NIV to see whether it “is accurate enough as a translation to warrant its becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world.”³ Martin’s book is an examination of the New Testament section of the NIV Study Bible. The significance of this book for Missouri Synod Lutherans is its examination of the Bible translation used in the synod’s lectionary, catechism, Bible study materials, and hymnal Lutheran Worship. In addition, the edition of the NIV is the basis for the LCMS publishing house’s “Lutheran edition of The NIV Study Bible.” This Concordia Publishing House edition of the NIV was the overwhelming “favorite version of the Scriptures” in a recent survey of Missouri Synod Lutherans; it won hands down.⁴ Martin’s book is significant also for Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, because the NIV is its official Bible translation, having been blessed by the faculty of the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. T A J. B is pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church, Waseca, Minnesota. Ten years ago the seminary faculty expressed its opinion that the NIV is a contemporary Bible translation which . . . may be used with a high degree of confidence. . . . The faculty remains convinced that for all-around use—in private devotions, in programs of Christian education and for worship— the NIV is the best contemporary translation we have.⁵ The NIV is the Bible translation used in the latest catechisms, Bible studies, books, commentaries, and other material published by the Wisconsin Synod—materials designed to strengthen the faith and to increase the piety of its lay people, and materials designed for pastoral care. Martin’s examination of the NIV begins by investigating the philosophy underpinnings of the NIV. There are two philosophies of translation—formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. A formal equivalence philosophy of translation treats each word of the original language, its grammatical style, and its linguistic forms, with care and importance. This type of translation attempts to reproduce as accurately as possible the words, phrases, style, and forms of the original Greek and Hebrew texts of Holy Scripture. This formal equivalence philosophy of translation produced the King James Version, the New King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible.⁶ A formal equivalency translation is not a wooden, stilted translation. It is a careful and accurate rendering from one language into another. Dynamic equivalence translations try to capture “the most natural form of the language of the reader . . . whether or not this closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text.” In other words, this method gives greater priority “to the structure, grammar, and idiomatic expressions of contemporary English.” Thus the translator tries to restate in modern English the general idea of the biblical text. The focus is on today’s reader’s response, not on yesterday’s text. Dynamic equivalence is more typically the paraphrase type of Bible version popularized by the Good News Bible, the Living Bible, and translations like the New English Bible that exhibit many of the characteristics of a paraphrase.⁷ Dynamic equivalency is also basic to inclusive language or gender-neutral versions of the Bible. As long as the translator captures the biblical writer’s “idea,” then he is free to express that idea in whatever words he chooses. nb The NIV claims that its emphasis is “for the most part on a flexible use of concordance and equivalence, but with a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence. In other words, the NIV stands on middle ground—by no means the easiest position to occupy.”⁸ Martin’s book examines how the NIV as a finished product stacks up against its own claims. Why does Martin examine the translational philosophy of the NIV? Because, generally speaking, “the translator’s view of the nature of the Bible’s inspiration greatly influences his philosophy of translation.” One who believes that every word of the Bible is inspired (verbal inspiration) and that all of the words of the Bible are inspired (plenary inspiration) will generally tend to use “formal equivalence” in translational work.⁹ The dynamic view of inspiration argues that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers but left them to express those thoughts or ideas in their own words. . . . [Thus] as long as we have the general ideas, then the exact words do not matter; and, thus as long as the translator captures the biblical writer’s “idea,” then he is free to express that idea in whatever words he chooses.¹⁰ As evidence of the ties between a dynamic philosophy of Bible translation and a rejection of verbal inspiration, Martin cites the examples of James Moffatt and Robert Bratcher. Moffatt produced a very dynamic English version of the Bible that he wanted “freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration.” Moffatt himself wrote that a translation of the Bible is mainly “an interpretation.” Robert Bratcher, one of the primary translators of the Good News Bible, said, “Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.” He further stated that belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible was “a patent error.” Bratcher exco- riated verbal inspiration as a “heresy” that makes the Bible a “false god.” For Bratcher, the “authority” of the Bible “is not in the words themselves” but in Jesus, “THE Word of God.”¹¹ Eugene Nida, one of the best-known writers on the subject of translating the Bible, writes that neo-orthodox theology conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened to the source at the time of writing . . . . “The Scriptures are inspired because they inspire me.” Such a concept of inspiration 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-orthodox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be freer in their translating.”¹² Martin concludes this section of his book by saying that the formal equivalence method of translation is philosophically committed to regarding and guarding the individual words of the original text as the primary units of translation; the dynamic equivalence method is not. Thus, the further the translator departs from formal equivalence in his work, the less compatible his method and ultimately the finished product become with the orthodox doctrine of biblical inspiration and authority.¹³ What characteristics determine whether a Bible version is a dynamic equivalence or a formal equivalence translation? Martin lists the following elements as characteristic of a dynamic equivalence translation: () the elimination of complex grammatical structures, () the addition of words in translation, () the omission of words in translation, () the erosion of the Bible’s technical terminology, () the leveling of cultural distinctives, () the presentation of the interpretation of Scripture as Scripture, () the paraphrasing of the biblical text. Martin proceeds to examine the NIV with these criteria to see what its translational philosophy really is. THE ELIMINATION OF COMPLEX GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURES Formal equivalence translations attempt to retain the long and complex sentence structures that God the Holy Spirit inspired in the original biblical writers. Dynamic equivalence translations attempt to break these long complex sentences into short simple sentences. In their own Preface, the NIV translators admit their adherence to the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation by saying that “faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure.”¹⁴ Martin lists six long complex sentences in the New Testament: Acts :–; Corinthians :–; Ephesians :–; Ephesians :–; Thessalonians :–; and Hebrews :–. He examines seven translations of these verses: those of the American Standard Version, the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, and the Good News Bible, also known as Today’s English Version. Martin found that the NIV was the most dynamic version in its render- ing of one passage, and was only superseded in dynamic equivalency by the Good News Bible in the other five passages. Thus the evidence indicates that in this category “the NIV has more in common with the philosophy of dynamic equivalence than with the philosophy of formal equivalence.”¹⁵ The concern about breaking down one complex sentence into many simple sentences has to do with the issue of accuracy and fidelity to the inspired Word of God. How does a translation that turns one complex sentence into eight simple sentences (as the NIV did with Ephesians :– and Thessalonians :–) remain faithful to the original text? Was it the formal equivalence Bible translator who made the long complex sentence, or 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 of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.”¹⁶ Martin expresses the concern that dynamic equivalence tries to make the Bible “simple” at the expense of serious biblical 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 thought, more prayer.” Though Martin does not say it, the ability to grasp the truth of Holy Scripture requires the work and assistance of the Holy Spirit ( Cor :–; :). Martin fears the cry for a simple translation of the Bible which requires little effort to understand is rooted in the itch of our age for instant gratification. Many . . . have come to regard instant spirituality and instant Bible knowledge as their birthright. The idea that one must labour over the Word of God in order to mine its gold is a revolutionary concept to many in our day.¹⁷ THE ADDITION OF WORDS IN TRANSLATION Dynamic equivalence translations tend to add words to the text of Holy Scripture. Formal equivalence translations do this sparingly, and usually note additions by identifying them with italics. Dynamic equivalence translations add a great number of words that are not in the original texts, but do not identify them. In the NIV’s Preface, the translators state that in order to “achieve clarity” they “sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context. If there was uncertainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets.” Martin found only eight such verses where additions to the biblical text were marked by brackets, though he grants that he could have missed some. The reason for this is that in “many places the NIV is so paraphrastic that a convention such as italics or brackets would be meaningless as far as indicating verbal deviations from the formal linguistic pattern of the original text.”¹⁸ He lists the following as representative examples of verses that contain additions, yet (in his view) without significantly altering the meaning of the verse: Matthew :; :; :; Mark :; Luke :; John :; Acts :; :; Romans :; :; :; :; Ephesians :; Philippians :; Peter :; Revelation :; :. Martin, however, also lists examples that illustrate the fact that in the NIV “liberties have been taken with the addition of words” to the text of the Bible. These additions have altered the meaning of the text, and are interpretation or commentary on the biblical text rather than a translation. These representative passages are: Corinthians :; Acts :; Matthew :; :; John :; Mark :; John :; Hebrews :a; Peter :. Martin labels this practice “interpretive translation.” He believes these additions to Scripture violate the doctrine of inspiration and fall short of the “accuracy” claimed by the translators.¹⁹ Dynamic equivalence tries to make the Bible “simple” at the expense of serious biblical study on the part of the reader. nb Other scholars point out instances of NIV “interpretation” rather than translation. Ed. Miller examines John :– in a brief review of the edition of the NIV in the Harvard Theological Review. In verse , Miller said that the NIV translation “requires a degree of interpretation not strictly justified by the [Greek] text.” And he said of another NIV rendering that “it is a completely unwarranted intrusion of interpretation and emphasis.” In concluding his review, Miller wrote that he found “at least eleven important shortcomings in the NIV rendering of the Prologue of John.” Many of those eleven “points involve astonishing ‘interpretational intrusions’ beyond what is actually given 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 Inclusive Version.²¹ In this version, the Lord’s Prayer begins “Our Father-Mother in heaven” (Mt :). Additions to the text are even found in genealogies: “Abraham and Sarah were the parents of Isaac, and Isaac and Rebekah the parents of Jacob, and Jacob and Leah the parents of Judah and his brothers, and Judah and Tamar the parents of Perez and Zerah” (Mt :–). Compare the above verses with the original Greek text, as well as with the NRSV. THE OMISSION OF WORDS IN TRANSLATION Dynamic equivalence translations “frequently treat conjunctions, participles, pronouns, articles, adjectives, adverbs, and even phrases as surplus verbiage.” In this section, Martin lists representative examples of the NIV’s removal of inspired words that the Holy Spirit placed into the text of Holy Scripture: Mark :; Luke :; Matthew :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; Matthew :–. Martin mentions especially “the NIV’s widespread elimination” of two “distinctive literary features” in the Gospel of Mark: Mark’s repetitive use of kai (“and”) and his frequent use of euthys (“immediately”). In addition, Martin points out the NIV’s non-translation of thirty-seven of the sixty-two occurrences of idou (“lo” or “behold”) in the Gospel of Matthew. Likewise, the Hebrew word hinneh, translated “lo,” “behold,” or “see,” is often missing from the NIV translation of the Old Testament (Gn :; :; :; :; :, to name a few passages).²² Some might say that these words don’t really mean much, that they are little, insignificant words. So what if they aren’t translated 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 found unfaithful to God’s inspired word in little things like conjunctions, participles, pronouns, articles, adjectives, and adverbs, how then can it be trusted in larger and more important words? Martin’s concern about these “little words” is a concern for fidelity to the inspired text. These words in the original Greek text give evidence of specific authorship, are evidence of Hebrew or Aramaic thought patterns, and bring unity of thought to sections of the biblical text. The omission from the NIV translation of so many words that the Holy Spirit placed in the Greek text “is without warrant by any just standard of translation.” These omissions call into question the NIV’s claim of “accuracy” in translation and “fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.”²³ “If you believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture you really can’t play fast and loose with the words the Holy Spirit chose to inspire.” nb Martin wrote his book well before the NIV Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) decided to publish an inclusive language edition of the NIV in England known as the NIVI and the NIrV in the United States.²⁴ The adherence of the CBT to gender-neutrality commits the CBT to make changes to the original texts of Holy Scripture. Some of those changes will remove words found in the original languages. Other changes will add words that are not in the original texts of the Old and New Testaments. Such changes are made easier when one is also committed to “dynamic equivalency” as a philosophy of translation. Using this dynamic equivalency philosophy and commitment to gender-neutrality, the NIVI changed singulars to plurals in Genesis :–; Genesis :; Numbers :; Psalm :–; Psalm :; Matthew :–; Luke :; John :; John :; Acts :; Corinthians :; James :; Revelation :. Third-person pronouns became second-person pronouns (Gal :–). Christ’s gender was made fuzzy by some changes (John :; Corinthians :). And Messianic prophecy disappeared (Psalm :–/Hebrews :–; Psalm :/John :). In the original edition of the NIrV (an inclusive language “easy reader” edition of the NIV, which the CBT quietly made “gender-neutral”) these same verses also had singulars changed to plurals, hes changed to yous, Messianic prophecy removed, and so forth.²⁵ When, however, it was discovered that the CBT had done this, they were forced by public outcry to revise the NIrV to remove the gender-neutral material from it. John Piper said of these NIVI revisions, “If you believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture you really can’t play fast and loose with the words the Holy Spirit chose to inspire.”²⁶ THE EROSION OF THE BIBLE’S TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY Martin notes, “dynamic equivalence translators frequently eliminate the difficult or technical terms” found in the Bible in the apparent “interest of simplicity of expression.”²⁷ Can translators claim faithfulness to the inspired text when they purposefully remove technical words from an English translation of the Bible and replace them with different, supposedly simpler English words? Would doctors rewrite their medical textbooks to eliminate the technical? Do auto mechanics rewrite their technical manuals so that those who aren’t mechanics can better understand them? If these do not and would not, should Christians treat the Bible this way? 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 :; Timothy :. The word “propitiation” (hilasterion) does not appear in the NIV at Romans :; John :, :.²⁸ Martin does not mention the mistranslation of koinonia (“fellowship”) in Corinthians : and , and the mistranslations of the Greek word for tribulation (thlipsis) in all the New Testament verses (Mt :; :, ; Jn :; Acts :; :; Rom :; Cor :, ), except for Revelation :. Nor does he mention the removal of the technical term “soul” (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psyche) from Genesis :; Kings :–; Proverbs :; Matthew :; Luke :–, and many other passages. At times the NIV eliminates “word” (logos) and replaces it with other terms (Matthew :; :; Luke :, ; :; :; :; :; John :, ; :–; :; :; Acts :). The Nicene Creed’s “Only-begotten Son” (monogenes) becomes “one and only Son” in the NIV (John :, ; :, ).²⁹ The Old Testament “peace offerings” (Hebrew shelemim) become “fellowship offerings” (Ex :; Lv :, , , ; :, , , ). God’s “mercy” (Hebrew chesed) becomes “love” (Ex :; :; :; Dt :; Ps :; Ps :–). God’s “glory” (Hebrew kabod) becomes “honor” (Ps :). God’s “grace” (Heb. chen) is changed to “favor” (Ex :; Ps :). Many more examples could be cited in evidence. This kind of translation can only serve to impoverish theologically those who use the NIV as their regular Bible translation. Martin argues that it is “dangerous” for a Bible translation to eliminate technical terms. Translators who make simplicity the key “will sacrifice accuracy in the process.” Sacrificing accuracy for simplicity erodes the Bible’s “precision of meaning.” These losses contribute to a lack of theological precision and “currency of the faith.” They contribute to the perpetuation of “serious error” in the church, contribute to biblical and theological illiteracy in Christians. They are “hazardous” because much of the gospel message and its inspired nuance in the New Testament “might be lost forever” as a result.³⁰ Historically, changes in terminology have often been an indication of an underlying change in theology.³¹ Recent surveys of religious beliefs seem to echo Martin’s warning that the tendency 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 versions of the Bible.”³² By eliminating many technical biblical terms, the NIV helps to rob the church of its historical terminology. It also places a barrier between those who use the new terminology it espouses, and those in the church who use the historically accepted terminology—the “faith once delivered to 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 it (Dt :; Rv :–). God commanded his people to teach their children diligently the very words he had given them (Dt :–; Mt :). Jesus reminds us that we are saved by believing his words (Jn :, ). If the church removes the words of Christ from her Bible translations because they are technical terms, the church is not teaching the very words of God. Thus the NIV text (as well as the NIVI text) is at odds with its claim that the translators first concern was “the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.”³³ THE LEVELING OF CULTURAL DISTINCTIVES These examples show how the NIV’s philosophy of translation removes the distinctive culture of biblical times from the modern-day reader of Holy Scripture. The NIV desires to be more culturally relevant to the modern Bible reader by focusing on the response of the modern reader rather than the actual words of the biblical text. Thus the NIV changed “seed” to “offspring” (Gn :; :), and “showbread” was translated as “consecrated bread” (Mt :).³⁴ Yet the NIV’s attempt to modernize distinctively biblical culture and words forgets that western culture has been influenced by the biblical worldview, and that the English language is filled with biblical terms. E. D. Hirsch wrote, The Bible is by far the best-known book in our culture. Hundreds of its sayings have become part of our everyday speech. Biblical stories are frequently referred to in books, newspapers, magazines, and on television. Many paintings and other works of art portray people or scenes from the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible is the basis of some of our most important ideas about law and government. Because it is such a basic part of our culture, it is important for you to know something about the Bible, regardless of your individual religious beliefs. Culturally motivated Bible translations will actually cut people off from their biblical past and separate the real historical bibli- cal message from today’s world. These supposedly relevant changes in the NIV will actually contribute to the irrelevancy of the Bible and remove the Bible’s influence in our culture. The NIV translation treats modern culture as most relevant and the filter through which to understand biblical times. Thus the NIV fails to live up to its claim to be faithful “to the thought of the biblical writers.”³⁵ By eliminating many technical biblical terms, the NIV helps to rob the church of its historical terminology. nb Many inclusive-language Bibles like the NIVI, and also the NRSV, attempt to be culturally relevant by changing the text of Holy Scripture to make it speak with the modern world’s view of ideas and language. Mostly, these changes come at the expense of the original text of Holy Scripture and the worldview of biblical times. As a result, the people of the Bible are made to speak as though they were modern-day individuals. Robert Jewett, a self-described “liberal evangelical,” said, “Gender-neutral language obscures the genuine revelation that is there in Scripture.” For Jewett, liberal dishonesty and not patriarchalism or any other ancient element is the enemy of scriptural truth. A gender-neutral translation that claims to be accurate is “almost as bad as Stalin’s revisions of world history in which every ten years he’d change all the history books.” Further Mr. Jewett said, We’re facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective that imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated concepts and so forth like the current politically correct person in an Ivy League school: I mean that’s just ridiculous. Here you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liberal views were Paul’s.³⁶ Christians need to remember that the wisdom of God is a stumbling block and foolishness to the world. The gospel is an offense to the ways, thoughts, and wisdom of the world (Pr :; Is :–; Is :–; Jer :–; Ez :–; Mal :; Rm :–; Cor :–; Pt :–). Jesus’ words offend (Jn :–, ). Believers need to remember that Jesus has “the words of eternal life.” Cultural offense dare not drive them away from his words (Jn :–). Jesus said, “Blessed is he who is not offended because of me” (Mt :; Lk :). Human wisdom and the ways of the spirit of the world would lead Christians to be offended by the word of God. So, by the help of the Holy Spirit, believers 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 ( Cor :–). If removing the offensiveness of the inspired word of God removes the offense God put there, it also removes the word of God from the church. In an essay delivered in , Robert Jenson noted: But John did not use two different phrases, “the Jews” and “the Judaeans,” depending on whether he had good or bad to say; and when the text read to congregations is rewritten as if he had, Scripture is insofar simply abolished. Some may wish that the grammatical gender of Israel’s God were not masculine, or at least that Paul’s and other biblical authors’ texts were not so syntactically complex as to need pronouns to make sense. But neither of these is the fact; and readers who rewrite to pretend that they are the fact simply rob their hearers of the text of Scripture. There is no such usage in any canonical text as the gnostic “Godself”; necessarily, a reading which contains it is not the reading of a canonical text.³⁷ Not all gender-neutralizing is wrong. To render Matthew : as “For if you forgive people (anthropois) their trespasses,” or John : as “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people (anthropoi) loved the darkness more than light,” are valid attempts at making the generic language of the Greek Bible generic in English.³⁸ The real point of concern comes when changes to the biblical text make the Scriptures say something that the original text does not say. THE PRESENTATION OF THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AS SCRIPTURE Martin voices concern over the interpretive layer the NIV places between the biblical text and the reader. He recognizes that every Bible translator has to do this to some extent, but formal equivalence translations contain less interpretation than do dynamic equivalence translations. Dynamic equivalence translations mislead readers by giving them interpretations rather than the divinely inspired text itself. Citing Eugene Nida’s remark that the dynamic equivalence translator “is often inclined to be more interpretive on the basis of such” a philosophy of translation, “than if he attempts to stay closer to the actual wording of the original” text of God’s Word, Martin asserts the “dynamic equivalence translator . . . reveals a lack of confidence that the modern Christian is able to interpret the Bible for himself.” As one individual said to Martin, “Most people, however, are incapable of interpreting and so need a scholar to interpret for them.” Martin believes that such an attitude “places too much authority into the hands of the translator.”³⁹ He is also concerned these translators “have either consciously or unconsciously retreated to some degree from one of the Reformation’s cardinal doctrines”: the ability of a Christian with the aid of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the Holy Scriptures without the interpretation of the pope or a church council. The Scriptures can be read, believed, and understood without an “official” scholar to interpret them. In spite of the Baptist mooring of Martin’s thought that reduces biblical interpretation to a matter of individual freedom, his main concern is still valid. Luther and Lutherans have voiced objections to official human interpretations of Scripture that contradict the plain and simple meaning of God’s word.⁴⁰ Martin lists twenty-one representative examples of interpretation in the NIV. These examples include interpretive paraphrase, interpretive word addition to the text, interpretation that narrows or limits the meaning of a passage, and translations that are unique to the NIV. In contrast, he emphasizes the importance of clearly and accurately translating the original text of Scripture so that God’s people might read the actual word of God that the Holy Spirit has written, not some human words of interpretation that are passed off as the Spirit-inspired text of Holy Scripture. Having noted these examples, Martin writes, the NIV translators have not limited their interpretive activity to places where the original text is grammatically ambiguous. On the contrary, they have been too unrestrained in offering their interpretive opinions. Too often 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 running commentary nor to explain the parts of the text that are theologically difficult to understand.⁴¹ Instead Martin writes that the translator’s role is like that of an ambassador to a foreign people. He is to be faithful and precise in delivering the words that God has given to him. If this is his task, and it is, then only a careful formally equivalent rendering of the original will pass on to the people of God the message which the Lord intended us to receive. Because of the extremely large number of interpretive translations found in the NIV, Martin concludes that the NIV is not a faithful “ambassador” of God’s word! By passing off the interpretive words of human beings as the text of Scripture, the NIV has fallen short of its claim to “accuracy” and “fidelity.”⁴² Inclusive language versions often follow the principle of dynamic equivalency, give greater fidelity to the receptor language, and present the interpretation of Scripture as Scripture. This is openly admitted in inclusive language versions of the Bible. The following is representative: This introduction is intended to inform the reader about the interpretive character of the text. Attention should be paid to the kinds of adaptations in language that have been made in order to express the intent of the text in the most inclusive way possible. . . . we are aiming at producing a specific version of the biblical text: an inclusive version. How much interpretation is given as though it were really the text of Holy Scripture? This version has undertaken the effort to replace or rephrase all gender-specific language not referring to particular historical individuals, all pejorative references to race, color, or religion, and all identifications of persons by their physical disability alone, by means of paraphrase, alternative renderings, and other acceptable means of conforming the language of the work to an inclusive idea. What is of major importance to this version? Is it fidelity to the text of Holy Scripture? No! This version notes that “inclusivity is of major importance” no matter how much the original Greek text is changed.⁴³ THE PARAPHRASING OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT As was seen above, the NIV claims only “a minimum of . . . paraphrase.” Yet upon careful examination, Martin finds that “the NIV translators frequently engaged in paraphrase,” and that “paraphrase is not an isolated phenomenon in the NIV New Testament.” Martin lists forty-eight representative examples of outright paraphrase in the NIV. He writes about this because “extensive paraphrase (such as we see in the NIV New Testament) greatly reduces a version’s usefulness as a serious Bible study tool, especially for the reader who does not read Greek and Hebrew and who is thus dependent on the formal accuracy of the English translation that he is using as a study Bible.”⁴⁴ Martin writes, it is not accurate to say that the NIV contains “a minimum . . . of outright dynamic equivalence.” Although the NIV is not as “dynamic” as the Good News Bible or the New English Bible, nevertheless the NIV translators have been heavily influenced by the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation. Indeed, the NIV has more in common with the dynamic equivalence translations than with the formal equivalence translations.⁴⁵ 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 English-speaking world? Does the NIV meet the church’s need for an accurate translation of the Scriptures, which are her only standard of faith and practice? Martin states that if we judge accuracy “in terms of close correspondence to the structure and wording of the original texts, then the NIV must be judged inaccurate on a number of counts.” Martin’s answer to all three questions is, No! The NIV translators stated that they “were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form.” Martin commends them for their adherence to a “high view of the Scriptures,” but expresses his concern that “heavy use of the dynamic equivalence philosophy is at odds with the doctrine of verbal inspiration.” While it is possible for Bible translators to embrace orthodox views of inspiration even when using dynamic equivalency as a translational philosophy, this is really an inconsistency. Thus Martin says, “history teaches that inconsistency in one generation becomes heterodoxy in the next. Where the dynamic method of translation is embraced, it is but one small step to the embracing of the dynamic view of inspiration as well.”⁴⁶ Martin believes that dynamic translations have a place in the Christian church. Nevertheless, they should not be used as our primary study Bibles or as the standards from which we derive our personal or corporate theology and practice. It is also probably unwise to use them as pulpit Bibles or as pew Bibles, because in so doing they are invested with the aura of the approval of the church.⁴⁷ Because the text of the NIV gives so much evidence that it is a dynamic equivalence translation, Martin’s book needs to be carefully examined and evaluated by any in the Christian church who now use the NIV in the above ways. Martin objects when some say that people will not read the Bible unless it is translated into simpler and less precise terms than can be found in formal equivalence translations. Martin writes that we “must beware of the long-term costs of supposed short-term gains.” What are those supposed short-term gains? Supposedly more people will read the Bible if they use such dynamic equivalency translations like the NIV. Martin warns, however, that sacrificing precision for simplicity is no bargain. Inaccurate and paraphrastic Bible translations cannot but contribute to the further erosion of theological precision in the decades to come . . . . We must be cautious and conservative. We must insist that new versions earn their right to widespread use in the churches not by advertising finesse but by our careful scrutiny of their accuracy. . . . We cannot afford to be careless and uninformed in these matters. After careful scrutiny, Martin’s final conclusion is that the “NIV is not worthy of becoming the standard version of the Englishspeaking world. Its accuracy is suspect in too many ways.”⁴⁸ The Scriptures can be read, believed, and understood without an “official” scholar to interpret them. nb The end of Martin’s book contains three appendixes, which cover textual changes made in the NIV since its first edition, some comments on archaic language in Bible translations, and some comments for those who say the Textus Receptus is the only Greek version to be used as the basis for a Bible translation. CONCERNS FOR CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANS Martin’s book raises concerns with which the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, and others must deal. First, these denominations believe in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Yet the NIV, now used in almost all of both synods’ educational, devotional, and liturgical materials, is a Bible version translated with a philosophy antagonistic to that doctrine. Jakob van Bruggen wrote about “the inadequacy of dynamic equivalence” as a method of Bible translation “for those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.” In addition, van Bruggen taught that Christians must reject dynamic equivalence as a method of Bible translation because it () “rejects the orthodox doctrine of the unity of the unchanged divine and human natures of Christ by making his words subject to all the limitations of the first century,” () “denies that the Bible reveals absolute truth that transcends the time in which it was written,” () “limits the horizon of God’s speaking in the Bible to the centuries of the past,” and () “fails to account for the creation of man in God’s image, the unity of the human race in Adam, and thus its unity in guilt and punishment.”⁴⁹ Where the dynamic method of translation is embraced, it is but one small step to the embracing of the dynamic view of inspiration as well. nb The concern about whether the NIV translators (known as the Committee on Bible Translation—CBT) remain committed to the doctrine of inspiration has increased due to the fact that the NIV Committee on Bible Translation quietly worked on releasing a gender-neutral “inclusive language” NIV translation in or . When the American Christian public became aware of this proposed gender-neutral inclusive language revision of the NIV, the CBT had already quietly published a genderneutral inclusive language children’s Bible in America known as the NIrV, and had published an inclusive language NIV—the NIVI—in England. Only after great public outcry was the gender-neutral NIrV phased out and modified, and the proposed gender-neutral inclusive language version NIV for America dropped. Some expressed the concern that the CBT could start printing the proposed gender-neutral changes to the NIV at any time in the future. This fear was not unfounded, since in October of the International Bible Society reprinted an NIrV New Testament called Bright Beginnings in its original gender-neutral version.⁵⁰ When news about the original gender-neutral NIV first appeared, the Southern Baptists said that the International Bible Society (IBS) and its CBT were revising God’s word “to meet the demands of political correctness.” They said that if the IBS continued with these gender-neutral changes they would boycott the NIV. Southern Baptists took note of the fact that the IBS could reprint the gender-neutral NIV at any time. It is also apparent that the Southern Baptists took note of the IBS’s October reprinting of the original gender-neutral NIrV, because they recently announced that they and their publishing house (Broadman and Holman) would no longer use the NIV in its publications.⁵¹ A month later it was revealed in World that the International Bible Society (IBS) “had to acknowledge that it is giving consideration to publishing a new English-language ‘rendition’ of the Bible” that will be gender-neutral. This “rendition” would reflect the perspective of the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) that “thoroughly support[s] gender-accurate language.” Another article in the same edition of World revealed that the British Inclusive Language Version of the NIV (the NIVI) is offered for sale here in the United States, supposedly with the approval of Zondervan Publishing House that said that the NIVI would not be sold here in the United States.⁵² The NIV’s recent Hispanic version has changed the reading of Psalm : and Hebrews : from “hijo del hombre” (Son of 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 gender-neutral version. In other words, as with the original NIrV, the publisher did not say that it had done a gender-neutral translation, even though it had. This seems to be a recurring pattern with NIV gender-neutral versions.⁵³ Martin’s book places before the whole Christian church the 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 doctrine of inspiration to reexamine the NIV and their use of it in their churches. Thus Martin’s book poses this question to the LCMS, to WELS, and to all other evangelical Christians: Can you use the NIV as your official Bible translation and continue to hold to the doctrine of verbal inspiration? Second, both synods desire to promote Bible study as well as theological and biblical literacy with Life-Light and other Bible studies, and commentaries like The People’s Bible Commentary. Yet the NIV translation, which is the English text for these Bible studies, commentaries, and almost all materials published by these confessional Lutheran synods, eliminates a number of the Bible’s technical terms and elevates current culture over the culture of the Bible. Thus Martin’s concerns need to be carefully investigated, for if the NIV truly is as problematic as Martin claims, then its long-term use will spiritually impoverish its Lutheran readers rather than make them more biblically and theologically literate. Third, these synods diligently strive for theological accuracy and doctrinal precision. Yet Martin raises the concern that the Bible translation these synods promote and use is one that has been translated by means of a philosophy opposed to real theological and doctrinal accuracy and precision because it subtracts God’s words from the divinely inspired text and adds human words to the word of God. Of special concern here is the doctrine of justification. Radmacher and Hodges (who are not Lutherans) raise some very serious questions about the NIV’s view of salvation. These questions are based on the NIV’s translation of a number of passages. Radmacher and Hodges wrote that the NIV translation of John : “at least permits the deduction that if a person does something wrong or feels ill will toward another Christian he is not really saved!” Furthermore, to render Romans : “as the NIV does, is to open the door widely to perfectionism and eradicationism.” The NIV choice of the paraphrase “controlled by” (in Romans :) serves the interests of those forms of theology that insist on perseverance in godly living as a necessary manifestation of true regeneration. But even those who hold this view ought to be uncomfortable with the NIV treatment of these verses. . . . The NIV translation of this section of Romans [vv. –] is a doctrinal nightmare.⁵⁵ Recent studies of the beliefs of Christians indicate that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of many Christians as to how sinners are saved. Translations like those above would have to be included as possible contributing factors to this confusion. Other doctrinal concerns about NIV translations include that they lessen the divinity of Christ (Col :; Tim :), inadequately 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 used in its hymnal, Lutheran Worship. Yet Martin’s book emphatically states that the NIV should not be used as a primary study Bible or as the standard translation from which Christians derive their personal or corporate theology and practice. His book also 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. Fourth, these synods have invested the NIV with official status by using it in catechisms, hymnals, books, Bible studies, commentaries, and other materials. The Missouri Synod has issued a slightly revised version of the NIV Study Bible entitled the Concordia Self-Study Bible. The revisions in this Concordia Publishing House edition of the NIV did not occur in the biblical text, but were made in the study notes. Another edition of the NIV issued by Concordia Publishing House is called The Concordia Reference Bible. The comments on the box lid state that this edition is “Thoughtfully Lutheran.” The – Concordia Catalog states that this CPH edition of the NIV is “a Lutheran Bible.” Many Lutheran lay people have taken these above statements to mean that the NIV is a “Lutheran” Bible version translated either solely or predominantly by Lutherans. Yet the fact is that very few Lutherans served as NIV translators. One of the few Lutherans, Frederic Blume, admits that the Lutheran NIV translators were “vastly outnumbered by men whose basic theological convictions are pointed in the direction of the Reformed tradition.”⁵⁷ Lutheran Christians need to examine carefully this little-studied aspect of the NIV. Even non-Lutherans like Jacob van Bruggen admit that the NIV translators have freely translated the NIV “for doctrinal purposes.” Since the NIV translators were overwhelmingly Reformed, it is difficult to imagine that there is not some amount of Reformed theology in this translation. A number of Lutheran theologians have for some years raised the concern that the NIV has a decidedly Reformed theological slant. Those who have written on this subject note that the Reformed influence can be seen in the NIV renderings of passages in which faith is cast as obedience (Mt :; Lk :; Jn :–), con- version is accepting Christ rather than him choosing and receiving us (Jn :, –; :, –; Gal :), the term “Sovereign Lord” (more than two hundred times in Ezekiel alone), the absence of Christ from his church today (Acts :), and others. A Reformed cast to the NIV should concern Lutheran pastors and theologians when Lutherans (lay and clergy) claim the NIV as their overwhelmingly favorite Bible version.⁵⁸ Lutherans from Harold Senkbeil to Carter Lindberg have expressed concern about the growing influence of Reformed and neo-evangelical theology in Lutheranism.⁵⁹ The heavy use of the NIV by Lutherans is undoubtedly a contributor to this phenomenon. There is a very real danger that, over time, a confessional Lutheran denomination that regularly uses the NIV will suffer damage to its sound biblical and confessional heritage. Can you use the NIV as your official Bible translation and continue to hold to the doctrine of verbal inspiration? nb The LCMS in its constitution demands the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school.”⁶⁰ If the concerns about the NIV are true, then the Missouri Synod’s use of the NIV as the Bible translation for its new catechism, worship books, lectionary, and Bible studies causes the synod and its individual congregations to experience some serious internal conflict regarding her constitution. Lutherans have done some examination of the NIV in the past. The NIV received more critique and commentary in the theological journals of the Wisconsin Synod than it did in Missouri Synod publications. The Wisconsin Synod’s acceptance of the NIV, and her resolve to maintain this decision, may be seen in many articles and materials.⁶¹ The Missouri Synod’s acceptance of the NIV is in part based on the Wisconsin Synod’s usage. It is also, in part, a result of the misuse of an examination of ten Bible versions by the Committee on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). This CTCR study examined selected passages contained in the explanation section of the Second Article of the synodical catechism. It desired to “provide guidance in evaluating contemporary Bible translations and paraphrases” and to “stimulate Bible study throughout the Synod.” This CTCR study was also issued in the hope that individuals and “groups in the Synod will make use of the following samples of this study to check out translations and paraphrases for themselves.” This study was able to examine only New Testament NIV passages because the NIV Old Testament was not yet available in . The NIV did look good in the passages that were examined. Nevertheless, this CTCR examination of various passages from one section of the synodical catechism was neither intended to be an in-depth study, nor the final answer for determining the suitability of a Bible translation for use in the church. Nor was it intended to be an endorsement of any one Bible translation. In fact, as was seen above, the CTCR report hoped to stimulate further study of the suitability of the various Bible translations. Instead of being used to further the examination of Bible translations in the Synod, this CTCR report has at times been misused by some as a final word to justify the use of the NIV in the Missouri Synod, and to end any debate on the subject. Significantly, the LCMS’s catechism used every one of the NIV Bible passages that the CTCR study said were “not reflecting the original as well as it should” 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 “interpretation of Scripture” and as bad “paraphrasing of the biblical text” are contained in the LCMS’s catechism. Martin called some of these passages being memorized by Lutheran catechism students “unwarranted addition,” “the liberty taken by the translators has impoverished the text,” and said that the NIV rendering “obscures the apostle’s point.”⁶³ Perhaps Martin’s book will 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 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: In the New Testament, the NIV is . . . too free in its translation. To a lesser extent than in the case of the TEV, however, the NIV misuses this freedom for doctrinal purposes. Often the NIV does not transmit the intention of Scripture accurately or completely. . . . The NIV New Testament in its present form cannot be considered a reliable substitute for the KJV or even the RSV. Van Bruggen’s study also found that the NIV New Testament was less than faithful to the Greek text. He too consistently classed the NIV with the Good News Bible/Today’s English Version and the Living Bible because the NIV is a dynamic equivalency translation, that is, more of a paraphrase.⁶⁴ Books written by Martin, van Bruggen, and others say to the Christian church, Caveat emptor! Let the buyer and reader beware. Confessional Lutherans and other Christians need to examine carefully the claims of Martin, Radmacher and Hodges, van Bruggen, and others, to see whether their concerns are unfounded or if they are true. The CBT’s production of, and commitment to, a gender-neutral inclusive version of the Bible amplifies the concerns these books have voiced about adherence to the doctrine of inspiration. Concerns about the Reformed slant of the NIV further demonstrate the necessity for confessional Lutherans to do a careful examination of the NIV. A confessional Lutheran denomination that regularly uses the NIV will suffer damage to its sound biblical and confessional heritage. nb The above criticisms of the NIV should not be taken to mean that there is nothing good or commendable in the NIV. There is much that is good therein and much has been said and written in favor of the NIV. Unfortunately, the few books that carefully examine the NIV translation have remained relatively unknown, even in Lutheranism. There have been very few careful examinations by Lutherans that have studied the expression of Christian doctrine (especially Lutheran doctrine) in theology of the NIV. Therefore, this study has attempted to distill the concerns of those books and to encourage a thorough Lutheran examination of the NIV. May the Lord of the church bless his people as they diligently study his word, examine translations of that word, work to translate it clearly and properly, and preach his clear word of law and gospel that sinners might always be sure of God’s love and forgiveness in Christ. LOGIA NOTES . Robert Martin, Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, ). Other non-Lutherans have also examined the NIV, most notably Earl D. Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges, The NIV Reconsidered (Dallas: Redencion Viva, ). . Ibid., , , . . Ibid., , . The quotes are taken from the NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, ), xi. . Concordia Self-Study Bible: New International Version (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ), ix. The survey is cited in David Strand, “Twelve Books Every Lutheran Should Read,” Lutheran Witness , no. (July ): . . John C. Jeske, “Faculty Review of the Revised NIV,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (Spring ): . . Martin, . Here Martin and Radmacher-Hodges differ. The latter define dynamic equivalency with the definition Martin gives to formal equivalency. Their definition of formal equivalency is a woodenly rigid literal translation of the original text. Their definition of formal equivalency does not seem accurate (Radmacher and Hodges, –). . Ibid., –. . The Story of the New International Version (East Brunswick, New Jersey: International Bible Society, ), –. Barker defends the NIV against Martin’s book, saying: “The most glaring weakness of both works [Martin and Rademacher-Hodges] is that faithfulness and accuracy are measured too much in terms of the original or source language” (Barker, ). . Martin, –. . Ibid., . . Ibid., , also n. ; James Moffatt, The Bible: A New Translation (New York: Harper and Row, ), vii. Moffatt also refers to “translators” as “interpreters.” . Martin, . For a critique of Nida’s translational philosophy by Jakob van Bruggen, see Jay Green Sr., ed., Unholy Hands on the Bible (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, ), : –. . Martin, –. . Concordia Self-Study Bible, x. . Martin, . . Ibid., ; The NIV Study Bible, xi. . Martin, , . Tony Naden has expressed the concern that today many are “trying to produce translations which are immediately meaningful to any reader, irrespective of his degree of literacy, intelligence or interest” (Tony Naden, “Understandest What Thou Readest?” Bible Translator [July ]: ). . The NIV Study Bible, xiii; Martin, . The lack of brackets to indicate additions to the text is also a problem in another “dynamic equivalency” translation, God’s Word. Here see John M. Moe, “Review Essay: God’s Word: Today’s Bible Translation that Says What It Means,” L (Reformation/October ): –. . Martin, , ; NIV Study Bible, xi. For other examples of NIV additions to and deletions from the Greek text, see Green, –. Please note that many of the changes are the result of the NIV’s usage of a different Greek text than the one used for the KJV. This is also a much-debated subject. . Ed. Miller, , . Here see Radmacher and Hodges, –, –, and passim. . The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (New York: Oxford University Press, ). Adding words to the text is also done in God’s Word—see Moe, “Review Essay,” –. . Martin, , . For other examples of NIV additions to and deletions from the Greek text, see Green, –. . Ibid.; NIV Study Bible, xi. This is also a problem in God’s Word; see Moe, “Review Essay,” –. . The New International Version Inclusive Language Edition: Women’s Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, ). . New International Reader’s Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, ). The CBT admitted that the NIrV was released “with a Preface which did not explicitly notify parents that genderrelated changes were made in this version” (Susan Olasky, “Bailing Out of the Stealth Bible,” World , no. [June /, ]: ). . Olasky, “Bailing Out of the Stealth Bible,” –. Edward E. Plowman and Susan Olasky, “October Surprise,” World , no. (November , ), –. Piper is quoted in Susan Olasky, “The Battle for the Bible,” World , no. (April , ): . . Martin, . . Ibid., –. God’s Word is another translation that also removes the Bible’s technical terminology. See Moe, “Review Essay,” –. . “Even so, the rendering ‘of the one and only Son’ goes too far” [Ed. Miller, ]. Barker defends the NIV rendering; see Barker, –. . Martin, –. . “However, in very recent years another type of theology [than propositional theology] has gained prominence in our circles . . . this kind of ‘biblical theology’ requires the addition of certain terms to our theological vocabulary; it may require the redefinition and the modification of some of the wonderful systematic terms in our heritage, simply because they have become colorless through long use. Every denomination is facing the question of what to do with the fruits of the biblical research of the past years. Some have in effect accepted them lock, stock, and barrel. No major group, to our knowledge, has turned them down in similar fashion. Honesty compels us to say that until recent years The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod was one of the few major denominations which was in danger of following this course. Now, it seems to us, that the Lord of the church is being particularly good to our body by giving us men who will not let us ignore the newer biblical studies. Men of our church in teaching positions at every institution and in parishes in every District have tasted the fruit of heilsgeschichtliche theology . . . . And so there is confusion, tension, and even strife in our denomination” (Herbert T. Mayer, “Editorial,” Concordia Theological Monthly , no. [February ]: –). . Martin, . . NIV Study Bible, xi. . Martin, , . For some other NIV passages that turn the biblical world into the modern world, see Genesis :; Samuel :; Job :; :; Amos :; Mark :. Compare these NIV renderings with the original Hebrew and Greek texts. . E. D. Hirsch Jr., A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Our Children Need to Know (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, ), . “No one in the English-speaking world can be considered literate without a basic knowledge of the Bible” (E. D. Hirsch Jr., J. F. Kett, and James Trefil, eds., Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, ), , –. The NIV Study Bible, xi. . Cited in David Bayly & Susan Olasky, “Anti-unisex backlash,” World , no. (February , ): . . Robert W. Jenson, “A Call to Faithfulness,” Dialog , no. (Spring ), –. In response to recasting God’s name as “Mother, Lover, Friend” and other variations, Jenson said that “a church ashamed of her God’s name is ashamed of her God.” . “Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language,” –. . Martin, –. Interpretation or commentary rather than translation is also a problem in God’s Word. See Moe, “Review Essay,” –, . . Martin, –; Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, (n.p.: Fleming H. Revell Company, ), –, –, –, , –. See also FC SD Comprehensive Summary (), which refers to the Scriptures as “the pure, clear fountain of Israel.” . Martin, –, . That the reader might be able to examine Martin’s concerns, the twenty-one verses he notes are listed here: Matthew :; John :; John :; John :; Acts :; Romans :; Romans :; Romans :; Corinthians :; Corinthians : ( examples); Corinthians :; Galatians :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; Colossians :; Thessalonians :; Timothy :; Philemon ; Hebrews :; Peter :. . Ibid, . “But it is the translator’s responsibility to reproduce, if possible, the ambiguity of a text, placing the English reader in the same position as the ancient Greek reader. . . . The [NIV] translators here [John :] have usurped the reader’s right to an accurate, even if ambiguous and obscure, rendering of the [Greek] text” [Ed. Miller, ]. . The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, viii–ix. . The Story of the New International Version, ; Martin, , . The verses Martin examines are Matthew :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Mark :; :; :; Luke :; :; :; :; :; John :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; Acts :; Acts :; Romans :; :; :; :; Corinthians :; :; Galatians :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; :; :; Thessalonians :; Timothy :; James :; :; John :. . Martin, . “[B]ut it would not be surprising if the same somewhat ‘free-wheeling’ strain [of translation] were to be found throughout [the NIV]” [Ed. Miller, ]. . Martin, , ; The Holy Bible: New International Version (Colorado Springs, CO: International Bible Society, ), ix. . Martin, . . Ibid. This is also the conclusion of Ed. Miller in his review of the NIV in the Harvard Theological Review [Ed. Miller, ]: “Repeatedly, the NIV indulges in changes from the familiar translations of previous years without any appreciable gain to the reader at all. What is more, these changes often leave the reader worse off than he was before. Weighed in the scales of general accuracy and reliability, much too often the NIV is found wanting” (Radmacher and Hodges, ). “Measured against its own stated goal of accuracy, the NIV fares poorly in some very important prophetic texts” (). . Jakob van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers, ), , . . Susan Olasky, “Femme Fatale,” World (March , ), –; Susan Olasky, “Leave it Just as It Is,” World (May /June , ), ; Doug LeBlanc, “Hands Off My NIV!” Christianity Today (June , ), –, ; CBMW News (June, ), , –; Susan Olasky, “Bailing out of the Stealth Bible,” World (June /, ): –; Edward E. Plowman and Susan Olasky, “October Surprise,” World , no. (November , ): –. . Plowman and Olasky, “October Surprise,” ; “Beyond the NIV,” (April–July ): –; Robert J. Koester, Law and Gospel: Foundation of Lutheran Ministry with Special Reference to the Church Growth Movement (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ); Craig Parton, “The New White-Wine Pietists,” Logia , no. (Epiphany ): –. .Handbook, Article , . . Frederic E. Blume, “The New International Version: First Impressions,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (April, ): –; John C. Jeske, “New International Version Completed,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (October, ): –; John C. Jeske, “New International Version,” Bible Translations: Nine English Versions of the Bible Evaluated (Milwaukee: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, ), –; Ernst H. Wendland, “Exegetical Briefs: Suggested NIV Changes New Testament,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (Winter ): –; Faculty, “Exegetical Briefs: Suggested NIV Changes Old Testament,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (Spring, ): –; John C. Jeske, “Faculty Review of the Revised NIV,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (Spring ): –. . Comparative Study of Bible Translations and Paraphrases: Report of the Bible Versions Committee (St. Louis: Distributed by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS, September, ), –; Forward; . See – for the listing of the passages. These passages, which only come from the Christology section of the Catechism, are Matthew :; John :; John :–; Romans :; Cor. :–; Timothy :. The passages are found on pages , , , , –, and of Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ). . Those passages are listed below with their page numbers in the Catechism: Matthew :– (); Luke : (); John :– (, ); John : (); Acts :, (); Romans : (); Romans : (, ); Romans :– (); Romans : (); Romans : (, ); Romans : (); Corinthians : (–); Corinthians :– (); Corinthians : (, ); Corinthians : (); Galatians : (); Galatians :– (); Galatians :– (, , , ); Ephesians :– (); Ephesians : (, ); Ephesians :– (); Ephesians :– (); Colossians : (); Colossians : (); Hebrews : (); James :– (); Peter : (, ), John :– (). Martin, , , . . Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, , –. Inklings World , no. (May , ), . . Susan Olasky, “There they go again. . . .” World , no. (June , ): , . “Recognizing this need, the Committee on Bible Translation made a decision in that the New International Version should be made available in an inclusive language edition” [NIVI— “Preface to Inclusive Language NIV,” vii]. Susan Olasky, “Life on the Bible Beat,” World , no. (June , ): . . Susan Olasky, “Regendering in Spanish?” World , no. (June , ): . . Martin, . Barker defends the NIV translation, –. . Ibid., , –. See also , –, –, –, . . In the NIV Christ only “appeared in a body.” Radmacher and Hodges said, “It is not improbable that they [Gnostics and Docetists] could have been comfortable with the assertion that Jesus ‘appeared in a body,’ but they would have objected to the thought that He ‘was manifested in the flesh!’” (Radmacher and Hodges, ). . – Concordia Catalog, ; Frederic E. Blume, “The New International Version —First Impressions,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly , no. (April, ): . . Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, . The wording of the NIV and NIVI translation of Acts : (“He [Jesus] must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything.”) attempts to make Scripture teach a real absence of Christ from this world. In the original version this verse tied well with the Reformed mistranslation of John : (see footnote above). For evidence that God’s Word is also heavily influenced by Reformed theology, see Moe, “Review Essay,” . . Harold L. Senkbeil, Sanctification: Christ in Action—Evangelical Challenge and Lutheran Response (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ); Carter Lindberg, The Third Reformation: Charismatic Movements and the Lutheran Tradition (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, ); James Gustafson, Lutherans in Crisis: The Question of Identity in the American Republic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), especially the last chapter entitled “Unfinished Issues Regarding Confessional Identity”; Carter Lindberg, “Pietism and the Church Growth Movement in a Confessional Lutheran Perspective,” Concordia Theological Quarterly , nos. – (April–July ): –; Carter Lindberg, “Church Growth and Confessional Integrity,” Concordia Theological Quarterly , nos. – You donÕt actually expect me to believe all that stuff . . . do you? Does Method Drive Biblical Study? K H j B in contemporary circles, “What is your method?” How means method, the necessary prerequisite to interpretation. Every interpretation is based on a method, or so goes the current consensus; therefore it is best to make one’s method clear before interpretation can effectively take place. The question here is whether it is true that method precedes interpretation, that every interpretation is based on a method, and, therefore, that method drives biblical interpretation.¹ Methodenlehre has been a preoccupation of biblical interpreters for a few centuries, especially in historical-critical circles. It has not always been that way. In fact the church existed quite happily for a good sixteen hundred years or more before the Mword came into prominence. Methodenlehre is important, to be sure, along with other associated disciplines reaching prominence in the nineteenth century, such as hermeneutics and exegesis. My concern is not to challenge the importance of the discussion of method in and of itself. My only concern here is to test the widespread assumptions () that method is prior to interpretation, () that method is clean and clear of philosophical presuppositions, and () that method then is the necessary prior discipline, that is, the prolegomenon upon which are built systems of particular points of view. H IS METHOD PRIOR TO INTERPRETATION? The assumption of contemporary “method-ists” is that method drives practice. They assume that every interpretation of Scripture is governed by a method. And so, in the twentieth century, the discussion of method is carried on up-front, with the assumption that one needs to be clear about one’s method in order to make one’s interpretation clear. The scholars of the Bultmann generation were very proud of announcing that they were open and up-front about methodological presuppositions.² The claim was that all scholars should come out of their closet and declare their method. Is it possible to engage in biblical study without a method? Of course. Biblical scholars for centuries did so—and continue to do so. Not only did Luther not have a hermeneutic, but he also spoke K H, a L contributing editor, is Professor Emeritus of Historical Theology at Marquette University and chief editor of Luther Digest, a publication of the Luther Academy. He resides in Lake Mills, Wisconsin. against the idea of interpreting the Bible. “Interpretation” suggested to him that it was the interpreter who was providing the understanding — that is, the clarity, the importance, and the message. For Luther, Scripture was quite capable of interpreting itself. Much is to be gained in the contemporary discussion of hermeneutics and method for those so interested and so inclined.³ My concern here is the relation of method to interpretation. My objection to the claim that every interpretation employs a method and therefore that method of necessity drives interpretation is that such a claim is reductionistic and deterministic. It is similar to the claim that all language presupposes a philosophy. Whenever it is claimed that “all” something is determined by something else, disciplines become blurred. What is worse, it assumes some neutral beginning point in the human endeavor of understanding that is itself uncaused and is the unmoved mover. Human understanding is complex, and every discipline has something to offer; but to make one discipline, for example, Methodenlehre, the basis of another exceeds the discipline’s capabilities. At best, method drives method, which means it needs to be tested and revised by interpretation, to examine its philosophical and historical presuppositions, and to sustain its own discipline of inquiry without trying to run the world of understanding. Does method drive the practice of biblical interpretation even among the modern practitioners of the historical-critical method? I think not. The rise of the historical-critical method has a history, a fairly long history; and it is not over yet, since the method continues to change. I would argue that the history and changes in the historical-critical method are the result of the fact that method does not always produce perfect or satisfying practice, hence the method needs to be adjusted and revised to accommodate the new results. The new results are not the product of the previous method but of the new method forged in practice. The history of historical-critical methods — and you need more than two hands to count them — means that method evolves with interpretation, which suggests to me that interpretation drives method at least as much as method drives interpretation. New methods arise when old methods do not work. This only confirms what I have observed for years in the practice of interpretation, namely, that method comes as a result of work. I have observed this especially in my own field of historical theology. Method is a posteriori not a priori. In research one tries as many angles and approaches as possible to get to the bottom of the problem, question, or text. Method is forged in the heat of research. What works one time may not work well the next time, hence new results. My experience is that people write their introductions after all the results are in and not before. It is in these introductions where methodological claims of superiority are often made. What bears this out, and it is too embarrassing to mention names, is when a scholar announces in a second book that he rejects the method employed in the previous publication. This is most likely not at all what happened and is off the mark. Two different books entail two different sets of sources, circumstances, problems, and issues, which result in different methods that solved the new venture. The second successful book is the result of new research, not a new method. The new research followed a new course and came up with new results. This is then abstracted for the purpose of an introduction into claims of a new and superior method. Contrary to these claims, the rule seems to be that method follows practice. IS METHOD CLEAR OF PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS? One of the attractive claims of those who insist on the priority of method over interpretation is that, while interpretation can be colored by one’s biases, method is free of bias. This claim is based on the notion that method is an “objective”⁴ science more closely related to the pure science of history, to philosophy and logic, than to the muddied waters of biblical commitments. Method does not dictate results, so it would seem, since results come from interpretation, while method is neutral, historical, and prior to what is actually to be found in Scripture. It is a simple fact that method — as some kind of a neutral starting point — has never driven interpretation. Method is too closely tied in with results, with interpretation that works, to be considered separate and prior to interpretation. The venture of method and interpretation involves a whole complex of research tools, no one of which is necessarily prior to another. In the practice of interpretation, one tries time-honored methods and 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 historical inquiry. Human history does not yield objective pure truth. Only God produces objective pure truth, and history is not God. The pursuit of historical truth, especially the truth of Scripture, involves passion and plenty of it. The idea of scientific neutrality 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. Nineteen hundred years of biblical interpretation show that the study of the Bible, with or without a method, is inextricably coupled with all kinds of theological commitments. What else would you expect when we are dealing with God and his word? How can one be objective and scientific about God? The Bible is certainly not a neutral document. Just as the rise of the historical-critical method has a history, so the discussion of method, namely, Methodenlehre, has a history.⁵ My research indicates that Methodenlehre came into theol- ogy in the sixteenth century from philosophy — more specifically, in the case of Niels Hemmingsen, from logic, and within logic from dialectic. It was a part of the general trend of the time to organize and order one’s discipline, an admirable venture, to be sure. As the quip goes: What is the opposite of organized religion? Disorganized religion. Method came into several disciplines in the sixteenth century as a way of tidying up the mass of information. This was parallel to the discipline of the summa in Aquinas’s generation. Providing order in the discipline did not mean that method must be prior to interpretation. Method seeks to be clear about the via docendi (the way or manner of teaching) — the ancient, classical, and philosophical definition of method — where the logic of interpretation must be laid out. But logic is not a presuppositionless discipline. It has a very long history; just try to sort out the history of medieval logic. I did and was relieved when an expert told me that there was no logic to medieval logic. The point here is that what arises in history is not clean and clear of presuppositions. Method has a history. It is the history of Methodenlehre. My concern here is not to debunk the discipline of method, but only to dethrone it as the necessary prolegomena to the study of the Bible. Order, definition, presupposition, via docendi, and principles of interpretation are all important areas of study, and they are all interrelated. After being accepted in other disciplines, Methodenlehre became a theological question. Likewise in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the disciplines of biblical introduction, biblical theology, and dogmatic theology became separate subjects of theological work and publication. These fields, along with exegesis, hermeneutics, historical theology, and systematic theology all became a part of the plethora of theological inquiry by the end of the nineteenth century.⁶ Each subject had — and continues to have — a history and a place in theological discussion. Each of the disciplines mentioned in this paragraph has a place in the effort to understand Scripture. Whenever it is claimed that “all” something is determined by something else, disciplines become blurred. nb The claims of “method-ists” are simply unrealistic. They cannot possibly deliver on the claims of objective neutrality. The fact that there are a plethora of method-ists should tell you something about objectivity. By saying that a discipline has a history, I mean that it arises in particular historical circumstances with the usual influences of time and space. Method is not presuppositionless. These influences shape its historical development. I dare say that all theological disciplines, including theology itself, arise in humanhistorical circumstances. Only Scripture is God-given and divinely inspired. The point is that until very recently no one theological discipline enjoyed lordship or dominance over all the others. Even so today, many segments of the theological world outside of Western Europe and the U.S. are not dominated by Methodenlehre. A peculiar thing about method — and perhaps one could add hermeneutics and exegesis — is that it is something of an intrusion into theology from the outside. Method in its classical definition of via docendi does not come from Scripture, councils, creeds, or confessions. It is not a part of any of the ordinary and traditional theological subjects from creation to eschatology. It is a philosophical abstraction from the practice of biblical study. 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 God driven by method? Scripture is a faith document. Eschatology in Aristotle is very different from eschatology in 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 message of Scripture. Otherwise it is ripped out of historical context 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 practical considerations. Historically, Methodenlehre is itself a historical discipline. Theoretically, the history and variety of methods — to say nothing about the variety of interpretations — show that method is not neutral or objective, that is, never a static starting point. Practically, the actual exercise of interpretation, which produces variances on methods, shows that method proceeds from interpretation, not the other way around. IS METHOD THE NECESSARY PRIOR DISCIPLINE? To make such a claim, that method dominates or drives interpretation, limits the interpretation to what is consistent with the method. For over thirty years of teaching and researching historical theology and for forty years of observing changes in biblical methods of interpretation, I have come to see what a shackle a method can be. When a professor is an adherent to one method, then the student must pursue research within the confines of that method. In the old days of German theological scholarship, it took a generation of students to go beyond their professor and forge a new corrective to the method. Now these students change methods at will, which only goes to prove that a new method comes as a result of new research, not a new method. When it comes to understanding Scripture, interpretation is in the driver’s seat, not method. To make rules of interpretation the necessary prolegomena to the actual interpretation prejudices the result at the start. Rules are restrictive and delimiting. If you want to talk about method, be realistic. We begin with the text, the Book. We begin with eyes, hands, minds, questions, issues, goals, and yes, deadlines. The task is study and interpretation. How to read the Book? The best way is to start by reading — slowly.⁷ The point is that the scholar begins with a task. Method is far down on the list of priorities. Reading the text is the most ancient of disciplines. It still works. Study drives interpretation. Study brings understanding. Methodus? She might show up during coffee to see how we are doing. Reading and more reading are the only way to read and see. I see nothing wrong with scholars coming along with new results on the basis of new procedures, and then in their introductions or conclusions claiming insight, victory, and nirvana, as far as their method was concerned. What I do find objectionable is the claim that all subsequent research must follow the same procedures or method. When Methodenlehre dominates the history of biblical study prior to the Renaissance, all sorts of distortions occur. nb My own concern about method and Methodenlehre is not just that it has come to dominate modern historical studies — I am thinking specifically of the use of the historical-critical method for the study of the Bible and “social history” for the study of the Reformation — but that it distorts the study of the history of the church prior to the rise of Methodenlehre. To put it bluntly, for three-fourths of the church’s life, method did not exist. And for 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 to have a method is anachronistic. To ask about Augustine’s method is horrible. It turns history upside down. Luther said that the Holy Spirit was a master rhetorician, but not a method-ist. To ask about Augustine’s rules for the study of Scripture is consistent with his document On Christian Doctrine. To ask about Luther’s method — likewise his hermeneutics and exegesis — would make as much sense as to ask about Luther’s inclusive language, racial toleration, multiculturalism, or ethic of cloning. Questions do have their time and place. Method is not a timeless question. When Methodenlehre dominates the history of biblical study prior to the Renaissance, all sorts of distortions occur. Again these distortions are too embarrassing to mention by authors’ names. What I have in mind here is the study of historical figures on the basis of Methodenlehre, where these figures are studied for their “methods” of biblical interpretation. This is usually based on their prefaces or introductory sections to their commentaries (the Argumentum), or methodological-sounding statements made elsewhere. The resulting study claims to portray the history of biblical methodologies. The main flaw is not just that method did not exist, but that the authors’ actual interpretation of Scripture does not seem to follow their stated methods in the Argumenta and elsewhere. A biblical commentator’s actual interpretation — not its methodological justification — is the most important source for the history of biblical study. To put this a little more imaginatively and daringly: to study the Argumenta of historical figures — let us say, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin — and take their methodologicalsounding statements at face value, and then write a history of hermeneutics is utter nonsense. Such authors in the history of biblical interpretation did not assume that “method” was a necessary step prior to interpretation. What they wrote in their prefaces were time-honored claims about literal and spiritual interpretation, without ever thinking that they should follow their “method” in their practice of interpretation. I do not know how else to explain that these historical authors did not practice what they preached in their introductions. In other words, it never occurred to them that method drives interpretation, especially since method did not exist. For historical authors, biblical study drove biblical study. Not only is method not the necessary prior discipline, namely, the prolegomenon, upon which interpretation is built; it never has been so, and it never should be. To make method dominate interpretation exceeds what method is good for. Systems of particular points of view are built not on method but on particular points of view. About the only thing that is built on method is method. Hemmingsen’s work On Methods included a discussion of a method for method. It is easy to imagine where the logic of a method for method leads: more method. Luther’s well-known rules for biblical interpretation — prayer, meditation, and experience — are consistent with the text under investigation and are the kind of prior preparation that yields fruitful results.⁸ Method is abstract, removed from the sacred page. The method-ist seeks a neutral point of entry so as not to prejudice the results. Scripture’s response to neutrality is hardly a point of entry, since God says, “I will spew them out of my mouth.” Scripture rather speaks the language of prayer, song, and meditation. Approached in such a vein, the results are very rewarding. LOGIA NOTES . Author’s meaning of terms: “interpretation” means to understand and explain; “method” means the manner of proceeding; “study” means immersion into the text or reading; Methodenlehre means the question, problem, or topic of method. . Rudolf Bultmann and his immediate students were explicit about theology’s necessary relation to philosophy, which carried over into the post-Bultmannians’ discussion of method as well. . The Ebeling school has done much for promoting the understanding of the Word of God in Luther’s theology via a discussion of the hermeneutics of the young Luther. Hermeneuticians have built on the idea of the power of the text of Scripture for the transmission of understanding. . Author’s meaning of term: “objective” means a static starting point. . See my study “De Exegetica Methodo: Niels Hemmingsen’s De Methodis (),” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed. David Steinmetz, Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, ), –, –. . See my chapter “The History of Scripture in the Church,” in The Bible in the Churches, ed. Kenneth Hagen, rd ed. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, ), –. . I offer seven rules on how to read the Bible to my university students, here abbreviated: () Read it. This rule is important especially for those who think they know a lot of Scripture. The trained theologian is most apt to skip step one, since he has read it all before. () Read it . Since the goal of reading Scripture is not the quantity of con- sumption, it is best read carefully and slowly. If good food takes time, certainly food for the soul takes an abundance of time. () Read it slowly, . We often come to Scripture with many other things on our mind. We are not ordinarily tuned in to the extraordinary. It is better to grasp a little well than to try for too much and miss it all. () Read it slowly, over and over, . Take it as it comes, verse by verse. () Read it slowly, over and over, forwards and . To read backwards means to take the chapter and start with the last verse and take it verse by verse backwards. If you are very familiar with Scripture and are accustomed to reading only forwards, you are likely to skip and jump precisely because you are so familiar with the material. If you also read backwards, it forces you to concentrate more. () Read it slowly, over and over, forwards, backwards, and . The procedure of reading sideways is important because that is how Scripture interprets itself. To read sideways means to read across the terrain of Scripture. It means to check out parallel verses in both Testaments. () Read it slowly, over and over, forwards, backwards, sideways, and, above all, it. St. Augustine says that we are to enjoy God and not to use him. Things are to be used. God is to be enjoyed. Since Scripture is all about God, its proper use is that he should be enjoyed. . Luther’s “rules” are sometimes called the principles of biblical interpretation, which are to be considered before interpretation can fruitfully begin. “Principles of biblical interpretation” are necessary and important to have clear in mind. Whether they must be discussed first before interpretation can take place effectively is another matter. Lutheran Hermeneutics D P. S j the sacraments and preaches the gospel. Church liturgy determines how he administers the sacraments. How he preaches is not predetermined. Within the context of confessional Lutheranism hermeneutics or biblical interpretation is not an autonomous science reserved for the lecture halls, but an art practiced within the church for the purpose of preaching. Often, however, in a perceived inability to interpret the text, the preacher takes refuge in the sermons and outlines of others and so in effect distances himself and his sermons from the Bible. Homiletics and hermeneutics become separate and virtually unrelated disciplines. But sermons are for persuading people and hermeneutics draws meaning out of text. Thus a separation of the two is the road for disaster. A lack of confidence in interpreting the text may come from the false belief that hermeneutics is rigidly bound to one particular method or the application of certain rules. These allegedly objective principles of interpretation take the place of the Scriptures themselves and become a subsidiary dogmatics. They function as judge and jury. Hermeneutics becomes not what the Bible says but what somebody else says. The Bible remains the formal canon, but commentaries, hermeneutical principles, and lecture notes become the functioning canons. Lutheran hermeneutics must avoid these pitfalls. Several perspectives set the boundaries of the hermeneutical task. First, the Scriptures are inspired. This has two ramifications: () They are distinguished from all other literature — including contemporary productions, a distinction that Helmut Koester finds impossible. For him the category of sacred literature does not exist. Our response is that words taken from the secular arena into the sacred take on a new and (for the world) unrecognizable meaning. Studies provided by Kittel are of limited and often no ultimate value. () Verbal inspiration means that the Bible’s words are God’s words. Plenary inspiration means all Scripture serves God’s redemptive purposes and demands our attention. The assessment that one passage of Scripture is to be preferred over another in setting forth these purposes is a subjective judgment. A second perspective for hermeneutics is that the Scriptures have their origin in the church (which includes Old Testament Israel). The Scriptures thus preserve what the church already believed at the E D P. S, a contributing editor for L, is Chairman of Systematic Theology and Professor of Dogmatics and Exegetical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana. time they were written. Scripture did not bring startling new revelations even to its first hearers. So, for example, Paul draws his principle of justification from Genesis: Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. The first hearers of the Gospels knew that Jesus had been crucified and raised from the dead. Hermeneutics, however, is a church activity. Since the Enlightenment, universities have claimed an almost exclusive right of interpretation. Churches deal with faith; university scholars have the hermeneutical privileges. Though findings of the professional scholars who work outside the church are of value, ultimately the right of interpretation belongs to the church in which the Scriptures originated. The Scriptures are the church’s book. The perspective that the biblical texts originated with the Holy Spirit, who creates faith in Christ and took form in the church which confesses Christ requires a thoroughly christological interpretation of the entire Bible and not merely a few isolated or even majority of the texts. The inspiring Spirit proceeds from the Son and was given by the crucified (Jn :) and resurrected Lord to his apostles (Jn :), so the Spirit is as much the Spirit of Jesus as he is the Spirit of God. Zionism, millennialism, all forms of fanaticism, and the Reformed view that the Bible is an ethical codebook all come from a partially or completely non-christological interpretation of the Bible. At the very least, a non-christological reading of the Bible is symptomatic of other, often more serious problems. Hermeneutics precedes homiletics. For the sake of argumentation, let us reverse the order and begin with homiletics and move to interpreting the divinely inspired text. St. Paul described his own proclamation as a preachment of Christ and him crucified. But how did he come to this conclusion? St. Paul’s christological preaching, far from being an alien intrusion into the Old Testament, was derived from a christological hermeneutic of the Old Testament. (An aside: where St. Paul was determined to preach only Christ, some Lutherans have determined to preach St. Paul.) Both Paul and Jesus were convinced that Christ had to die and rise from the dead because the Scriptures required this. In other words, this was a hermeneutical conclusion. Though the New Testament writers do select certain verses or episodes from the Old Testament, the totality of the Scriptures, and not just this or that verse, speak of the necessity of Christ dying and being exalted by God (Mt :). The christological hermeneutic is not an exclusive but inclusive principle. It embraces the entire Bible, not merely some verses to the exclusion of others. Both the Emmaus account and the appearance of Jesus to the disciples make it clear that the entire Old Testament is to be read christologically (Lk :, ). A christological her- meneutic involves the reader or hearer of the Scriptures intimately with the Scriptures as the words connect him with Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Christ was put to death for our sin and raised for our justification. Lutherans recognize this as the source and center of C. F. W. Walther’s understanding that all the Scriptures serve the law and the gospel. So the Scripture has at its first level an historical reference that involves and requires a christological interpretation. Christology is inherent in and intrinsic to the original events or words. The words of the Bible tell about what happened in history, but they also tell us something about Jesus. Moreover, the words of Scripture also involve the Christian who by baptism is included in Christ. So in speaking of Christ, the entire Bible tells us something about ourselves. The Jonah account provides an example. Historically it is the account of a “near-death experience” of a reluc- Without a totally christological hermeneutic the veil of Moses hangs over the eyes of the interpreter. nb tant prophet whom God rescued from the sea: “For thou didst cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was round about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me” (Jonah :). Within the context of Israel’s history Jonah’s story continues the story of God’s deliverance of Israel, especially the deliverance from Egypt by passing through the sea. What God did in making Israel a nation he later did for Jonah. According to Jesus, Jonah’s plight and rescue sets the pattern for his own death and God’s deliverance of him by resurrection (Mt :). All three accounts — deliverance from Egypt, the fish, and the grave — find a focus for the Christian in baptism, which is a dying and rising with Christ, and as such anticipates and actualizes the death of our bodies and resurrection on the last day. The water that drowns us is the means of deliverance. The God who delivered Israel, Jonah, and Jesus delivers us now and will continually deliver us. This christological hermeneutic involves and provides the foundation for the law and gospel motif: the God who kills is the God who resurrects. Only that which is dead can God make alive. Bugenhagen hit the nail on the head when he said that the Psalms have a first referent to the author, then to Christ, and then to us. The christological principle is not one hermeneutical principle among several, but the foundation, goal, purpose, and content of all biblical interpretation. Without it we are left with grammatical rules, disjointed linguistic data, an historical account of an ancient people, and for some, reworked legends and tales about Jesus, or in the case of the Old Testament, an inferior, morally undeveloped religion. Without a totally christological hermeneutic the veil of Moses hangs over the eyes of the interpreter: he really does not see what the Bible is all about because he does not see Christ. This applies to the Jews but in a certain sense to the Reformed. Their hermeneutic is not wrong because it is not Lutheran, but because it is guided by an anti-incarnational and hence anti-sacramental philosophy. The purpose of the Bible for the Reformed is not God coming to the aid of man, but man serving God with holy living. Accordingly sanctification takes the place of Christology as the predetermined goal of hermeneutics. The gospel serves the law, and the focus is not what God has done in Christ but what the Christian can and must do for God. Biblical interpretation is on one side determined by the historical incarnation, incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, and on the other side by the actualization of that incarnation in eucharistic bread and wine. A christological hermeneutic is inherently a sacramental one, because it requires that it express itself in a preaching that invites the hearers to find Jesus in the sacrament of his body and blood. The Gospels were written not that our souls should find 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 themselves require. Robert D. Preus claimed that for Luther “the entire Scriptures were Christocentric in content.” Luther himself said, “Christ is the sum and truth of Scripture.” Or again, “The Scriptures from beginning to end do not reveal anyone beside the Messiah, the Son of God, who should come and through his 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 relationship to Christ or must not be regarded as Scripture.”* The words of Jesus in this matter should suffice; I cite Luther for those who believe that a Luther quotation provides conclusive evidence. The grammatical details, the structure of entire biblical books and their parts, and the original languages of the biblical books will always remain at arm’s length for every pastor and scholar, no matter how learned he thinks he is. Grammatical rules are only approximate explanations of the structure of ancient languages by scholars living much later. Just how certain can we be whether a genitive is an objective or subjective one? Was the original speaker aware of this distinction? Did the category even apply then? A person versed in biblical Hebrew may be less than competent in biblical Greek. A person versed in the epistles of St. Paul may not find the Gospels as accessible. Linguistic knowledge will always remain partial and the principles of interpretation open to revision. Solomon’s prediction of an endless supply of books and St. John’s claim that not all the books in the world could contain all the acts and words of Jesus find some kind of fulfillment in the endless production of commentaries and hermeneutics. The biblical treasure, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, is so vast that no mortal (including the professional scholar) can claim to have exhausted the meaning and techniques of the holy writers. Rather, Christians can be certain that all the Scriptures point to Christ. Not finding Christ throughout the Scriptures suggests that the principles of interpretation are not as rock solid as their practitioners claim. When this happens, there is no other choice but to forsake the paths beaten into our minds by the commentators and teachers so that we may enjoy the christological grandeur of the biblical scenery. God save us from the day when we hear the Scriptures read and do not find Christ in a way in which we did not see him before. LOGIA *Robert Preus, “Luther: Word, Doctrine and Confession,” Lutheran 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 Review Essay Church Growth” (Bill Thompson), “solid theology” (Phil 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 these latter days of the twentieth century” (Gerald Keischnick). This list contains mission executives at the highest level of the church, district presidents, candidates for synodical president, the head of the Pastoral Leadership Institute, professors, and “successful” pastors. Hunter’s theology is the theology of the entire Church Growth Movement within the Lutheran churches today. His theology is a major force within Lutheranism. This theology requires deep and critical analysis, and it requires vigilant response. Hunter’s theological effort fails. Rather than dressing the Church Growth Movement in Lutheran apparel, Hunter presents a theology that is thoroughly un-Lutheran. It is a theology that begins with a two-tiered understanding of the church and then invades every article of faith with this ecclesiology. An Evaluation of Kent Hunter’s Confessions Confessions of a Church Growth Enthusiast: An Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran Takes a Hard Look at the Church Growth Movement. By Kent Hunter. Lima, Ohio: CSS Publishing Company, . Paper. .. h Kent Hunter is a prolific author, speaker, and advocate for the Church Growth Movement, especially among Lutherans. His most recent book, Confessions of a Church Growth Enthusiast: An Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran Takes a Hard Look at the Church Growth Movement, is an apology for the Church Growth Movement in the face of the many criticisms the movement has received of late. It purports to expose these criticisms as “biased,” “uninformed,” “morally and ethically fraudulent” (), and “ridiculous” (). Hunter wants to show that the theology of the Lutheran Confessions is not only compatible with church-growth methodology, but also that true Lutheran confessionalism actually promotes the Church Growth Movement. So he uses Martin Luther, the Lutheran Confessions, C. F. W. Walther, and Francis Pieper, among others, to promote his view of missiology. The idea is worthy. It would be nice for both church-growth advocates and confessional Lutherans if they could find common theological ground. Advocacy of church-growthism, or attempts to defend the movement from a Lutheran perspective, are nothing new. Hunter’s defense is noteworthy on two accounts. First, Confessions presents the clear and consistent theology of the Church Growth Movement. For this we owe Hunter a debt of thanks. Rarely has the theology of the movement been so clearly presented by one of its advocates. Second, Hunter’s theology is not merely his own. Twenty-seven pastors and administrators within the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod endorse the book. They call it a “must read” (John Heins), “the answer” (Robert Scuderi), “a breakthrough and challenge to return to our Reformation roots” (Dale Olson), “a textbook to train pastors” (Dave Anderson), “the expression of my own feelings regarding Two Types of Church: The Pentecostal Connection To Hunter there are two types of churches. The first church is that which gathers. It is a weak church. It needs to be changed. The second church is that which scatters (). This church, to Hunter, is defined in active terms. The church must be doing in order to be the church. The first type is the “traditional” church. The second type of church is the church that has accepted the “mission paradigm” advocated by Hunter and the Church Growth Movement. The traditional church is “passive” and sees itself as “receiving.” It is a “spectator” church where “the word and sacrament are ritualized.” It is a church “turned inward on itself ” (). The “mission” church, on the other hand, is active, involving the “priesthood of all believers” in its ministry (). “The traditionalists are gospel-reductionists — limiting where and how the Gospel can be utilized to reach all peoples” (). But “in spite of all the rhetoric of those who claim ‘confessional purity’ the truth is that Church Growth represents the authentic Reformation evangelical movement of focused Christianity” (). How does a church move from level one to level two? Hunter offers a simply formula: “(D+Rx)HW + PG = Changed church.” This means diagnosis plus prescription times hard work plus the power of God will lead to change in the church. So when the church-growth principles are added to the traditional passive church, it is able to move to the next level of congregational life. Hunter provides the analogy of “the Holy Cross Home Run.” First base is a “Relationship with Jesus.” Second is “Fellowship with other Believers.” Third is “Discipleship in the Local church.” A home run is “Empowered Ministry in Jesus’ Name” (–). Many churches are stuck somewhere between second and third and do not reach the highest level of congregation. A strong resemblance exists between Pentecostalism in its classic form and the Church Growth Movement. Church growth has simply applied to the church that which Pentecostalism applied to the individual. Pentecostalism also postulates a two-tiered Christianity. Some are justified and forgiven but have not experienced the second-level Christianity proposed by Pentecostalism. They are saved but still in the enemy’s war-camp. With the necessary prodding these carnal Christians can be brought to the second level of Christianity. They can experience the baptism of the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit. At this point they become vibrant witnesses for God, their prayer life explodes, and they are able to read the word and receive the sacraments with more focus and power. Not surprisingly then, Hunter dedicates his book to C. Peter Wagner, pioneer of the Church Growth Movement. Wagner’s Look out, the Pentecostals are Coming is an unabashed endorsement of Pentecostal strategies in creating new churches. Hunter’s and Wagner’s contribution to the developing two-tiered theology of Pentecostalism is its application to congregations. Without the “mission paradigm,” says Hunter, churches are traditionalistic and ritualized. In these churches the word and sacraments have not created a “great commission church.” But when these dying churches move to the second level they explode with the power of God. Every criticism that the Lutherans over the centuries have applied to Pentecostalism and to enthusiasm can also be applied to the Church Growth Movement. The only difference is that the application has moved from the individual to the congregation and the church. Lutherans have no such doctrine of the church. The classical Lutheran definition of the church sees no gradations of churches, just as it sees no gradation of individuals within the church. Lutherans, like Luther, define the church as those who gather around the word and sacraments. In Lutheranism the church is always defined in passive terms. “The church is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in it purity and the holy sacraments are administered” (AC ). “Thank God a child of seven years knows what the Church is, namely the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of the their shepherd. Holiness . . . consists in the Word of God and true faith” (SA , ). “I believe that there is upon earth a little holy group and congregation of pure saints under one head, Christ, called together by the Holy Ghost in one faith, . . . I am brought into it and incorporated into it by the Holy Ghost by having heard and continuing to hear the Word of God which is the beginning of entering it” (LC , ). Notice the passive concepts. The church, upon assembling, is preached to and receives. The church listens to the voice of the shepherd. The church is headed by Christ and incorporated by his word. Because the church exists by grace alone its essence is passive. The essence of the church is the word of the gospel, the voice of the Lamb. Now, obviously, Christians also do something. “Faith is a living busy active powerful thing so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing” (FC SD , ). The essence of the church, however, is not in its doing but in its receiving what God has done. We are purely passive in the article of justification. This article defines the church passively. The Central Article of the Faith Lutherans, of course, believe the great commission. Hunter shows that the earliest Lutherans had an urgent sense of mission. But Lutherans do not make Christ’s commission their central article. Lutherans consider the doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God by grace for Christ’s sake through faith as the central article of the faith, the article by which the church stands or falls. Justification “is the chief article in the entire Christian doctrine” (FC SD , ). The article of justification is central because it alone can give true consolation to the sinner. It is also central because it is against this doctrine that all other doctrines must be evaluated (Ap , ). If any other article of faith replaces justification by grace as the chief article, then the entire system of theology will ultimately be corrupted. His two-tiered view of the church forces upon Hunter a different material principle of theology. The article that gives definition to all others is “The Great Commission.” “I believe that God has raised up the modern Church Growth Movement to restore the church to the biblical priorities which He intended” (). “The Great Commission is . . . the primary purpose of the church” (). Hunter relates a brief anecdote in which a couple felt they were failing in their ministry until they “allowed themselves to be the tools in the hands of the Lord who wants to build the church. It was then they began to practice genuine Church Growth. This is the essence of grace” (). This central article has other names. Earlier church-growth practitioners called it “Church Growth eyes.” Hunter speaks of “thinking like a missionary” (, ). Elsewhere and throughout he speaks of a “paradigm shift” or a “mission paradigm” in which the church learns to think in new ways in order to “let God take control of his church” (). To Hunter, the primary purpose of the church is to grow. It is no wonder that Hunter can offer his book “In memory of Martin Luther and Donald McGavran, heroes of the Christian Reformation in theology and practice” (). Hunter believes that the emergence of the Church Growth Movement in these latter days is as important as the Reformation. This is a small wonder. He has replaced justification by grace with the great commission as the central article. This replacement is clearly evident from Hunter’s polemics. The exclusive target of Hunter’s frequent invective is “traditionalists.” Church Growth has helped me and many others rediscover the genius of the Lutheran protestant Reformation. The power of the Reformation was expressed by our forefathers in the commitment to say, in so many words, “Up with grace, down with tradition.” Their attitude was, “If it is useful and helpful, keep it; if it is not, change it” (). The church-growth paradigm shift, claims Hunter, “is a major change for people trained in systematic theology, especially traditionalists who come from a world perspective of the Reformation” (). Hunter’s novel historical revisionism views the Reformation not as a response to the works-righteous Roman Catholic theology of Luther’s day, but to outdated traditions. See how easy it is to practice salvation by works? To make traditional forms more important than a commitment to gracedriven communication is to depart from the evangelical heritage of the Reformation. Church Growth is not the enemy but the advocate for the essence of what it means to believe in God’s grace. (, emphasis Hunter’s) The difference between Lutheranism and the Church Growth Movement is clear. The Lutheran reformation was based on the doctrine of justification, not on the “great commission.” For example, Melanchthon condemns the use of the rosary because the Roman church taught that merit was earned through it. His evaluation was based on the surpassing value of the merits of Christ (AC , ). In contrast, Hunter cautions against pointing “a finger at the Roman Catholics, who say the Rosary or Hail Mary in repetitious fashion, without recognizing that any worship ritual can become rote and meaningless” (). Both Lutherans and the Church Growth Movement oppose rosaries and the Hail Mary, but for different reasons. These reasons reflect the central teaching of each. To Lutherans all changes in worship forms were intended to serve the gospel of justification by grace alone. Forms were rejected if they violated the doctrine of justification (AC , ); otherwise they should not be the occasion for controversy and were retained by the Lutherans (AC , ). Not so with Hunter; to him traditions are measured differently. “The litmus test for whether or not the local congregation should keep a tradition or not is this: Does it help or hinder the church in fulfilling its mission?” (, emphasis Hunter’s). Christology Corruption falls upon Hunter’s system of theology in virtually every article. His new paradigm forces a Reformed, almost Gnostic view of Christ upon his theology. According to Hunter the cross of Christ has two sides, “the suffering side and the mission side of the cross” (). How do these “two sides of the cross” explain the person of Christ? Jesus, through His death on the cross, moves from the limitation (self-imposed) of being in human form. As God in man (the incarnation), Jesus was limited in His presence. He could only be in one place at one time and impact only those few around Him at that particular moment. However, through the cross event, God’s plan of salvation moves to the Spirit at Pentecost (). So who is Jesus? He is God in man who is not capable of omnipresence, a singularly Reformed view that makes the bodily presence in the sacrament an impossibility, as every good Calvinist would assert. Jesus also, it seems, is either still limited or no longer a man. A ministry or mission of Christ can be a mission about Christ according to the church-growth paradigm. But it could never be a ministry in which the man Christ Jesus acts today. Yet, according to Hunter, this is all right, because the Holy Spirit compensates by taking over and applying the “mission side 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 longer speaking the message. It is not the incarnate God who still feeds us, washes us, and speaks to us today. “The Spirit is the bridge between the suffering side of the cross and the mission side of the Cross” (). This is more than a mere confusion of the incarnation and the humiliation. This statement is a radical redefinition of the cross. Hunter calls himself a confessional Lutheran, thus implying that he subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions. What do these Confessions say about the two natures in Christ? We believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to right hand of the almighty majesty . . . because He was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother’s womb. . . . This Majesty He always had (FC SD , –). “We reject . . . That because of the property of the human nature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the same time in more than one place, much less everywhere, with His body (FC SD , ). Why does Hunter so clearly and easily contradict the very Confessions that he purports to defend? Because his central teaching forces him to do so. His radical redefinition of the cross is necessitated by his two-tiered concept of the church. As there are two types of church so even the cross has to have two sides. He is forced to define the cross in terms of the great commission rather than the great commission in terms of the cross. No longer does the cross inform us that disciples are made by baptizing into the death of Christ and teaching the doctrine of the blood atonement. Rather, the great commission informs us that “we are in partnership with God” (), because of “the multiplication that comes about through His death and resurrection. It moves the mission of God from the one (Jesus) to the many (His disciples)” (). The suffering and death of Jesus serve the great commission. And that is the essence of the Church Growth Movement. What is incarnational ministry to Hunter? “The desire to let the Gospel get through to the target audience with the least amount of resistance is nothing other than the desire for incarnational ministry” (). What is the humiliation of Christ? Jesus emptied Himself. He stripped away all of His heavenly culture in order to meet human beings where they are. He did away with all the things that were comfortable for Him, putting His target audience at such an important priority that He literally emptied Himself of those things that were comfortable for Him. Of course He didn’t empty Himself in the sense of denying His values or the essentials of the theological issues connected with the mission of God. But He emptied Himself of everything else because he had a purpose in mind (). Observe how the atonement language of Scripture is transformed into the church-growth language of Hunter. Hunter is not merely offering a transliteration of Philippians that will inspire people to make sacrifices for the sake of the gospel. He is articulating the reason for the death of Christ. The great commission has replaced justification as the central article. The Means Of Grace The faulty theology trickles down into other articles of the faith. Hunter’s understanding of the means of grace is creative if flawed. He, happily, acknowledges that the word and sacraments are the means of grace. Yet Hunter also makes a subtle but telling distinction between the word and the sacrament on the one hand and the great commission on the other. “Church Growth advocates are concerned with the purity of the Gospel and, from the Lutheran perspective, the means of grace, but these are not an end in themselves. They are a means to a greater end, sharing the Gospel” (). The notion seems to be that there is a difference between “word and sacrament” and “sharing the Gospel.” Hunter is not just sloppy in his talk. Again he writes: “There are those, however, who will emphasize the power of God at work through Word and Sacrament, to the exclusion of the human element” (). It is unfortunate that some would describe the mission of the church as proclaiming the Word and administering the Sacraments. While there is nothing intrinsically in error about this statement, the implication is that the church holds the means of salvation and that people ought to come to the church (). Hunter, apparently, does not see the word and sacraments as themselves containing the “human element.” To him, the means are the divine element to which the human is added, forming a partnership (). This is a type of word-and-sacrament Nestorianism in which the human and divine sides of the means are separated. It is as though the means of grace were purely divine. Then they are placed into the hands of people who have accepted the “Church Growth paradigm” and who “think like missionaries.” Once this human element has been added to the gospel, the means have become incarnational. “The means of grace are given to a dynamic group of people who are sent to the world . . . . The church is only gathered to be scattered” (). The use of the word “dynamic” gives the Lutheran theologian pause. Does God need “dynamic” people to spread his forgiveness? Can he use ordinary, hapless, unimaginative, sinful people like me? Or must I be dynamic? Can he work through “clay vessels?” Can he work through “things that are not?” Can the word do it all while Luther drinks Wittenberg beer with Philip and Amsdorf? Hunter apparently says, “No!” Admittedly Hunter is concerned that “The Word is the power unto salvation, but the Word must be preached. It must be shared. The Sacrament, in all its power, is powerless for the salvation of human beings without distribution” (). He deplores those who limit the power of the gospel to the “worship service setting” (). These are praiseworthy concerns, although it is difficult to understand how one could refer to the sacrament “without distribution.” The sacrament is no sacrament without distribution. Still, Hunter’s theology is flawed. The Calvinistic dualism so apparent in Hunter’s christology appears again. Why? Because he has lost the corrective of the cross. The article of justification no longer dominates. His two-tiered ecclesiology coupled with his notion of the great commission have defined the word and sacrament rather than letting these divine-human means of grace stand as vehicles of the salvation of Christ. Even when the means are spoken as having a salvific force there is still a nasty dualism present. For example, Hunter extols baptism. Baptism, then, is not only a sacrament of salvation, but it is the Church’s entrance into Christ’s body, the living organism of the church. Jesus’ baptism was the inaugural event for His public ministry. Likewise, then, for the Christian, baptism is the commissioning of one’s place in God’s Great commission (). To Hunter there seems to be a difference between salvation and entrance into Christ’s body. This difference is explained when we apply his two-level understanding of church life. The one level of baptism is salvation. The second level is the great commission level. Just as the cross “has two sides,” so baptism has two sides. What really are the means of grace for Hunter? How can the church make sure that it is adding the proper power to the word and sacraments? According to Hunter, Luther defined the church by the word and sacrament because he was searching for the essentials. It was a time in which the Protestants [sic] were told they were not the church. They were defending themselves (). Now we must go forward. Beyond what the church is by definition, Hunter tells us what the Church Growth Movement would have the church do. The primary purpose of the church is to make disciples according to the great commission. It is to share the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ name. To be witnesses to the ends of the earth. There are many means toward accomplishing that end. One is to maintain a clear confession of faith. Another is to help people discover their spiritual gifts. Another is to equip people for the work of the ministry. Another is to provide worship services in the heart language of the people you are trying to reach. Another is meeting the felt needs of people in your community. All of these and many more are means to the greater end, which reflects the primary purpose of the church (). What really is the primary means of grace? It is the Church Growth Movement itself. That is why Hunter can warn that “a congregation that does not take on a mission posture within the next years will be nonexistent in . . . years” (). What are the means of grace? The answer is “a mission posture.” One of Luther’s most significant contributions to theology, built upon his doctrine of justification, is his understanding of the inherent power of the gospel. The gospel does not become powerful when and if something is added. It is powerful always because Jesus is both its content and its administrator. Every false teaching can be evaluated and described in terms of what that false teaching tries to add to the gospel to make it work. The word becomes powerful when it is preached by a spiritfilled preacher or when the message is “anointed” by the spirit (Wesleyanism, Holiness Movements, Pentecostalism). The word becomes powerful when the sovereign God wills it or when preached to the elect (Calvinism). The word becomes powerful when placed into the teaching office (Romanism.) The word becomes powerful when combined with the willing heart (Arminianism). The word becomes powerful when the “meaning of the words,” combines with the “power with which these words are spoken,” and the “existential reception of the content” and the “correlation of these” into a “constellation in which the words become the Word” (Paul Tillich). The word becomes powerful in an “I/thou encounter” (Barth). The word becomes powerful “when we get out of God’s way,” or when placed into the hands of a church that has accepted the “mission paradigm” or “thinks like a missionary,” or that has become a “great commission church” (Hunter and the Church Growth Movement). To Luther, and we might add, to the Holy Spirit, the word is powerful because in it Jesus speaks and forgives. “At whatever hour, then, God’s word is taught, preached, heard, read or meditated upon, there the person, day and work are sanctified thereby, . . . because of the Word which makes saints of us all” (LC , ). Hunter’s bad theology of the means of grace, not surprisingly, leads him into synergism. Whenever the inherent power of the word is questioned, then people substitute for it “their own preparations and works” (AC ). And what are the preparations and works of the Church Growth Movement? In the speaker it is the development of the “mission paradigm.” In the hearer it is “receptivity.” Church growth advocates even identify unchurched people as being in certain stages of receptivity. . . . They clearly adhere to the truth that while the Holy Spirit is the one who brings a person to faith, the receptivity of the person can be stronger or weaker at any particular point (). Contrast this with the words of the Formula of Concord: in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable by their own natural power to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything. Before regeneration there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God’s grace (FC SD , ). It is difficult to find within these words or between these lines any notion of receptivity. Why does Hunter use such synergistic language? Certainly he must know that his position is condemned by the Lutheran Confessions, which he claims to defend. He speaks this way because his system cannot accept the “where and when it pleases God” of Article of the Augsburg Confession. When faced with the unanswerable question “Why some and not others?” the Lutheran has learned to answer, “Don’t ask.” If you do answer, you will become either a Calvinist or a synergist. We simply say that faith is engendered “where and when God wills” (AC V). But Hunter asks and he answers. Some are saved because they are more receptive. Some are saved because they are reached by a church that “has moved to the mission side of the cross.” Some are saved because they are brought into a church that does more than preach the word purely and administer the sacraments rightly. Some are saved because “the communication path [has taken] the form of country-western culture, including country-western songs with Christian content” (). Some are saved because the pastor, recognizing the “blue collar lifestyle” of a group within the community, moved the service to the gym, changed it to a contemporary service, expected casual attire, and stressed the less formal aspects of the worship service (). Hunter speaks synergistically because if he did not he would have to reject one of the basic principles of the Church Growth Movement, namely, that the gospel needs the Church Growth Movement or churches will die. The Church’s Unity As the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit is the unifying principle of Pentecostalism, so the doctrine of “the mission paradigm” is the central and unifying principle of the Church Growth Movement. This is why Hunter can link Martin Luther and Donald McGavern as if the two share a common theological bond. Hunter also links Luther with Calvin and Wesley. “Anyone who reads the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, or any of the other reformers, quickly sees that they are concerned . . . with the deep theological issues of the Reformation” (). Wesley lived over two hundred years after Luther and explicitly denied justification by grace through faith. But Hunter is able to link him with Luther. Why? Because, allegedly, they both believed in Church Growth. Disunity is not the result of doctrinal differences to Hunter, but of a denial of his version of the great commission, such as traditionalists are wont to do. Hunter also has a tendency to minimize or disparage any type of unity of doctrine within the church. For example, Hunter praises the work of Robert Schuller, defending his Bible studies: “One is quickly immersed in a thorough, long term learning process which moves into the whole counsel of God.” But what of Schuller’s doctrine? “While one might not agree with all of the doctrinal content [of Schuller’s Bible study], depending on denominational perspective, it is easy to realize that proper attention is given to the depth of God’s teaching.” So Hunter can disagree with Schuller but also praise him for teaching the “whole counsel of God.” Hunter can refer to the Lutheran Church as “my denomination” () or a “branch of Christians” (). By doing so he minimizes all theological differences between the various churches. Nowhere do the Lutheran Confessions refer to the followers of Luther as “a denomination” or a “branch of Christianity.” The authors of the Formula of Concord were “willing, by God’s grace to stand with intrepid hearts before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ and give and account of [their doctrine] and neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it” (FC SD , ). Is it even conceivable that these men would have risked life limb and staked eternal salvation on a “branch of Christianity”? But Hunter goes further. He claims that public debate of doctrinal disagreement is wrong, embarrassing, and harmful. He likens various church leaders to “generals” who “don’t all agree 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 view, . . . that different doctrine, . . . that different emphasis, . . . that different style of worship,” we should not “‘go public’ with disagreements before the foot soldiers.” This “confuses, divides and hands the victory to the enemy, whose strategy is to divide and conquer” (, ). Such extreme doctrinal indifference certainly is not confessional. The first Lutherans condemned, rejected, and warned against every false doctrine that robbed Christ of his glory. Why is Hunter so indifferent to false doctrine? Because his “church-growth paradigm” is more important and more unifying than “agreement in the doctrine and all its articles, and the right use of the holy Sacraments” (FC Ep. , ). The Office of the Ministry To Hunter the job of pastors is neither to preach the gospel nor administer the sacraments. While such an understanding of the ministry would further the notion of justification by grace, the great commission requires something more. In the churchgrowth paradigm, for a congregation to move from the first level to the higher level it must activate the “priesthood of all believers.” So, to Hunter, the task of church leaders is nothing more than to activate the people of the church to carry out the “great commission.” The job of a pastor is to “cast a vision” (), or to “serve as inspirer” (), so that the people can be ministers. To Hunter God has established the “office of ministry” for the sake of order. “Someone is provided to be an equipper, trainer and encourager” (). Hunter contends that God “has a lot to say about the function of ministry, . . . and less to say on the office of ministry” (). The cleavage between office and function is a reflection of the two-tiered understanding of the church. Those churches in which the office of the ministry performs its functions have “an institutionally-centered view of mission [which] is totally contrary” () to God’s will. Rather, pastors (Hunter usually refers to them as church workers or leaders) are to “liberate the energies of the people, inspire confidence, and arouse enthusiasm” (). Once that happens the “great commission” is attained. Who then are the ones who actually minister the gospel to Christ’s sheep? The ministry or pastoring is not done by a special person, but is the work of God’s people. The word “pastor” is related to the idea of shepherding or caring for another person. The word for “ministry” is similar to the concept of service to other people. Since these are both spiritual gifts they are distributed by the Holy Spirit to all sorts of members of the church, both men and women. There is no biblical argument against anyone who is a Christian being involved in ministry or in acts of pastoral care in the technical sense (). Certainly this idea of the ministry affects the pastor’s job description. For example, although Hunter mentions the office of the keys at least eight times, nowhere does he indicate that the pastor has any responsibility in administering the office of the keys. Rather, the head of the church does not exist without the body. Jesus Christ has chosen to attach Himself to the body and make Himself known through believers in the world. And He has entrusted to them the means of grace and the Office of the Keys (). The keys, then, are not speaking the gospel in the place of Jesus. Rather, they are keeping the head alive by making him known. To Hunter, “equipping soul savers” is far preferable than “saving souls” (). The church gathers, not for its minister to forgive sins, but “the church in its gathered state is a staging ground, an equipping area to prepare God’s people for the real work of ministry” (). Hunter’s interpretation of certain biblical passages is especially telling. He refers to Ephesians :– often, and understands it to mean that God has given apostles, prophets, and pastors “to equip saints so that they can do the work of the ministry” (). Second Corinthians : is applied not to pastors as stewards of God’s mysteries, but to all Christians (). When Paul in Romans asks how people can hear unless someone is sent (), and when John recounts Christ’s sending his ministers in John (), these, to Hunter, refer to all Christians, and not specifically or in any way to pastors. In fact, to Hunter there seems to be no indication anywhere in the scripture that God has established an office of the ministry and appointed men to it, nor does Hunter’s theology need an office of the ministry. The Lutheran Confessions, of course, hold to quite a different view. Clearly the keys are given to the whole Christian church of saints, as Melanchthon asserts strongly in the treatise (Tr ). Just as clearly, God through the church appoints men to be ministers of these keys to the church. These ministers are not appointed to inspire, energize, or motivate others, much less to cast visions. Rather, “on account of the call of the church, they represent the person of Christ and not their own persons” (Ap , ). “The Church has the command to appoint ministers” so that she can hear the voice of her Lord. “For we know that God approves this ministry and is present in it. It is good to extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise” (Ap , ). The ministry spoken of in the Augsburg Confession is not “every man a minister” (), as Hunter avers, but the ordained ministry. Further, the purpose of called and ordained ministers according to AC is “so that we may obtain this faith” by the preaching of the gospel and administering of the sacraments. Why does Hunter promote a doctrine of the ministry so different than the view presented by the Augsburg Confession? His two-tiered doctrine of the church demands it. What if a church has a minister of the gospel who feeds the sheep with word and sacrament, and yet church-growth diagnosticians determine that the congregation is not “thinking like a missionary?” A confessional Lutheran would still joyfully praise the Lord for his abundant grace and gifts since these are bestowed through the office of the ministry. But a church-growth diagnostician would have to assert that the church is ill or lacking some fundamental blessing. When the “functions” of the ministry are taken from the called servant of Christ and placed into the hands of all Christians, then the theological system is forced to redefine pastors as cheerleaders or visionaries. Conclusion The Church Growth Movement is a broad and seemingly amorphous thing. Ostensibly, it advocates, among other things, sensitivity to people, an understanding of them and their needs. It challenges the church to reach out for the lost. It pleads that Christians share their faith and their Lord with others. It exhorts the church “to work toward the building of God’s kingdom” and “to lift high the cross” (). What Christian could possibly oppose these things? Who could gainsay a holy repetition of Pentecost with thousands and thousands of sinners being brought into the kingdom through the great commission? In fact, these sincere desires are felt and have been felt by all Christians since the time of Jesus. These sentiments are neither new nor unique. Christ through his church was saving people long before there was a Donald McGavern, a Fuller Theological Seminary, a Kent Hunter, or a Church Growth Movement. The Church Growth Movement’s unique and identifying feature is not its zeal for the lost, but its theology. Kent Hunter’s chief article of faith is “the mission paradigm.” For him, those churches that do not use this paradigm are simply not pleasing to God. His ecclesiology is Pentecostalism gone corporate. “Mission paradigm” churches are those that do not limit themselves to the “suffering” side of the cross but that bridge over it to the mission side. In these churches the word and sacraments then lead to the “great commission.” Such churches experience “the essence of grace” when they rid themselves of empty traditions and break down cultural barriers of those who are receptive to God. In “missionary-thinking” churches, the clergy inspire and encourage while the ministers, that is, all Christians, take up the vocation of pastor. Unity in the Church Growth Movement is based not on a common confession of the doctrine of the gospel, but on a common acceptance of the church-growth paradigm. All articles of faith are measured against the movement’s understanding of the “great commission.” Hunter’s theology is consistent. It is widespread, as witnessed by its many endorsements. It is the theology of the Church Growth Movement and its advocates. But it is a theology that deviates from confessional Lutheranism at virtually every turn. Klemet Preus Glory of Christ Lutheran Church Plymouth, Minnesota Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. By Bernhard Lohse. Translated and edited by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, . Hardcover. pages. Students of Martin Luther and the Reformation have benefited h greatly over the years from the efforts of Fortress Press to produce English translations of some of the more important works coming from Germany. The last of three volumes on Luther by Martin Brecht was published in English translation by Fortress in , providing a definitive biographical study for modern Luther studies. A new translation of the Book of Concord has just been published in . Also among these vital books for every Lutheran pastor’s study is this work by one of the greatest German Luther scholars of the later twentieth century, Bernhard Lohse, which appeared in its German original in as Luthers theologie in ihrer historischen Entwicklung und in irem systematischen Zusanunenhang. Lohse’s study provides something not attempted since Julius Köstlin’s Theology of Luther in : an analysis of Luther’s theology both in terms of its historical development and its systematic context. Such a study has long been vitally needed. Luther studies have been plagued by systematic analyses wherein the interpreter’s theology comes through perhaps more clearly than Luther’s in his own historical context. As Lohse states about many recent Luther studies in an introductory chapter, “lines of convergence with the theological and political history of the [author’s] time can easily be drawn” (). Lohse’s historical approach begins in part with an analysis of the theological and ecclesiastical situations on the eve of the Reformation. An analysis of Luther’s own development in part , set against this background, enables the reader to follow Lohse through a careful study of when and how Luther’s distinctive impulses emerged over against both his medieval background and his conflicts with Rome and the emerging left-wing movements of the sixteenth century. Through this historical approach Lohse avoids the pitfalls of focusing too strongly on decisive moments and instead looks at Luther’s whole career as a theologian. Lohse’s analysis of Luther’s “reformation discovery,” for example, skillfully charts a course that declines to endorse either the view which emerged from the Luther renaissance initiated by Karl Holl, namely, that Luther’s Reformation theology is already clear in Luther’s earliest lectures on the Psalms (–), or the view argued since the s that Luther did not have his “tower experience” discovery of the justifying righteousness of God until late in or even . Lohse shows, rather, that the Reformation theology of justification by faith was emerging throughout this period. Definable points of development and clear indication in the sources demonstrate that the issue is a complex and not a simple one. God’s passive righteousness is already known by Luther in , yet the vital concept of the certainty of salvation emerges only later. Throughout part , Lohse brings such clarifying and precise developments in Luther’s theology to the fore. A systematic treatment is helpful for the reader seeking to research a particular locus in Luther’s theology. Lohse provides 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 through his early lectures, his attack on indulgences, the crisis of his dispute with Rome, and through his later disputes with radical tendencies, with Erasmus, with Zwingli, and with the Antinomians. Or one can simply look in part for subjects of interest and be directed by references, in many cases, to sections treated in their historical development. Of particular interest to Lutheran pastors are Lohse’s balanced and erudite treatments of sola scriptura, of law and gospel (with sections on Luther’s understanding of the law’s twofold use as well as a treatment of the third use of the law in Lutheran theology), of the two kingdoms, and of eschatology, including Lohse’s clear statement that there is it no doubt that Luther held to the “immortality of the soul,” even while he acknowledges Luther’s use of phrases teaching “soul sleep” (). Lohse wisely relegates treatment of Luther’s unfortunate statements concerning the Jews to an excursus, for they are, as Lohse notes, “a marginal theological issue, not at all part of the central themes” (xi). This English edition by Fortress Press has its strengths but also its significant flaws. Helpful are the inclusion of the Latin and German texts in the footnotes, with English translations cited from the American Edition of Luther’s Works and references listed to the Weimarer Ausgabe. Usually the title and date of the specific treatise is also noted, though sometimes incorrectly, for example, where the date of the Bondage of the Will is given as (), and AE is incorrectly cited as AE (). The book thus provides something absolutely essential: entrance into Luther’s own writings. One could spend a lifetime of research in Luther’s life and thought with this book as the key. On the other hand, Fortress has failed to provide an accurate edition. Typographical errors are not infrequent. Dates are sometimes wrong. In one case, a crucial negative (nicht) is absent in the translation (); on page there is almost a whole paragraph transposed from page that makes the paragraph unintelligible. The result of such extensive errors is that a beautifully designed and nicely bound book is nevertheless seriously flawed. It is to be hoped that Fortress Press will issue a page of errata and invest the time and expense necessary to produce a much improved subsequent printing. A page listing abbreviations should also be supplied. In the present edition, you need to have access to Siegfried Schwertner, Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, ) in order to decipher the abbreviations! Such disappointments do not cloud my overall enthusiastic endorsement for this important book for English readers. Lohse’s work surpasses all other studies. It provides most helpful guidance into Luther’s own writings, so many of which are also available in English. His historical approach is a desperately needed corrective to systematic studies that have simply distorted much of Luther’s theology. Every Lutheran pastor should purchase this book and use it as a tool for understanding the reformer who brought the gospel back to a church that had corrupted it, whose theology, grounded in Holy Scripture, is a desperately needed light for our own day. John Arthur Maxfield Ph.D. Candidate, Princeton Theological Seminary Director, Luther Academy “The Way to Heavens Doore”: An Introduction to Liturgical Process and Musical Style. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By Steven Plank. Edited by Robin Leaver. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., . Hardcover. pages. This second in a series of Studies in Liturgical Musicology h focuses on text-painting in the liturgy. Series editor Robin Leaver notes that the frequent divorce between liturgy and music allows musicians to concentrate solely on the ‘performing’ aspects of worship without troubling themselves with understanding the theological principles and liturgical imperatives of worship. Similarly, it allows clergy to assume that they have no need to understand the musical aspects of worship, expect for music’s basic propaganda value (ix). The purpose of this volume is “to raise some of the issues and then to invite and encourage the reader to make further studies into the relationship between music and its functions within specific liturgical forms” (x). The intriguing title of the book is derived from a poem by the English poet and cleric George Herbert (–), who described church music as “the way to heavens doore.” In surveying the close relationship between liturgy and music, Plank writes primarily for two groups: “music history students who seek a contextual understanding of their subject, and practitioners of church music who look to explore broader aspects of their vocation” (xi). Plank teaches musicology and early music at Oberlin College in Ohio and is also an active church musician. He combines his knowledge of both fields into six chapters: “Liturgy and Music,” “Time and Text,” “The Daily Office,” “The Mass,” “Liturgical Music as Homily,” and a very brief “Coda” as chapter . “Liturgy and Music” draws musicians and theologians together in the context of the historic liturgy. “Time and Text” explains the Christian church year as sacred time with sacred words. “The Daily Office” and “The Mass” offer a layman’s overview of the mass and its offices along with their rituals and music. “Liturgical Music as Homily” provides a look at the English anthem and the Lutheran cantata as two examples of liturgical music with a homiletical purpose. The highlight of Plank’s work for Lutheran readers will certainly be his overview of Bach’s cantatas as liturgical music for the sake of preaching the gospel. Plank notes that the cantata is based on the Scripture lessons for the day and functions as a sung sermon (). Plank passes the vital litmus test of knowing that Bach was not a Pietist and cites excellent sources on Bach and Pietism by Robin Leaver. The author analyzes the text painting in BWV /, /, and /. Editor Robin Leaver may deserve most of the credit for this section, but it is a welcome alternative to the plethora of Bach material that assumes Bach was in fact a Pietist. The other strength of Plank’s book is his knowledge of tune and text, music and theology. Unlike many musical sources that ignore the text and theological resources that ignore the music, Plank is conscious of the reciprocal relationship between the two fields. According to Plank, the question is “not what musical style(s) is traditionally associated with particular liturgical texts, but rather what liturgical process is active and how does a particular musical style function within that process” (–). For example, Plank notes that the omission of the Gloria during Advent and Lent “demonstrates again the way music colors the context” (). The weakness of addressing a church issue in a secular university setting is the need for theological resources that will find acceptance in the postmodern university. Plank succeeds in Bach studies, as noted above. His sources for the work as a whole, however, are mixed. His three primary referents are James McKinnon’s Music in Early Christian Literature, Joseph Jungmann’s The Mass of the Roman Rite, and Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy. McKinnon’s work is a book of primary readings and can hardly go astray. Jungmann, of course, writes from a uniquely Roman Catholic perspective. Gregory Dix is popular for promulgating the four-part scheme for celebrating the Lord’s Supper (Lutheran Book of Worship), contra the Lutheran three-part plan (The Lutheran Hymnal, Lutheran Worship, Christian Worship, Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary). In the final analysis Plank successfully introduces music history students to the liturgy. Yet he offers very little to our confession that is not already available in Lutheran Worship: History and Practice; Commentary on The Lutheran Book of Worship; Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical; and Christian Worship Manual. Even from the perspective of music history students, his brief tour of the mass and daily office is easily trumped by the much more detailed and readable account in Jeremy Yudkin’s Music in Medieval Europe. We must study and digest the vital topics in liturgical process and musical style. But we will study the issues through the filter of Wittenburg, not Rome or Canterbury. Brian J. Hamer Christ The King Lutheran Church Riverview, Florida A Theology of Music for Worship Derived from the Book of Revelation. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By Thomas Allen Seel. Edited by Robin Leaver. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., . Hardcover. pages. Thomas Seel introduces the third volume of this series by h noting the reciprocal relationship between theology and music: “When the two become separated, music in worship becomes () entertainment, () music to set the mood, and/or () an ‘aural lubricant’ which serves as a transition between other parts of the service” (). With this promising preface, Seel seeks to show “that the writer of the Apocalypse used the breadth of his multicultured life experiences to portray the fulness of the vision he received from the Godhead” (). Seel notes that Revelation is not a collection of unrelated visions and music, but “the music provides the basis of a well conceived theology of music in worship. The thesis of this study breaks new ground and has not been addressed directly in any other study to date” (). After a lengthy introduction to his theological and musical moorings, Seel attempts to break this “new ground” by exploring the origin and use of “pray” (proskuneo) in Revelation, the musical forms in Revelation, performing groups, performance practice, a theology of music for worship, and implications for today’s church musicians. The denouement of his study is a list of ten characteristics of music in worship from the Book of Revelation: . A continuum of vocal sound ranges from declamatory speech to sung word as revelation and response mechanisms. . A mandate exists for the saints to continue the Imago Dei process by creatively composing new songs of praise. . Instrumental accompaniments (specifically, timbres that blend with the human voice) are used to aid in the vocal response to the Godhead. . Instrumental heralding (specifically, the trumpet call) is used to announce the revelation of the Godhead. . The exhibition of emotion in the performance of the music exists owing to the use of a variety of Greek verbs such as say, sing, rejoice, cry, and a variety of sounds from nature. . The postures for the performance of music in worship involve more than just sitting and standing. . The music of worship includes the use of the sounds of nature from all creation, both animate and inanimate. . A sense of unity (koinonia) is perceived via the dynamics of antiphonal and responsorial response by the various groups. . Old worship (proskuneo), motivated by reverential fear having a vertical master-to-slave nature, merges with a new worship (proskuneo), motivated by love having a horizontal host–to-guest nature. Theology becomes doxology as the solemn act of worship. . Music dramatically involves all the senses of humanity and all the collective resources available in all Creation (–). 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, who has earned a reputation as a closet Lutheran, informs (warns?) us in the Editor’s Foreword, “[The book’s] respectful biblicism reflects the evangelical perspectives of the author and of the seminary for which the dissertation was written” (v). The author approaches Revelation (and all of Scripture) as a “showme-a-passage” book of detailed rubrics for church music, instead of a book of the revelation of God in Christ to be read aloud and preached in Christian worship. With the absence of a how-to manual for church music dropping out of heaven after Pentecost, Seel forces the Apocalypse into such a mold and thwarts the nature and function of holy scripture. He finds in Revelation the precedent for soloists, ensembles, quartets, offstage choirs, new types of sounds, improvised music, and even support for laser light shows (). His work recalls those who think that references to clapping hands in the Psalms are stage directions for contemporary worship and that house churches in Acts are support for cell group Bible studies. In that sense, he breaks no new ground. In the final analysis, this is merely a theology of music for worship contrived from the Book of Revelation. To be sure, the ongoing work of Studies in Liturgical Musicology holds a great deal of promise. The series has a stellar editor and a legitimate aim to synthesize music history and church music. But this particular volume is not worth the price of admission. Brian J. Hamer Hymnology: A Collection of Source Reading. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By David W. Music. Edited by Robin A. Leaver. Lanham, Maryland, and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., . Hardcover. pages. Robin A. Leaver of Westminster Choir College notes in the h Foreword to this volume, Discussions of these matters [of hymnology] can, of course, be found in numerous studies of the development of hymnody, but documentary sources, which present the issues within the contemporary thought forms and presuppositions, have been inaccessible in a single source until the publication of this volume! (x). David W. Music divides the readings into five broad categories: The Early Church and the Middle Ages, The Reformation, English Hymnody, American Hymnody, and Vatican . Subdivisions of each chapter and an index allow the reader to proceed immediately to the author or document of personal choice. Each selection is introduced by the author with a concise and helpful summary of the historical context of the individuals and their writing(s). Familiar readings are included from Ambrose, Augustine, Egeria, Luther, Zwingli, Isaac Watts, John Wesley, and Ralph Vaughan Williams. But the main attraction of this volume is certainly the more obscure readings from Palladius, Cassiodorus, Sozomen, Notker Balbulus, Clement Marot, and even The Boston Handel and Haydn Society. Highlights of the book for Lutheran readers include Sozomen’s (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 which were in accordance with the Nicene doctrines, for he feared to excite an insurrection of the people” (). The words of the Roman Catholic Nausea Blancicampianus on Lutheran hymns teaching Lutheran doctrine have lost none of their weight: “I say in addition that it will not be very easy for them (namely the Protestants) to agree with us, because it will be necessary after peace is established to do away with those German songs, which they use very much in many of their churches” (). The Preface to the pietistic Geistreiches Gesangbuch sounds remarkably similar to the preface of some songbooks used in the LCMS. It is even described as a “new songbook” and is arranged according to the order of salvation instead of the seasons of the church year (). The response of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenburg () notes how the editors of the Gesangbuch omit hymns that pray for the preservation of true doctrine, confuse people about the origin of texts and tunes, and fill their songbook with false doctrine and “high questionable phrases” (). To read the response of the Wittenburg faculty and insert The Other Songbook or twenty-page bulletins of praise music and homemade liturgies in place of Geistreiches Gesangbuch is an enlightening experience. And what faithful pastor or church musician would not be thankful for Ralph Vaughan Williams’s words about children and music: “Children at all events have no old association with any particular tune, and incalculable good or harm may be done by the music which they sing in their most impressionable years” (). Are their any weaknesses to this volume? The scope and breadth of the topic in a -page book will be its greatest strength and weakness at the same time. David W. Music succeeds in providing the overall panorama of hymnology from Pliny the Younger to Vatican , but the balance along the way is somewhat obscured by Music’s Baptist roots. Luther receives fewer than five pages of attention, a fraction of the space allotted for Isaac Watts and other English writers. Along the same lines, many of the English documents are presented in their original Old English, which may be awkward for some readers. Similarly, some of the German phrases from the Reformation section are untranslated. One may also wonder why Music ends with Vatican , yet reality suggests most people’s knowledge of church history barely stretches back to the s or to their baptism, whichever came first. Perhaps the author also wants the reader to see the parallels between the Council of Laodicea and the failed reforms of Vatican , nearly years after the fact. These concerns aside, the strengths of Hymnology: A Collection of Source Readings far outweigh its weaknesses. As a whole the selections are well chosen from a vast field of literature, accurately introduced, and surprisingly applicable to our own sung confession of the faith. (As an aside to pastors and interested laity of the LCMS: buy and read this book before . It will help us (LCMS) all answer the question, “How came we here?” as we approach our next hymnal and as we seek a hymnody which is at once catholic and evangelical.) Brian J. Hamer Music in Early Christian Literature. The Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music. By James McKinnon. General Editors: John Stevens and Peter le Hurray. Cambridge University Press, . Hardcover. pages. This is a parallel volume to Oliver Strunk’s Source Readings h in Music History: Volume One: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (W.W. Norton , ). Whereas Strunk offered primary readings from secular sources from Plato through the Middle Ages, McKinnon’s book “aims to be inclusive rather than representative in its selection of material and to be a resource for the serious student of music history rather than merely a pedagogical resource in the manner of the typical anthology of source readings” (vii). (This reviewer first encountered the book in a graduate course in music history at a secular university.) McKinnon also narrows the scope “from the New Testament to approximately ..” (vii) and narrows the focus to Christian writers, as the title implies. McKinnon divides his anthology into eleven broad categories and proceeds in chronological order. Readings are included from direct New Testament citations, the Apostolic Fathers, the Greek Apologists, nonpatristic Christian literature, and the standard array of Christian writers through St. Augustine. Familiar authors include Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and Jerome. Readers will appreciate lesser-known citations from Tatian, Athenagoras, Novatian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Pahomius, Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus of Ancyra, Sozomen, and Hilary of Poitiers. Highlights for pastors and church musicians include one of the first known references to the office of cantor (attr. Pseudo Ignatius) in the fourth century: “I greet the subdeacons, the readers, the cantors, the porters, the laborers, the exorcists, and the confessors” (). Comments from Tatian (fl. c. ) on proper decorum in church music may become a celebrated quote among confessing evangelicals: “I do not wish to gape at many singers nor do I care to look benignly upon a man who is nodding and motioning in an unnatural way” (). Novatian’s (d. c. ) thoughts show his awareness of the different cultural use of instruments in the Old and New Testaments: “That David led 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 gestures while dancing to a tale of Grecian lust” (). Basil the Great (c. –) tells youth of the edifying use of instruments among the ancients and warns against contemporary [sic] music: The passions born of illiberality and baseness of spirit are naturally occasioned by this sort of [contemporary] music. But we must pursue the other kind, which is better and leads to the better . . . . Such is the difference in filling one’s ears with wholesome or wicked tunes! And since the latter type now prevails, you must have less to do with it than with any utterly depraved thing (). Two quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (c. –) are worth the price of the book. First, he compares Christian celebrations to pagan parties: “Let us take up hymns rather than tympana, psalmody rather than shameful dances and songs, a well rendered applause of thanksgiving rather than theatrical applause, meditation rather than debauchery” (). Moreover, he comments on the Christian wedding and the need to exclude frivolous entertainment and music: “Among good things, one is the presence of Christ at weddings (for where Christ is, there is good order).” Therefore, if Christ is present in the liturgy, Gregory concludes that the following pairs are incompatible: “bishops with jesters, nor prayers with dancing, nor psalmody with aulosplaying”(). (I write this review having just explained to the mother of a brideto-be why I would rather they did not play a CD of Enya for preservice wedding music in our sanctuary.) If the reader’s appetite is not yet whetted, here is one more snippet from Hilary of Poitiers (c.–) on singing the Psalms in Christ: There should be no doubt that the things mentioned in the psalms must be understood in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel, such that regardless of the person in which the prophetic spirit has spoken, it should nonetheless be referred in its entirety to the recognition of the coining of the Lord Jesus Christ, his incarnation, passion, and kingdom, and to the glory and excellence of our own resurrection (). Every author is introduced with a concise summary of his life and significance. Each selection is prefaced by one or two sen- tences to give the context of the reading. A bibliography and index help the reader navigate the tightly written and presented material. To be sure, this is no light reading. While under two hundred pages, the quotations are brief and rich, as opposed to Strunk’s Source Readings, which are more lengthy but read quite easily. The scope is narrow, the material is challenging, and even the type is quite small. To answer the obvious question, yes, many readings are included that are not in found in standard sets of the church fathers, including some never before available in English. Purchase and digest Music in Early Christian Literature. It will be infinitely valuable to anyone looking for catholic support for the oft-heard dictum, “Tune follows text as style follows substance.” Brian J. Hamer The Bestman, the Bride, and the Wedding. By Michael L. McCoy. Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, . At first glance a reader might think that this is a practical h book offering advice to those about to be wed. But upon further reading and exploration, the reader will find a very nice “treatise” on St. Paul’s letter to the Christians at Ephesus :– (especially verse ). Those who grew up reading C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, or who read them to their children, will enjoy the same style of writing in Pastor McCoy’s excellent novel. The scriptural allusions are fantastic as the history of the family of God is traced from the creation to that final wedding banquet around the throne of the bridegroom, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. While this work is very captivating and hard to put down, it is at the same time a book that offers a good measure of practical advice. It offers encouragement and comfort to the faithful pastor. It offers a great sense of admonition to the pastor who might think a little too highly of himself and his accomplishments (crediting himself with the greatness of the church and its growth). It offers encouragement and comfort to the body of Christ, the church. To the faithful pastor it offers encouragement and comfort for the long haul. The faithful Bestmen (pastors) are the ones who truly enjoy joining the Bride (the church) in the Great Dance (divine service). It is the faithful Bestman who has no problem bearing the Chain Stole (the marks of the church: word and sacrament) or the Black Wool Robe (a symbol of the office using wool so that the Bestman won’t get too comfortable in his office). It is 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 the time when he himself must be gathered into the net. It is the faithful Bestman who is given the privilege of escorting the Bride to the Great Wedding. To the pastor who thinks too highly of himself and his own works there is great admonition. It is the unfaithful Bestman who forgets the blessings or the necessity of the Great Dance. It is the unfaithful Bestman who sees no need for the Chain Stole and Black Robe and gets a little too comfortable in his office and thus loses sight of what marks the church. It is the unfaithful Bestman who always seems to be seeking to justify his “ministry” by sur- rounding himself with yes-men. It is the unfaithful Bestman who does not want to deal with Thanatos. It is the unfaithful Bestman who thinks that without him the Bride would be lost and the wedding would never take place. To the body of Christ, the church, the bride, there is much comfort and encouragement to be found in the three-hundred-plus pages of this work. Despite the variety of Bestmen (both faithful and unfaithful) by which the Bride must be escorted, a remnant is always maintained. It is that remnant that truly values the Bestman, despite the one filling the office. Knowing that the one filling the office does not the office make, the bride and her children find comfort in knowing that the Great Dance is still efficacious. There is comfort in knowing that there will be a faithful Bestman to escort her to Wedding Hall for the marriage feast of the Lamb in his kingdom, which has no end. The Bestman, the Bride and the Wedding is a book that everyone should read, but especially pastors. Pastors should read it for encouragement either to remain faithful or to regain that faithfulness to the word of God and our Confessions. Michael R. Scudder Admissions Counselor Concordia Theological Seminary Ft. Wayne, Indiana A Little One amidst the Shadows. By Michael L. McCoy. Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, . The second volume in The Chronicles of Peniel is as intriguh ing, attention-getting, and attention-holding as the first, The Bestman, The Bride, and The Wedding. The scriptural allusions are every bit as inspiring. They only serve to emphasize the point that Pastor McCoy seeks to get across to his audience. In this volume the reader, be he pastor or layman, will find both admonition and encouragement. There is admonition: even this reviewer, a called and ordained servant of the word with six years of parish experience, was almost sucked into believing the various characters that the author uses to show how crafty and wily the old evil foe really is. Thanks be to God that, being steeped in the word of life, one is able to hear that little voice that keeps telling one, “There is something here that is not quite what it seems to be. That is not quite right.” The depictions of Satan disguised as an angel of light are captivating. There is encouragement in that the reader, being steeped in the word of life, will readily see that a thorough knowledge of this word will enable one to recognize even the slightest variation from the truth. Pastor McCoy makes this point himself in the 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 encouraging 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 pastor’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 Reformation Epiphany Eastertide Holy Trinity THEME Wittenberg and Rome A Symposium on Prayer Fellowship Lutheran Education Vocation Sanctification DEADLINE April , July , October , 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 program 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 utmost in care and effort, and I never had any ulterior motives. I have neither taken nor sought a single penny for it, nor made one by it. Neither have I sought my own honor by it; God, my Lord, knows this. Rather, I have done it as a service to the dear Christians and to the honor of One who sitteth above, who blesses me so much every hour of my life that I had translated a thousand times as much or as diligently, I should not for a single hour have deserved to live or to have a sound eye. All that I am and have is of his grace and mercy, indeed, of his precious blood, and bitter sweat. Therefore, God willing, all of it shall also serve to his honor, joyfully and sincerely. Scribblers and papal asses may blaspheme me, but real Christians—and Christ, their Lord—bless me! And I am more than plentifully repaid, if even a single Christian acknowledges me as an honest workman. I care nothing for the papal asses; they are not worthy of acknowledging my work, and it would 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 anyway, yes even a distinguished doctor; and that name they shall not take from me till the Last Day, this I know for certain. . . . Ah, translating is not every man’s skill as the mad saints imagine. It requires a right, devout, honest sincere, God-fearing, Christian, trained, informed, and experienced heart. Therefore I hold that no false Christian or factious spirit can be a decent translator. That becomes obvious in the translation of the Prophets made at Worms. It has been carefully done and approaches my German very closely. But Jews had 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 languages! Now, I was not relying on and following the nature of the languages alone, however, when, in Romans [:] I inserted the word solum (alone). Actually the text itself and the meaning of St. Paul urgently require and demand it. For in that very passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the law. And Paul cuts away all works so completely, as even to say that the words of the law—though it is God’s law and word—do not help us for justification [Rom :]. He cites Abraham as an example and says that he was O T In , during the sessions of the imperial diet at Augsburg, Luther was kept at the Coburg castle, where he could both be kept safe and still close enough for consultation. While there, Luther busied himself with translating. On the day of his arrival, he wrote to Melanchthon: “Out of this Sinai we shall make a Zion and build three tabernacles: One to the Psalter, one to the Prophets, and one to Aesop.” Luther wrote an open letter on translating and instructed Wenceslaus Link to release it for publication. In this work, Luther defends his translation of Romans :, where he added the word “alone” to the phrase “by faith” when the word was not originally there. Here we see Luther’s keen intent on translating in service to the proclamation of gracious justification in Christ. This excerpt is found in AE : –. Luther’s defense is not a good example of temperance, but no doubt gives a sense of the ill will he himself suffered for a decade. And why should I talk so much about translating? If I were to point out the reasons and considerations back of all my words, I should need a year to write on it. I have learned by experience what an art and what a task translating is. Therefore I will tolerate no papal ass or mule to be my judge or critic, for they have never tried it. He who desires none of my translating may let it alone. If anyone dislikes it or criticizes it without my knowledge and consent, the devil repay him! If it is to be criticized, I shall do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leave my translation in peace. Let each of them make for himself one that suits—what do I care? A L F may be reprinted freely for study and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understanding that appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces are written by contributing editors whose names are noted on our masthead. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending them to Rev. Joel A. Brondos, S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -. When possible, please provide your work on a .-inch Windows/ compatible diskette. Because of the large number of unsolicited materials received, we regret that we cannot publish them all or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers should understand that views expressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the editors. justified so entirely without works that even the highest work—which, moreover, had been newly commanded by God, over and above all other works and ordinances, namely circumcision—did not help him for justification; rather he was justified without circumcision and without any works, by faith, as he says in chapter , “If Abraham was justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” But when all works are so completely cut away—and that must mean that faith alone justifies—whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this cutting away of works will have to say, “Faith alone justifies us, and not works.” The matter itself, as well as the nature of the language, demands it. T, U, L Luther did not mind his reputation for hardheadedness in matters of the faith (fides quae). In all other matters, one needs love, but in regarding matters of doctrine, we should not be humble or relenting. Here are two excerpts: the first is found in Day By Day We Magnify Thee, daily devotional readings in Luther, page , translated from WA , . The second is from the American Edition of Luther’s works (AE : –). 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). It must not be treated lightly, as the world maintains and many people who do not understand, saying we should not fight so hard about an article and thus trample on Christian love; rather, although we err on one small point, if we agree on everything else, we should give in and overlook the difference in order to preserve brotherly and Christian unity and fellowship. No, my dear man, do not recommend to me peace and unity when thereby God’s Word is lost, for then eternal life and everything else would be lost. In this matter there can be no yielding nor giving way, no, not for love of you or any other person, but everything must yield to the Word, whether it be friend or foe. The Word was given unto us for eternal life and not to further outward peace and unity. The Word and doctrine will create Christian unity or fellowship. Where they reign all else will follow. Where they are not, no concord will ever abide. Therefore, do not talk to me about love and friendship, if that means breaking with the Word, or the faith, for the Gospel does not say love brings eternal life, God’s grace, and all heavenly treasures, but the Word. II. On no account should we humble ourselves here; for they want to deprive us of our glory, namely, the God who has created us and given us everything, and the Christ who has redeemed us with His blood. In short, we can stand the loss of our possessions, our name, our life, and everything else; but we will not let ourselves be deprived of the Gospel, our faith, and Jesus Christ. And that is that. Accursed be any humility that yields or submits at this point! Rather, let everyone be proud and unremitting here, unless he wants to deny Christ. With the help of God, therefore, I will be more hardheaded than anyone else. I want to be stubborn and to be known as someone who is stubborn. Here I bear the inscription “I yield to no one.” And I am overjoyed if here I am called rebellious and unyielding. Here I admit 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 with.” So far as his faith is concerned, therefore, a Christian is as proud and firm as he can be; and he must not relax or yield the least bit. For at this point faith makes a man God ( Peter :). But God does not stand for anything or yield to anyone, for He is unchanging. Thus, faith is unchanging. Therefore, it should not stand for anything or yield to anyone. But so far as love is concerned, a Christian should yield and stand for everything; for here he is only a human being. U C C. F. W. Walther, Explanation of Thesis , D, “Adiaphora,” in The True Visible Church, theses delivered at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, beginning August , , at the sixteenth Central District Convention. Translated by Fred Kramer, printed in C. F. W. Walther, Essays for the Church (CPH, ), : –. We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul of Lutheranism, is not found in outward observances but in the pure doctrine. If a congregation had the most beautiful ceremonies in the very best order, but did not have the pure doctrine, it would be anything but Lutheran. We have from the beginning spoken earnestly of good ceremonies, not as though the important thing were outward forms, but rather to make use of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans know that although one does not have to have these things (because there is no divine command to have them), one may nevertheless have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beautiful and are not forbidden in the Word of God. Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished “outward ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar ornaments,” [Ap ] but has left them free. The sects proceeded differently because they did not know how to distinguish between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the Word of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt and of his adherents and followers in Germany and in Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies and church ornaments in order to prove by our actions that we have a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and know how to conduct ourselves in things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God. We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poor consciences by imposing human ordinances on them with the command: “You must keep such and such a thing!”; the sects enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin what God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran Christians are still without a true understanding of their liberty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies. It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won’t accuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them? It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of course still very great with many people —this does not, however, alter the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, “Qui cantat, bis orat—he who sings prays twice.” This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. Why should congregations or individuals in the congregation want to retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! For first of all it is clear from the words of St. Paul ( Cor. :) that the congregations of his time had a similar custom. It has been the custom in the Lutheran Church for years. It creates a solemn impression on the Christian mind when one is reminded by the solemnity of the divine service that one is in the house of God, in childlike love to their heavenly Father, also give expression to their joy in such a lovely manner. We are not insisting that there be uniformity in perception or feeling or taste among all believing Christians—neither dare anyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheran worship from the worship of other churches to such an extent that the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture halls in which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, while our churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christians serve the great God publicly before the world. Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the Saxon Church order published by the Synod, which is the simplest among the many Lutheran church orders) would be highly desirable because of its usefulness. A poor slave of the pope finds one and same form of service, no matter where he goes, by which he at once recognizes his church. With us it is different. Whoever comes from Germany without a true understanding of the doctrine often has to look for his church for a long time, and many have already been lost to our church because of this search. How different it would be if the entire Lutheran church had a uniform form of worship! This would, of course, first of all yield only an external advantage, however, one which is by no means unimportant. Has not many a Lutheran already kept his distance from the sects because he saw at the Lord’s Supper they broke the bread instead of distributing wafers? The objection: “What would be the use of uniformity of ceremonies?” was answered with the counter question, “What is the use of a flag on the battlefield?” Even though a soldier cannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by the flag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in the footsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from being ashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess in the passage quoted: “It is not true that we do away with all such external ornaments.” F B O Luther’s Prayers, edited by Herbert F. Brokering (St. Louis: Augsburg Publishing House, ) and originally translated by Charles E. Kistler, contains many examples of how the Holy Scriptures and daily struggles shaped Luther’s prayer life. These prayers are collected with several themes in mind: The Catechism, Home and Family, Word and Sacraments, and the Church. It might serve well as a confirmation gift. The following excerpt is a portion of Luther’s A Simple Way to Pray, written at the request of Master Peter the Barber. The translation found in this edition (pages –) is actually Helmut T. Lehman’s translation from volume of Luther’s Works, published by Fortress Press. You should also know that I do not want you to recite all these words in your prayer. That would make it nothing but idle chatter and prattle. Rather do I want your heart to be stirred and guided concerning the thoughts which ought to be comprehended in the Lord’s Prayer. These thoughts may be expressed, if your heart is rightly warmed and inclined toward prayer, in many different ways and with more words or fewer. I do not bind myself to such words or syllables, but say my prayers in one fashion today, in another tomorrow, depending upon my mood and feeling. I stay however, as nearly as I can, with the same general thoughts and ideas. It may happen occasionally that I may get lost among so many ideas in one petition that I forego the other six. If such an abundance of good thoughts comes to us we ought to disregard the other petitions, make room for such thoughts, listen in silence, and under no circumstances obstruct them. The Holy Spirit himself preaches here, and one word of his sermon is far better than a thousand of our prayers. Many times I have learned more from one prayer than I might have learned from much reading and speculation. It is of great importance that the heart be made ready and eager for prayer. As Sirach says, “Prepare your heart for prayer, and do not tempt God” [Sirach :]. What else is it but tempting God when your mouth babbles and the mind wanders to other thoughts? Like the cleric who prayed, “Deus in adjutorium meum intende.” [Make haste, O God, to deliver me; Ps. :]. “Farmhand, did you unhitch the horses?” Domine ad adjuvandum me festina. [Make haste to help me, O Lord.] “Maid, go out and milk the cow.” Gloria patri et filio et spiritui sancto. [Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.] “Hurry up, boy, I wish the ague 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 if they cannot or do not care to do better. In my day I have prayed many such canonical hours myself, regrettably, and in such a manner that the psalm or the allotted time came to an end before I even realized whether I was at the beginning or the middle. Though not all of them blurt out the words as did the above mentioned cleric and mix business and prayer, they do it by the thoughts in their hearts. They jump from one thing to another in their thoughts and when it is all over they do not know what they have done or what they talked about. They start with Laudate and right away they are in a fool’s paradise. It seems to me that if we could see what arises as prayer from a cold and unattentive heart we would conclude that we had never seen a more ridiculous kind of buffoonery. But, praise God, it is now clear to me that those who forget what they have said have not prayed well. In a good prayer one fully remembers every word and thought from the beginning to the end of the prayer. So, a good and attentive barber keeps his thoughts, attention, and eyes on the razor and hair and does not forget how far he has gotten with his shaving or cutting. If he wants to engage in too much conversation or let his mind wander or look somewhere else, he is likely to cut his customer’s mouth, nose, or even his throat. Thus if anything is to be done well, it requires the full attention of all one’s senses and members, as the proverb says, “Pluribu, intentus minor est ad singula sensus”—“The one who thinks of many things, thinks of nothing and does nothing right.” How much more does prayer call for concentration and singleness of heart if it is to be a good prayer! This in short is the way I use the Lord’s Prayer when I pray it. To this day I suckle at the Lord’s Prayer like a child, and as an old man eat and drink from it and never get my fill. It is the very best prayer, even better than the Psalter, which is so very dear to me. It is surely evident that a real master composed and taught it. What a great pity that the prayer of such a master is prattled and chattered so irreverently all over the world! How many pray the Lord’s Prayer several thousand times in the course of a year, and if they were to keep on doing so for a thousand years they would not have tasted nor prayed one iota, one dot, of it! In a word, the Lord’s Prayer is the greatest martyr on earth (as are the name and word of God). Everybody tortures and abuses it; few take comfort and joy in its proper use. T C S This letter appeared in the Lutheran Witness, circa . The ELS and WELS have published new hymnals, and the LCMS is planning to have its new hymnal ready in . Does it take a generation for a hymnal like TLH to overcome initial criticisms and become endeared to the hearts of pastors and people? There were numerous protests in the s about The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH), but today we hear no such complaints about TLH—though the same kinds of concerns were raised with Lutheran Worship (LW). My people want the “uniform service.” Just what shall we do? Simply to tell us that we shall follow the new hymnal gets us nowhere. It seems to me that at least five pronounced variations are possible in following the new hymnal. With hundreds of pronounced individualists among the clergy and thousands of them among the laity (with the usual percentage of mavericks among both), must we not expect every variation to be found somewhere? And since the hymnal encourages (the word is used advisedly) variations, is that not an open invitation to go a step further? and then another step? (Let’s not engage in any logomachy over that expression “open invitation,” since I have in mind the practical result rather than the intention of the committee.) I hope my forebodings will prove to have been needless, but is not the set-up perfect for anything but uniformity? Especially are these forebodings buttressed by a perusal of the rubrics concerning the hymns. We were told time and time again that one of the glories of our Church is the congregational singing of hymns. Yet following the new hymnal, we may use two or four songs. In the hymnal the rubrics read “shall” for three hymns, plus a doxology, which was at least optional. Some of us still used four hymns and a doxology. Now we are getting down to two “shall” hymns, plus two optional and not even the mention of a doxology to be sung by the congregation. How are we going to keep alive the knowledge of our hymns if there is to be no opportunity to sing them? Shall we more and more confine ourselves to the singing of the liturgy and let the hymns fall into desuetude? Some of us are going to keep the doxologies, just as we are going to continue the use of “Gott sei gelobet” as the doxology after the Communion service despite the attempt of the committee at first to eliminate that. We do not want to be stubborn, but we will keep everything that is a help to our faith and because of such holy associations is precious to us. So we will have the variation of two, three or four hymns—all according to the new hymnal. How are we to achieve uniformity? Some will have no doxologies, and some of us will keep them even though the set-up in the new hymnal seems to discourage their use. So we shall expect this letter, or one of similar import, to be printed in the Lutheran Witness as a contribution to the discussion of the plea “to follow the service exactly as it is written.” We have tried to understand exactly what is written, and we are confused no end. We want to be in on the uniformity. We can’t figure it out. We want four hymns and the doxology; we may prefer to omit the Gloria in Excelsis; we like the triple Hallelujah (second version); our neighboring congregation feels best with two hymns, the single Hallelujah, the Gloria in Excelsis and being seated during the Epistle-lesson, while we still think that one ought to stand when the Lord’s Word is being read. We both are following the new hymnal order of the morning service and arrive at such diverging customs. Which one of us cannot understand what uniformity really is? Since we want to conform and the neighboring congregation always wants to be a little “different,” we will naturally expect you to label them as the non-conformists and prove it to them from the new hymnal. We are unable to do so, for when we confront them with the hymnal, they can prove their case: They are following exactly what is written —and so are we. Yet the services are so different from each other in many details. A C R W Carl Halter and Carl Schalk edited A Handbook of Church Music (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ). Historical perspectives that pastors might well like to address with organists or worship committees are found in this book. The following selection is from pages –. By the closing decades of the th century it was apparent that a new movement was making a slow but steady impact on the worship and hymnody of Lutherans in America. That movement was a confessional revival, a reawakening of interest in and commitment to the historic creeds and confessions of the Lutheran church and, together with that commitment, a reawakening of interest in the traditional worship forms and practices of the Reformation. The confessional revival was provoked, in part, by a climate of theological laxness, a condition that drove many back to a serious study of the writings of Luther and the Confessions of the church. While the gradual change from freer and more informal services to more ordered worship was clearly evident among many mid-century immigrant groups that brought with them a committed confessionalism from the continent and from Scandinavia, the confessional revival was a force that was felt among all Lutherans, including those with deep roots on the American continent. It was significant that the leaders of the confessional revival in America—e.g., Charles Porterfield Krauth, Matthias Loy, and C. F. W. Walther—were among those who in various ways also contributed to the revival of worship. In part the confessional revival among Lutherans in America was a reaction against the “new measures” of revivalism, an approach that continued to find a good deal of support among some Lutherans. But even such a prominent Lutheran clergyman as William A. Passavant, who had been brought up in a period of revivalism and was active in a variety of educational, missionary, social, and philanthropic endeavors, gradually abandoned it. Opposition to revivalism, as well as to the more liberal brand of “American Lutheranism” promoted by S. S. Schmucker from Gettysburg, was strengthened by the Lutheran immigrants from the German and Scandinavian countries, as well as by the arrival from Europe of new books and periodicals. Antiquarian copies of liturgical orders from the th and th centuries were eagerly sought out, as were older books of dogmatics. C W Do you or your loved ones hold membership in any societies? Henry Hamann offered his perspective in his book On Being a Christian: A Personal Confession (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ) pages –. There are hundreds of clubs and societies in the world devoted to certain aspects of human life, organizations that bring together different groups of people in order to make possible a furthering of their particular interests. Must all of these too make the bringing into being of a better world an essential part of their program? The suggestion is preposterous. Everybody knows that involvement in one or more of these clubs devoted to special interests does not prevent its members from working for world betterment at the same time. There is no contradiction between the specific organization and its special aim, on the one hand, and the necessary aim of world betterment on the other. Why, all of a sudden, the indignation when Lutherans say that the church has been given a special commission by the Lord that does not include action for world betterment, and that the state is a different institution of God with a purpose that does include such action. For the Christian, involvement in one organization does not preclude involvement in another; Christians are involved in both. Christians are members of the church and citizens of the state and can act in both areas of life and in both capacities. We can pursue reason and common sense in this matter in another direction: The church and church leaders have no special competence in matters of government and the measures needed to bring about a better world. What is needed here is a knowledge of human beings, of personal and social ethics, of economics and politics, and all the rest—not forgetting a knowledge of what is possible as well as of what is ideal and desirable. In all parts of society there are people—religious and non-religious—who possess competence in these areas. The church, as church, has nothing to give to the solution of the problem of world betterment that is any more to the point than what any intelligent Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist who has the facts and knows his business can give. The proper ordering of society belongs to the law, and in this matter we don’t even need our Bibles and the ethics of Jesus. Heathen folk and unbelievers also show the work of the law written in their hearts. T Professor emeritus Gerhard O. Forde preached this sermon on Good Friday in at Pilgrim Lutheran Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. It was part of a Tre Ore Service that included sermons 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 asked nothing of us but only gave himself to us. The life of one 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 something to be snatched at, but became obedient unto death, even death on a cross; one who was despised and rejected, from whom we hid our faces. Now it is over. It ended the only way such a life could end among us—cast out, mocked, crucified. But it is not just over. It is finished, perfected, completed. He has reached in this awful place his goal. It is perfected just because he goes all the way to death. He goes the way none of us could go. He bears our sins in his body. He shows us in his body what sin is, who we are, what we think about God and what we do to one another. Because his life is over now, we can no longer say we don’t know. We can no longer turn aside. The truth is out. That task is finished. As John put it elsewhere, we are convicted of sin because we did not believe in him. It is finished! What is finished? A mission. God is finished with us. God’s way with sinners comes to its end here. God has said here all he has to say to us as old beings, fallen creatures. His wrestling with us throughout the ages, his struggle to get us to see is over. He has tried in many and various ways through priest and prophet and king to get it said. Now he has finally done it. He has made his last move. He has no further plans. He has spoken to us through his Son, through this life that ends on the cross. He bowed his head and gave up his spirit. And so it is over. That is all God has to say. But again, it’s not just over. It is completed. God 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 because in the end he had one thing to say, the one thing we find so hard to believe: You are mine and I mean to have you back! And so it is finished, perfected, completed. This word from the cross is not finally a cry of defeat, but a cry of victory. There! It is 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. The ancient foe is defeated, the power of sin is broken, death is robbed of its sting. God has found a way to be God even for the likes of us. He has found a way to save sinners. So it is finished! What is finished? We are finished. You, friend, are finished. You are through. Never mind that things still go on pretty much as before. All that you were is ended, over—the refusal to take God at his word, the selfishness, the hatred, the prejudice, the grasping at being God, the despair at not being good enough, the desperate protecting of self and the 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 had enough. But it is not just over. It is completed. That’s 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 takes now, miracle of miracles, is that you just be still, listen and wait. In that end is a new beginning. Amen! L o M S From F. V. N. Painter’s Luther On Education, pages –. Luther’s love for music was remarkable. He had a good voice, and played skillfully on the guitar and flute. Among the loveliest scenes in his happy home at Wittenberg are those in which, in company with chosen friends, he sought recreation from his arduous labors in the holy joys of sacred song. The tributes he paid to music are many and beautiful. He desired the young to be diligently exercised in vocal and instrumental music, and insisted on musical attainments as an indispensable qualification in the teacher. His influence on the musical culture of Germany is important. By means of suitable hymns and tunes, many of which he composed himself, he popularized Church music and enabled worshiping congregations to unite in the singing. In the schools that were established under the influence of Luther and his co-adjutors, music formed a part of the regular course of instruction. It was honored not only as a useful adjunct in public worship, but also as a source of beneficent influence upon the character and life. The following passages—a few out of many—will serve to show Luther’s regard for music: “Satan is a great enemy to music. It is a good antidote against temptation and evil thoughts. The devil does not stay long where it is practiced.” “Music is the best cordial to a person in sadness; it soothes, quickens, and refreshes his heart.” “Music is a semi-disciplinarian and school-master; it makes men more gentle and tender-hearted, more modest and discreet.” “I have always loved music. He that is skilled in this art is possessed of good qualities, and can be employed in anything. Music must of necessity be retained in the schools. A school-master must be able to sing, otherwise I will hear nothing of him.” “Music is a delightful, noble gift of God, and nearly related to theology. I would not give what little skill I possess in music for something great. The young are to be continually exercised in this art; it makes good and skillful people of them.” “With those that despise music, as all fanatics are wont to 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 joyful; it causes men to forget all wrath, uncharity, pride, and other vices. Next to theology, I esteem and honor music. And we see how David and all the saints clothed their pious thoughts in verses, rhymes, and songs; because in times of peace music rules.” Luther encouraged gymnastic exercises, which he regarded salutary both for the body and the soul: “ It was well considered and arranged by the ancients,” he says, “that the people should practice gymnastics, in order that they might not fall into reveling, unchastity, gluttony, intemperance and gaming. Therefore these two exercises and pastimes please me best, namely, music and gymnastics, of which the first drives away all care and melancholy from the heart, and the latter produces elasticity of the body and preserves the health. But a great reason for their practice is that people may not fall into gluttony, licentiousness, and gambling, as is the case, alas! at courts and in cities. Thus it goes when such honorable and manly bodily exercises are neglected.” S. P’ C The Confession of St. Peter has traditionally been commemorated on January . This was the case in when the Rev. Dr. Norman Nagel preached on Matthew :–. There was no indulgence for Peter. He did antichrist. Jesus exorcized him. “Get behind me Satan.” Our Lord certainly does not beat about the bush. Poor old Peter, what had he done to get wiped out like that? The Confession of St. Peter can hardly be improved upon. He hadn’t cooked it up. It was given him from the highest possible source. Jesus says so. “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Can’t get a more solid confession than that, so solid that Jesus says that is what he will build his church on—playing with Peter’s name. Peter confessed what was given him to confess. What went wrong was by his subordinating that to the way he figured things out and how they ought to go. He subordinated “the Christ, the Son of the living God” to his definition of the Christ and so then also of the living God: to how he worked these words, to what worked for him. How Jesus works the words, does the words, how Jesus does “the Christ, the Son of the living God” he tells with his prediction of the passion. That destroys “the Christ, the Son of the living God” as confessed by Peter. Peter’s confession, given him to confess, he denied. He would not let Jesus do his being the Christ his way, but would lay on Jesus the sort of Christ he wanted him to be. Now the Gospels make it clear that Peter was a pretty emotional chap, great on gut reactions, and by his emotions he usually got things wrong. He certainly loved Jesus, and so was it love for Jesus that prompted him to protest against Jesus’ having such a hard time ahead? The demands of such a love can get things terribly wrong, Law wrong. Not love, but faith. Faith has nothing to point to of itself, not even how much love it’s got going. Faith has nothing to say about itself, but only what it is given, given as the Lord gives his gifts with his words (externum verbum, AC ), words which are his to do and to give what they say. Peter would not let Jesus be such a Christ, such a Son of the living God; he attempted to take control of the words given him to confess; he would stop Jesus doing them his way. Recently at the Jordan, at Jesus’ baptism, the name hwhy dd<[, was laid on him by the one whom he here recalls: “my Father who is in heaven.” Suffering Servant/Son is taken up by Satan in the temptations, in ways that offer alternative ways for his doing his names: non-Calvary, theology-of-glory ways. Satan speaks again at Calvary: “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Peter speaks for Satan even with a heart full of love. “This shall never happen to you.” You can confess saying all the right words, with a heart full 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 God, who goes to Calvary, identified as the Suffering Servant who “makes himself a sacrifice for sin.” Yours too, all of them, even your satanic attempts to commandeer him. That too, that especially, he would bring you to repentance of. Jesus turned and looked at Peter, and Peter went out and wept bitterly. Feed my lambs. Pastor my sheep. Feed my sheep. You cannot be a bigger sinner than Peter with his satanic Christology. Ohne Kreuz keine Christologie (Martin Mahler). Nevertheless, Jesus did not give up on Peter. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Have you ever thought of Jesus praying for you like that? You might ask him. The good news is not in some Peter, mighty hero of the faith, prince of the church, Number One Pope. That’s law stuff. Rather, Peter, greatest possible sinner who had such a Savior, who was yet the biggest sinner of us all, for he had the lot, and he answered for the lot at Calvary. Such is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And then there are the chummiest words we hear from Jesus spoken to Peter. How’s about taxes? What do you think? We are sons who are free, but we’ll pay it anyhow, and Jesus arranged for the shekel for the tax “for me and you.” Ground level stuff, and with a chuckle. That’s where it’s at for the two of them together. There is something special with Jesus and Peter, and with you too. He doesn’t do quotes by numbers. You sinner, repentant, forgiven, for Christ’s sake, for Calvary’s 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 Novosibirsk, Russia Charles Evanson Professor, Seminary for Evangelical Theology Klaipeda, Lithuania Ronald Feuerhahn Cameron MacKenzie Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Gottfried Martens Lowell Green Pastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin, Germany Professor, State Univer. of New York at Buffalo, NY Paul Grime Executive Director, LCMS Commission on Worship, St. Louis, MO Kenneth Hagen Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Lake Mills, Wisconsin Matthew Harrison Kurt Marquart Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Scott Murray Pastor, Memorial Luth. Church, Houston, TX Norman E. Nagel Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Pastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN Oliver Olson Steven Hein Professor Emeritus, Marquette University Minneapolis, Minnesota Headmaster, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran High School, Colorado Springs, CO Horace Hummel Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary St. Louis, MO Arthur Just Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN John Kleinig Professor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide South Australia, Australia Arnold J. Koelpin Professor, Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN Peter K. Lange Richard Resch Kantor and Professor of Church Music Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN David P. Scaer Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Robert Schaibley Pastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran Church Colorado Springs, CO Jobst Schöne Bishop Emeritus, Selbständige Evangelische Lutherische Kirche, Germany Bruce Schuchard Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO Harold Senkbeil Pastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI Carl P. E. Springer Professor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL Wilhelm Petersen John Stephenson President Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Seminary, Mankato, MN Professor, Concordia Seminary, St. Catharines Ontario, Canada Andrew Pfeiffer David Jay Webber Professor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia Rector, Saint Sophia Lutheran Theological Seminary Ternopil', Ukraine Roger D. Pittelko Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN Hans-Lutz Poetsch Pastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany Daniel Preus Director, Concordia Historical Institute St. Louis, MO Jon D. Vieker Assistant Director, LCMS Commission on Worship St. Louis, MO William Weinrich Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN 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, MN Professor, Concordia College, Edmonton Alberta, Canada Pastor, Scarville and Center Lutheran Churches, Scarville, IA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Joel A. Brondos, L Forum and Correspondence Editor Alan Ludwig, Copy Editor Erling Teigen, Editorial Coordinator Professor, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] Professor, Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato, MN Pastor, Zion Luth. Church, Fort Wayne, IN [email protected] Charles Cortright, Editorial Associate Pastor, St. Paul’s First Lutheran Church, North Hollywood, CA [email protected] Martin Noland, Editorial Associate [email protected] Pastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL Robert Zagore, Editorial Associate [email protected] Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Niles, MI John T. Pless, Book Review Editor [email protected] Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN [email protected] SUPPORT STAFF Dean Bell, Advertising, L Tape Reviews Hendrum, MN [email protected] Robert Franck, L Digest Pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Duluth, MN [email protected] Mark Loest, Cover Design [email protected] Patricia Ludwig, Layout and Design Novosibirsk, Russia [email protected] Denise Melius, Advertising, L Books & Tapes, Subscriptions, Northville, SD [email protected] David Magruder, L Digest Pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Duluth, MN James Wilson, Cartoonist, Deer Lodge, MT [email protected] Sarah Rausch, Proofreader, Aberdeen, SD [email protected]
