Epiphany 2001 volume x, number 1

Logiaa journal of lutheran theology

L B T

ei[ ti" lalei',wJ" lovgia Qeou'

logia is a journal of Lutheran theology. As such it publishes

articles on exegetical, historical, systematic, and liturgical theolo-

gy 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 ajvnalogiva (right relation-

ship). 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 byLabouchere, printed by W. Zawitz, Berlin. Shown are Martin Luther (center) with (left to right) PhilippMelanchthon, 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 printedat 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: atla@atla.com 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

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 EvangelicalLutheran 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]

CONTACT US YOUR FAVORITE WAY

Phone ▲ --E-mail ▲ logia2@nvc.net

S Website ▲ www.logia.orgMail ▲ , rd Ave., Northville, SD

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 iswelcomed 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 . Allbooks received will be listed.

Correspondence Department: Pearl St., Mankato, MN . Letters selected forpublication are subject to editorial modification, must be typed or computer printed,and must contain the writer’s name and complete address.

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 publi-cation may be reproduced without written permission.

logiaia journal of lutheran theologyx

epiphany 2001 volume x, number 1

.................................................................................................................................................................

Preparing A New Bible Translation in Luther’s DayArnold J. Koelpin ..............................................................................................................................................................................

Bible Translations among Luther’s HeirsAndrew E. Steinmann ....................................................................................................................................................................

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

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

Lutheran HermeneuticsDavid 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 ....................................................................................................................................................................

The dispute about receptionism andconsecrationism has been a vexingquestion for confessional Lutheranismfor a number of years and shows nosign of going away, but the point ofdifference has never been the cause ofChrist’s presence, since there has notbeen any disagreement about this.Despite Murray’s disclaimers, the issuehas always been whether it is possible to fix dogmatically the time whenChrist’s presence begins. In the past themajority of orthodox theologians haveheld the opinion that the presencebegan at the time of distribution andreception. A minority held the opinionthat the presence begins at the conse-cration. Neither party made this a divi-sive issue for the church, since it is notpossible to answer this question dog-matically from Scripture. It really is notproper to label these two groups of the-ologians as receptionists and consecra-tionists since, in general, neither partyunderstood this as a divisive issue, butas a theological opinion. If the labelconsecrationist has any validity, it is asshorthand for those who insist on fixingthe beginning of Christ’s sacramentalpresence at the consecration and whoinsist that this issue is divisive of churchfellowship. Recently, there has beensome movement toward healing thefractures that this issue has caused inEuropean Lutheranism. Articles like thisone, which so distort the respectivepositions and perpetuate caricatures,will not contribute to an understandingand resolution of the issues.

John F. Brug Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary

Mequon WI

To the editors:

h L often publishes articles thattake some unusual approaches to theo-logical questions. This may not be outof place for a journal that regards itselfas a kind of “free conference in print.”But even by this standard the article“The Sacrament of the Altar and ItsRelationship to Justification” by Scott R. Murray (Holy Trinity , –)had to leave many readers scratchingtheir heads.

In this article Murray claims that theso-called receptionist view of Christ’spresence in the Lord’s Supper is a syner-gist denial of justification because itmakes man’s action of eating and drink-ing the cause of the presence of Christ’sbody and blood in the sacrament.Repeatedly throughout the articleMurray asserts that according to recep-tionism the act of eating and drinkingcauses the presence of Christ’s body andblood in and with the bread and wine.He also asserts that “consecrationism isshorthand for the teaching that theWord of God alone causes the sacra-mental union of the bread and the bodyof Christ and the wine and the blood ofChrist.” He goes so far as to assert that“modern-day receptionists readilyadmit that the reception itself causes thepresence.” It is this last claim that wasespecially puzzling to this reader, sincein more than twenty years of ratherintensive study of this subject I havenever run across even a single modern-day receptionist who believed that theact of reception causes the presence ofChrist. I would be very interested toreceive a list of these people.

C

j

To be sure, the majority of orthodoxLutheran theologians since the time ofthe Reformation have held the opinionthat Christ’s body and blood are presentonly at the distribution and reception of the elements, but I have never met,heard of, or read anyone who believedthat anything other than the words ofChrist were the cause of his presence(FC , Neg. ). The belief that onlyChrist’s word is the cause of the pres-ence is held by everyone or nearlyeveryone that could be called a recep-tionist, so this belief certainly cannot be used as a definition of consecra-tionism in opposition to receptionism. I don’t know anyone in the Lutheranchurch that would meet Murray’sdefinition of a receptionist. Murray pre-sents no examples to justify his claim.Although he laments that his theologi-cal hero Francis Pieper held the recep-tionist position, he acknowledges thatthe evidence in Pieper’s dogmatics doesnot fully support this claim of his, sincePieper cites with approval the statementof the Formula of Concord that thewords of Christ are the cause of thepresence (Pieper , ff.). Murrayattributes this to a “felicitous inconsis-tency” on the part of Pieper, but theproblem here lies not with Pieper, butwith Murray’s failure to understand andto state Pieper’s position correctly.Pieper was a receptionist in the sensethat he held the opinion that Christ’sbody and blood are present only at thedistribution and reception, but neitherhe nor any other receptionist that Iknow saw any contradiction betweenthis belief and the belief that Christ’sWord is the only cause of his presence.

j

Preparing A New Bible Translation in Luther’s Day

A J. K

ble translating Job, on account of the grandeur of his sublimestyle, that he seems to be more impatient of our efforts to turnhim into German than he was of the consolations of his friends.”And then he added with a chuckle, “Either he always wishes to situpon his dunghill, or else he is jealous of the translator who wouldshare with him the credit of writing his book.”⁵

To learn what it meant to prepare a new Bible translation inLuther’s day, therefore, we must enter the craftsman’s shop, watchhim at work, note his techniques, share his problems, and listen tothe counsel of experience. Heinz Bluhm in his book MartinLuther: 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],” herelates. “I for one have found every step exciting, and I am con-vinced others, too, will find their own ventures into this rich fieldequally rewarding.”⁶ Even non-technicians in the language artsneed not fear to step into the dear doctor’s study. The end prod-uct of his efforts may remain foreign to us who no longer read theGerman Bible. But in spite of the language barrier, the venture canprove beneficial for those who are willing to catch the spirit of themaster at work and to learn from his experience.

LUTHER’S NEW BIBLE TRANSLATION

Luther was by no means the first German to attempt a new trans-lation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular. We have long agolaid to rest the “Protestant legend” that for centuries Rome hadhidden the Bible out of man’s reach until the young friar, MartinLuther, while rummaging through a monastery library, discoveredit and translated it. Ever since the advent of Gutenberg’s press inabout the demand for Bibles in the people’s language wasgrowing, especially in the Holy Roman Empire. Prior to Luther’srendition, no fewer than fourteen High German Bibles and fourLow German editions appeared on the market. In addition,countless Plenaria, selected Bible readings translated for use in themass, were in circulation.

But we have overshot the mark if we imagine that Luther beganhis work in a friendly atmosphere. The orthodox Roman Catholicquestioned whether such ventures were advisable. The authoritiesopposed promiscuous Bible reading and translation on thegrounds that they fostered heresy and sects. Interestingly, theArchbishop of Mainz even expressed doubts whether the Biblecould be transferred into the German language. Yet in saying so,he was only covering a deeper concern, shared by many: “Whowould enable simple and uneducated men, and even women, to

A J. K is professor of religion and social studies at MartinLuther College in New Ulm, Minnesota, and a L contributing editor.

M L before him the poten-tial of printing in the service of the gospel. The tran-scription of this one man’s words and works today com-

prises over one hundred folio volumes of approximately sevenhundred pages each. For those who felt that such scholarly enter-prise was a comfortable activity compared with the hard work ofthe knight in armor or others who must suffer heat, frost, dust,thirst, and other discomforts, Luther had an answer. “I would liketo see the horseman who could sit still for a whole day looking ata book, even if he did not have to compose, think, or read orworry 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 writ-ers that three fingers do everything, but the whole body and soultake part in the work.”¹

The greatest product of Luther’s pen remains his translation ofthe Bible into German.² The great reformer was quick to acknowl-edge that all his writing efforts were unimportant compared to thetext of the Holy Scriptures. In a Christmas sermon published inDecember, , shortly after his New Testament first came out,Luther frankly told the congregation:

You see from this babbling of mine the immeasurabledifference between the word of God and all human words,and how no man can adequately reach and explain a singleword of God with all his words . . . . Go to the Bible itself,dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of allscholars be no more than a tool with which to build aright,so that we can understand, taste, and abide in the simple andpure word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion.³

This awe and reverence that Luther felt for God’s word indicatehis primary motive for translating the Bible. But in no way doesthe story of the Bible translation end there. Translation workinvolved more than respect for the Holy Scripture. The transferfrom language to language taxed Luther’s writing talents as noother work. The same man who confidently challenged theRoman church by affirming, “God’s word is supreme above all thewords of men,”⁴ likewise complained to his friend Spalatin aboutthe difficulties in translating that word: “We have so much trou-

Despite the difficulties, the entire Bible came off the press twelveyears after the New Testament.

But what Luther learned along the way did not leave himsatisfied with the finished product. From the beginning, he hadconsulted with his colleagues for suggestions to improve the text.By the time the work was reaching completion, he had gathered asizeable group of advisers who met at his home to revise the text.Luther molded these men into a translation team whose advice hesought in five major text revisions before his death.¹⁴ He liked torefer to them affectionately as his “sanhedrin.” With the modestyof a master craftsman, he credited their participation in the trans-lation process, saying, “If all of us were to work together, we wouldhave plenty to do in bringing the Bible to light, one working withthe meaning, the other with the language. For I too have notworked at this alone, but have used the services of anyone whomI could get.”¹⁵

In the final analysis, however, the work was still Luther’s, and hebore the responsibility. Fortunately we still possess the protocol ofthe and – meetings of the revision commission. Theyremain for us one of the richest sources in getting behind thescenes in the translation process. Present on a regular basis wereMelanchthon, a skilled philologist and specialist in Greek;Matthew Aurogallus, Hebrew consultant; Caspar Cruciger, pro-fessor of theology; and Luther’s famous secretary, George Roerer,who also doubled as corrector for the Lufft printers. On occasionJohn Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Veit Dietrich, Bernard Ziegler,and Caspar Aquila also attended. The protocols of the meetingsreveal that Luther not only chaired the sessions, but also had thefinal say regarding additions or corrections to the Bible text.

One of Luther’s table companions has preserved the scene ofthese meetings for us. (The scholars usually assembled in theBlack Cloister a few hours prior to the evening meal.)

Luther prepared himself by reading his own text, and byobtaining information from Jews and linguistic experts,including elderly Germans, who helped him find appropri-ate words, as when he had several rams slaughtered in hispresence, so that a German butcher could tell him the prop-er name for each part of the sheep. After that he came intothe consistorium with his old Latin and with his newGerman Bible, as well as with the Hebrew original.Melanchthon brought the Greek text along and Crucigerboth the Hebrew and Chaldean Bible. The professors alsohad their rabbinical commentaries available. Bugenhagen,who was thoroughly acquainted with the Latin text, had thisin front of him. Each one had studied the text that was to bediscussed and had examined Greek and Latin, as well asJewish, commentators. The chairman introduced the text,gave each an opportunity to state his point of view, and lis-tened to the comments that were based on linguistic schol-arship or the early authorities. Wonderful and informativediscussions are said to have taken place, of which MasterGeorge took notes, which were afterwards printed as glossesand annotations on the margin of the printed Bible.¹⁶

Reading the minutes of the Psalms’ revision, we can savor theroles of both the master and his assistants. When the discussion

pick out the true meaning?”⁷ He was not half as harsh as theDominican Mensing, who voiced his antagonism in no uncertainterms. “The Scripture can deceive,” he declared. “The church can-not deceive. Therefore it is perfectly clear that the church is morethan the Scripture.”⁸

One of Luther’s consistent opponents capped the argumentagainst translations by using the Scriptures themselves:

Holy Writ warns us, when our Savior says, “It is given to youto know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to the restin parables, that seeing they see not, and hearing they under-stand not.” Who are those to whom the Lord says, “To you itis given?” Surely it is to the Apostles and their successors, therulers of Christ’s flock. And who are they that should learnby parables? Surely such people who would be better off notknowing the mysteries, lest they gain a greater damnation bymisusing them. For “precious stones are not to be cast beforedogs,” and in all likelihood these are the ignorant lay people.⁹

Such loose talk could not deter Luther from his resolve to trans-late. His own experience in the church had taught him that “all holyteachers . . . count as nothing over against a single passage of HolyScripture.”¹⁰ Love for his people moved him to bring this sacredtreasure into their hands. “The devil hit upon a fine trick when heschemed to tear people away from Scripture,” he said. But “everyChristian should know the ground of, and reason for, his faith andbe able to maintain and defend it if necessary.” One month beforehe set his hand to the translation task, he wrote to a friend, “I amborn for my Germans, whom I want to serve.”¹¹ As Doctor of theBible 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 areadable German Bible for the benefit of the people.

Little could Luther forecast at the beginning what a wealth ofexperience this work alone would bring. In retrospect he couldboast without blushing, “The Scriptures are a vast forest, butthere’s no tree in it that I haven’t shaken with my hand.”¹² TheNew Testament translation was finished in eleven weeks in .The Old Testament yielded more reluctantly to his efforts. “We aresweating 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 theseHebrew writers talk German! They resist us, and do not wantto leave their Hebrew and imitate our German barbarisms. It islike making a nightingale leave her own sweet song and imitatethe monotonous voice of a cuckoo, which she detests.¹³

Luther molded these men into a transla-tion team whose advice he sought in fivemajor text revisions before his death.

nb

plagiarized much of Luther’s work and then, in the days before thecopyright, palmed off the finished product as his own.

Stung by the unfairness of such action, Luther used the opportu-nity to make public a defense of his New Testament. He publishedit under the title On Translating: An Open Letter. For the readers’benefit Luther shared the problems he faced in transferring the NewTestament into a living German. Within a year he followed with acompanion pamphlet, in which he candidly revealed similardifficulties he encountered in bridging the gulf between the HebrewOld Testament and the German. It was sold under the title Defenseof the Translation of the Psalms. These two pamphlets, added to theminutes of the committee meetings, stand out as mines of infor-mation on Luther at work in translation. In them the craftsmanopens his heart and our eyes to the secrets of his art.

But Luther did not isolate his work on the Bible text from con-cerns about its practical use among the people. In the twenty-fouryears between the Wartburg stay and his death in , he haddone more than translate the Bible into German and preside overits revision. He also produced a revised edition of the LatinVulgate for use among the cultured class. More important, for thecommon folk Luther composed “Prefaces” to accompany thebooks of the Bible. He intended these introductions to help thereader discern the message of God’s word in each book. “Necessitydemands,” he explained, “that there should be a notice or preface,by which the ordinary man can be rescued from his former delu-sions, set on the right track, and taught what he is to look for inthis book, so that he may not seek laws and commandmentswhere he ought to be seeking the gospel and promises of God.”²⁰

Among the biblical books, the Psalms came in for special treat-ment. Since the Psalter served best as a Christian prayerbook, theDoctor 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 placednotes or glosses in the margins. The annotated Bible gave helpfulinterpretive comments for the reader to ponder. Not a year passedin the life of this busy man without some work related to the Biblepublication. From the Wittenberg presses alone twenty-onedifferent editions of the New Testament and eleven editions of thecomplete Bible appeared during Luther’s lifetime. Dr. Luther’snew Bible translation was a life-long effort.

TRANSLATING INTO THE VERNACULAR

The translation of the Luther Bible speaks for itself. At least, soLuther would have us believe. With characteristic modesty heoffered his Bible to the world for criticism. “I translated . . . to thebest 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

proceeded to his satisfaction, Luther would often end it with theapproval, “That’s it!” (das wers) or “I’m satisfied” (mihi placet). Attimes he firmly answered, “That’s the way I translated before andthat’s the way it stays!” or else he freely admitted that he had notfound what he wanted: “We just don’t have a German word.” Atother times he felt they had found a perfect expression, but itseemed too daring to place into the text. He would then voice hisregrets with a sigh, “That would have been nice!”¹⁷

A sample of Roerer’s minutes illustrates the method of proce-dure in preparing the text revision. The men regularly conversedin Latin, interspersed with German. The committee in this casewas considering Psalm : in the edition of the Psalter. ThereLuther had translated: “Therewith you bring joy into my heart,but they get gross when they enjoy corn and must.” Luther beganthe exchange by getting at the meaning of the words with para-phrases. “Make my heart rejoice,” he said,

that is, Thou art the joy of my heart, I have no other joy butThee; 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 thebelly they desire. Thou makest the heart rejoice, but they aretroubled about nothing.

In that way the thought was thrown around, seeking expressionin words.

Now Melanchthon had evidently added something, for Luthercontinues,

Yes, that is spoken right softly, genuinely Philip-like and softstepping. I will speak clearly. They desire to be emperors andthough they had an abundance of bread and wine, that is,they attain plenty, they are still not profited, but they onlywish that they have to eat and to drink. The meaning of thePsalm verse is: The righteous suffer want, while the ungodlyeat and drink. They regard, seek, and value much corn andmuch wine. They believe in Mammon. Let them have it.Thou delightest my heart, even though they have their fill ofcorn and wine.¹⁸

After the meaning of the text was established in this manner, we arenot surprised to read the following simple and smooth renditionof Psalm : in the edition: “Thou delightest my heart, eventhough they have abundant wine and corn.”

If this exchange among friends helped to sharpen the under-standing of the Bible text, it also compelled Luther to formulatehis principles of translating for his co-workers. On one occasionhe noted, “Dr. Forster and Ziegler conferred with us about ourversion and gave us much help.” “I gave them three rules,” he saidand then proceeded to spell them out.¹⁹ But, as often happens, theopposition forced him to discuss at length the basic issues oftranslation. His Roman antagonists had combed through hisGerman Bible and indicated irregularities and additions that hadcrept in. To counteract what they felt was the sinister influence ofthe Luther Bible, a “reliable” New Testament translation ()came out under the guidance of the ardent Roman CatholicJerome Emser. Comparisons revealed that the man actually had

Luther also produced a revised edition of the Latin Vulgate for use among the cultured class.

nb

“abundance of the bench” is German. But the mother in thehome and the common man say this, “What fills the heartoverflows the mouth.” That is speaking good German, thekind I have tried for.²⁶

Luther supplemented this deep sensitivity to modes of expres-sion in the mother tongue with an equally great concern forreproducing the text from the original language. His Hebrewstudies began early in his career. Already as a student at ErfurtUniversity, he had obtained, soon after the book appeared, a copyof the first Hebrew grammar published in Germany. Later heworked from the Brecian edition of the Hebrew Bible, put out bythe Soncino Press. But Luther’s Hebrew knowledge was, for themost part, self-taught. “I have learned more Hebrew by continu-ing to read and by comparing one text with another, than byworking with a grammar,” he freely admitted. “I am no Hebrewstudent according to the rules of linguistics, for I go my own way,unbound.”²⁷

By this expression Luther meant that he was not satisfied witha mere grammatical approach to the study of Hebrew. He wantedto savor the language in its own uniqueness. “The Hebrew lan-guage has its own flavor, which distinguishes it from Greek, Latin,and German,” he explained. “It is the best of all and richest invocabulary. It does not need to ‘beg’ as do other languages that donot have a word of their own for many things and who musttherefore borrow parts of other words and combine them into anew 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 meanthat he is afraid and fearful. We also use the expression “myheart tells me.” And “his heart burns in him,” by which wemean that he is angry. The Hebrew, however, has a distinc-tive 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 furtherexplained the importance of knowing the original language.

The Hebrew language is so rich that no other can comparewith it. It possesses many words for singing, praising, glori-fying, honoring, rejoicing, sorrowing, etc., for which we havebut one. Especially in sacred and divine matters is it rich inwords. It has at least ten names with which to name God,whereas we have only one word. It may therefore be rightlycalled a holy tongue.²⁹

who could not do it better. No one is forbidden to do a betterpiece of work.”²¹ In response, the German-speaking world hasever since applauded his effort as a high-water mark in the devel-opment of their language. Even Luther’s bitterest opponent, JohnCochlaeus, admitted to the popularity of the Luther Bible: “Thetaylor and the cobbler, yes even women and other simple idiotswho become adherents of the new Lutheran Gospel, eagerly read(his New Testament) . . . although they have only learned to reada little German.”

Cochlaeus has provided us with one clue to the secret ofLuther’s success as translator. The Reformer consciously sought toshape the translation to meet the people’s need. He selected thosewords that could be read and understood by all classes of people.He took the raw material from court language and from the mar-ketplace. By his own analysis, the language of the Saxon court waspeculiarly suited to his purposes because of its universal appeal inthe empire.

“I speak in agreement with the usage of the Saxon court, whichis favored by the princes and kings of Germany, and which istherefore 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 ofSaxony] have been able to unite all local dialects into one form.Thus it will be possible for me to be understood in different sec-tions of the country.”²³

While the official language of his province provided a base ofoperation from which to work, the word choice in Luther’s Bibleis actually a blend of the dignity of the court and the directness ofstreet language. On one occasion Luther confessed,

I try to speak as men do in the marketplace. Didactic, philo-sophic, and sententious books are, therefore, hard to trans-late, but narrative easy. In rendering Moses, I make him soGerman that no one would know that he was a Jew.²⁴

Luther himself attributed the freshness of his style over againstthat of others to his ventures out among the common folk:

We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are tospeak German, as these asses do. Rather we must inquireabout this of the mother in the home, the children on thestreet, the common man in the marketplace. We must beguided by their language, the way they speak, and do ourtranslating accordingly. That way they will understand it andrecognize 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 mak-ing the point that our speech reveals what is in the heart, just asa tree shows whether it is good or bad by its fruits. In Latin thispassage reads, as in English, “Out of the abundance of the heartthe mouth speaks.” “Tell me,” Luther asks, “is that speakingGerman? . . . What is ‘the abundance of the heart’? No Germancan say that . . . .

For “abundance of the heart” is not German, any more than“abundance of the house,” “abundance of the stove,” or

He selected those words that could be read and understood by all classes of people.

nb

criticize us, to be sure,” he anticipated, “and even some pious soulsmay take offense.” Despite the objections, Luther called for aresponsible freedom in translating the text. “What is the point ofneedlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to wordswhich one cannot understand anyway?” he asked. And then heanswered his own question by explaining the methodology he fol-lowed. “Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrewstyle. . . . Once he has the German words to serve the purpose, lethim drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in thebest German he knows.”³²

Another instance underscores the point. In Psalm Lutheravoided a literal translation because it did not carry the meaningto the reader. Word for word the text would read, “When theirhair is gray they will still bloom and be fat and green.” “But whatdoes this mean?” he asks.

The psalm had been comparing the righteous to trees, topalm trees and cedars [verse ], which have no “gray hair,”neither are they “fat” (by which a German means an oily orgreasy substance [schmalz], and thinks of a hefty paunch).But the prophet here intends to say that the righteous aresuch trees, which bloom and are fruitful and flourishingeven when they grow old.³³

Luther gleaned this thought not merely from the text but fromother portions of the Scriptures. The word of God teaches that therighteous abide forever. Psalm : says of the righteous that “hisleaf shall not wither.” And Christ himself declares that “everyplant which my heavenly Father has not planted, must be rootedup,” Matthew :. Therefore in a free rendition Luther trans-ferred “When their hair is gray they will still bloom and be fat andgreen” into the more intelligible “Even when they grow old, theywill nevertheless bloom, and be fruitful and flourishing.” In doingso, he was well aware that this sort of treatment “may perhaps irri-tate Master Know-it-all, who does not bother about how aGerman is to understand this text but simply sticks to the wordsscrupulously and precisely, with the result that no one under-stands the text.” But he did not care, because the burden lay withthe critic. “We have taken nothing from the meaning, and we haverendered the words clearly.”³⁴

None of Luther’s textual renditions has stirred up more criti-cism than his addition of the word “alone” to the text of Romans:: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alonewithout the deeds of the law.” The defense of that addition to theGerman text forms the core of his open letter On Translating.³⁵ Atstake in this passage was not only the principle of idiomatic trans-lation, but also the heart of Luther’s biblical theology. We all rec-

We can well imagine from this description the difficulties Lutherexperienced in transferring expressions from the richness of theHebrew language to the vocabulary of the Saxon peasant.

Learning Greek proved to be less difficult for Luther, eventhough he began to study Greek later than he did Hebrew. The ear-liest trace of its use we find in his lectures on the book of Romansin . During that year the renowned teacher Erasmus had comeout with the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Thisedition, based on some late copies of the ordinary Byzantine text,was a landmark in the history of Bible transmission. If previouslyLuther had lectured solely from the Latin Vulgate, he now beganfrequent independent explanations of Greek words. AfterMelanchthon arrived in Wittenberg, he became Luther’s counselorin the Greek language. The Doctor attended Master Melanchthon’slectures on Homer “in order to become a Greek.”

But we overestimate Luther’s knowledge of Greek if we imaginethat he made the initial translation of the New Testament in sucha short time without the aid of other translations. The second edi-tion of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, which Luther had withhim at the Wartburg, also contained Erasmus’ notations for theimprovement of the Latin text. Comparisons today indicate thatLuther both used and rejected many of the annotations ofErasmus. The same holds true concerning the Vulgate, which hehad lying close at hand for constant reference.

In Luther’s eyes, however, a person who knows the languageshas taken only the first step in translating. The real task lay in con-veying the thought of a passage. This cannot always be done mere-ly by translating words from one language to another. If one fol-lows this procedure, the result can often prove disastrous. Thetranslation becomes wooden and unintelligible.

Take Psalm for example. In his initial effort Luther had trans-lated word for word: “Let my soul be filled as with lard and fat, sothat my mouth may make praise with joyful lips.” The Hebrewimage of a soul filled with lard and fat must have conjured up a mosthumorous picture, especially to the generally rotund German folk.The sense was lost by such a literal transfer. So Luther reworked thephrase. “By ‘lard and fat’ the Hebrews mean joy,” he reasoned,

just as a healthy and fat animal is happy and, conversely, ahappy animal grows fat, a sad animal loses weight and growsthin, and a thin animal is sad. . . . [Thus] we have relin-quished the Hebrew words and rendered the passage in clearGerman like this, “It would be my heart’s joy and gladness, ifI were to praise thee with joyful lips.”³⁰

By rewording he had successfully removed the stumbling-blockfor those who read God’s word in the vernacular.

From this perspective we can begin to understand why Lutherfrequently took a crack at those who artificially bound themselvesto grammar. Such word-bound translations he called “rabbini-cal.” In opposition to the woodenness of the grammarians, Lutherfollowed the rule “that wherever the words could have given ortolerated an improved meaning, there we did not allow ourselvesto be forced by the artificial Hebrew [Gemachte Grammatica] ofthe rabbis into accepting a different inferior meaning.”³¹

Luther knew he was running “quite a risk (by) relinquishing thewords and rendering the sense.” “For this many know-it-alls will

In Luther’s eyes, however, a personwho knows the languages has takenonly the first step in translating.

nb

How does one then establish the simple, literal sense of a pas-sage? Here, according to Luther, Scripture itself comes to our res-cue. Each passage has both a historical and a theological context.“Scripture,” he affirmed, “is its own interpreter” for those whowould hear.³⁹ In a marginal notation Luther explains for us hisunderstanding of the larger context of Scripture. It has to do withMoses and Christ, with the law and the gospel, with the purposeof the old covenant and the new.

If the Old Testament can be interpreted by human wisdomwithout the New Testament, I should say that the NewTestament has been given to no purpose. So Paul concludedthat “Christ died to no purpose” if the Law weresufficient. . . . Others make a detour and purposely, as itwere, avoid Christ, so do they put off approaching Him withthe text. As for me, when I arrive at a text that is like a nutwith 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 under-stood, constantly before him. We find them reflected in a tableconversation in the year , at the height of his translationefforts. There Luther enunciated two rules that he followed intranslating the Holy Scripture:

First, if some passage is obscure I consider whether it treatsof grace or of law, whether wrath or the forgiveness of sin [iscontained in it], and with which of these it agrees better. Bythis procedure I have often understood the most obscurepassages. Either the law or the gospel has made them mean-ingful, for God divides his teaching into law and gospel. Thelaw, moreover, has to do either with civil government or witheconomic life or with the church. . . . So every prophet eitherthreatens and teaches, terrifies and judges things, or makes apromise. Everything ends with this, and it means that God isyour gracious Lord. This is my first rule in translation.

The second rule is that if the meaning is ambiguous I askthose who have a better knowledge of the language than I havewhether the Hebrew words can bear this or that sense whichseems to me to be especially fitting. And that is most fittingwhich is closest to the argument of the book. The Jews goastray 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 senseof the Bible text, they do not always solve the ever-present prob-lem of finding the right words to express the meaning. There weretimes, especially with regard to doctrine, when Luther could notfind German expressions to cover the meaning of the text. At suchtimes he discarded his hopes of speaking the people’s language.He simply translated the words from the original with little regardfor the German ear.

A good example is Psalm :. The verse reads: “Thou hastascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive.” Luther couldhave translated in a more readable fashion, “Thou hast set thecaptives free.” But he felt that was too weak. It simply did not con-

ognize “justification by faith alone” as the watchword for theLutheran Reformation. But the argument in favor of the retentionof the word “alone” in the Bible text has receded into the back-ground for non-German-speaking Lutherans. The simple truth isthat the word “alone” does not occur in the original Greek text.And Luther felt free to quote the passage without the addition, ashe did in the Smalcald Articles.

In considering the meaning of the passage, however, he flatlyasserted that the “alone” conveys the sense of the text. “It belongsthere if the translation is to be clear and vigorous.” The explanationis simple: “It is the nature of our German language that in speakingof two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we usethe word solum (allein) [alone] along with the word nicht [not.]”Luther illustrates this trait by various German examples, as, forinstance, the farmer who comes to town and brings alone (allein)grain and no (kein) money. In transferring Paul’s words intoGerman idiom, therefore, Luther contended that the Germaninstinctively feels the force of an “only.” “Actually the text itself andthe meaning of St. Paul urgently require and demand it,” he point-ed out, since the passage deals with a main point of Christian doc-trine. In it “Paul cuts away all works so completely . . . [that] who-ever would speak plainly and clearly about this . . . will have to say,‘Faith alone justifies us, and not works.’ The matter itself, as well asthe nature of the language, demands it.”³⁶

In view of the foregoing, it may come as a surprise to learn thatDr. Luther was actually a champion of the literal understanding ofScripture. For him responsible freedom in translation applied onlyto the selection of words in one idiom that best conveyed the mean-ing of a corresponding set of words in another. But one was not freeto pervert the meaning of a text by the choice of words. Finding theright word was one matter; finding the right meaning was another.

What then does “literal” mean when it refers to the sense ormeaning of a text? For Luther it stood in contrast to the generallyaccepted manner of interpretation in his day. At the university hehad learned to look at a Bible passage in four different ways. Themeaning could be taken literally, in a historical sense; allegorical-ly, as a picture of the church; tropologically, with reference to themoral state; or anagogically, as rising above the literal sense to afuture blessedness. Thus Mount Zion could refer historically tothe home of the Jews; allegorically, to the temple or its representa-tives; tropologically, to righteousness; and anagogically, to theblessedness of eternal life.

But after Luther’s breakthrough to an understanding ofScripture in terms of God’s revelation of himself in law andgospel, he discarded the old formulas. “One must not do such vio-lence to the words of God as to give to any word a meaning otherthan its natural one, unless there is clear and definite Scripture todo that,” he asserted.³⁷ Since his Roman opponent Jerome Emserdefended the manifold sense of Scripture in his translation work,Luther countered by saying, “Even though the things described inScripture mean something further, Scripture should not thereforehave a twofold meaning. Instead, it should retain the one mean-ing to which the words refer.” In this connection Luther made thewell-known statement, “The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer andadviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could haveno more than the one simplest meaning which we call the writtenone, or the literal meaning of the tongue.”³⁸

acknowledge that I am one who is more deeply moved, more car-ried away, more strongly inspired by poetry, than through anyprose style. Since that is true in general of me you can understandhow much more this is true in relation to the Psalms.”⁴⁵

But in seeking a readable text, he especially had the people inmind. He could rightfully boast how smoothly the story of Jobreads in the German, even though he sometimes looked threeweeks for one word. “One now runs his eyes over three or fourpages and does not stumble once—without realizing what boul-ders and clods had once lain there where he now goes along asover a smoothly-planed board.”⁴⁶

If we have gained the impression that Luther translated the wayhe did merely for effect, we have mistaken his motives. We needonly observe the master at work to dispel that notion. WhileLuther was translating the Bible, he constantly read his sentencesaloud, testing the accents and cadences, the vowels and conso-nants for their melodic flow. He did this because German wasreally a language (Sprache). It was meant to be spoken aloud bythe tongue (lingua), not written; heard, not read; for a word hassound and tone. By Luther’s own description, “The soul of theword lies in the voice.”⁴⁷

Thus Luther constructed his translation with a view to the pub-lic reading of the book. By means of sentence structure and mean-ingful punctuation, he made the Bible a book to be heard. Hetransmitted its sounds in such a way that the silent reader can hearit as living, spoken words. He even suggested that a person whoreads the Bible by himself would do well to read it aloud, in orderthat the Bible might literally “speak to him.” This was an ancienttradition and Luther himself observed it.

In the final analysis, the twin goals of producing a faithful andreadable translation always remained before Luther throughout hislife. He never claimed his work to be perfect and constantly revisedhis translation as new insights came to him. His personal deskBible was filled with such jottings. At the same time, he stood inawe of the task for which he felt he had been called as a Professorof the Holy Scriptures, namely, to bring God’s word to his peoplefor their comfort and joy. “I think that if the Bible is to come upagain,” he said, “we Christians are the ones who must do the work,for we have the understanding of Christ without which even theknowledge 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 Bibletranslation in Luther’s day without taking the finished productinto our hands for a moment. Even a casual paging through thetext will reveal many features that underscore Luther’s intent tobring the Scriptures to the people. A number of woodcut illustra-tions decorate the pages. Especially striking are the twenty-onefull-page pictures of the visions of St. John in Revelation. We mayalso be struck by the fact that the text is not divided into verses.Versification started at the middle of the century. Only the chap-ter divisions are marked.

Luther did provide an index to the Bible. And in running oureyes down the familiar listing, we realize, if we have not done sobefore, that Luther’s printed Bible reflects the ancient church’sattitude toward the biblical canon. He includes books of the OldTestament Apocrypha because “they are good and useful to

vey the fine, rich meaning of the Hebrew. In explanation, Lutherpointed 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 thatit never again could or would take us captive again . . . death canno longer hold us, sin can no longer incriminate us, the law canno longer accuse our conscience. . . . Therefore out of respect forsuch doctrine, and for the comforting of our conscience,” Lutherconcluded, “we should keep such words, accustom ourselves tothem, and so give place to the Hebrew language where it does abetter job than our German.”⁴²

The same holds true for the Greek New Testament. Citing thepassage in John where Christ says, “Him has God the Fathersealed,” Luther admitted it would have been better German to say,“He it is whom God the Father means.” But God’s placing a sealon the Christ was too important a biblical teaching to have beenwatered down by an inferior translation. So Luther preferred inthis instance to violate the German language rather than departfrom the word sealed. “I have been very careful to see that whereeverything turns on a single passage,” he recited as a rule ofthumb, “I have kept to the original quite literally.”⁴³

We cannot help but admire a man who set out to bring a faith-ful translation of God’s word to his people and followed throughwithout turning aside. After reviewing basic problems anddifficulties that Luther experienced in transferring the word fromlanguage to language, we are able to listen with great sympathy tohis own description of the translator’s craft: “Ah, translating is notevery man’s skill as the mad saints imagine,” he said. “It requires aright, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing, Christian, trained,informed, and experienced heart.”⁴⁴ At the same time, we miss inLuther’s soliloquy one trait that helped to set Luther apart astranslator, that is, a poetic soul.

Those who read the German Bible testify to its beauty andwarmth, to its rhythm and flow. From the very beginning of hiswork on the text, Luther aimed to produce more than a faithfultranslation. He wanted a text that was crisp and pleasant to hear. Byhis own admission he read Holy Writ “as though it had been writ-ten yesterday.” And he wished his translation to be read in the sameway. He adapted his language to any mood, to the tenderness of theChristmas story as well as to the terrors of the Apocalypse. Heemployed all the skills of the poet’s craft: an added syllable for thesake of rhythm, the use of alliteration, assonance, and rhyme. All isso naturally conceived that it does not appear artificially contrived.

Gifted with a natural talent for language, Luther did not workaccording to rules but from inner necessity. In the midst of thePsalms’ translation, he wrote to his friend Eobanus Hessus, “I must

“As for me, when I arrive at a text thatis like a nut with a hard shell, I imme-diately dash it against the Rock[Christ] and find the sweetest kernel.”

nb

read,” though they are not to be placed on the level of the HolyScripture. The order of the books in the New Testament alsoreminds us that some epistles were spoken against in the earlychurch. Contrary to the order in the Vulgate, Luther regularlynumbered the New Testament books from –, ending with John. He then added Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation with-out numbers at the end.

In the text itself, later editions of the Luther Bible marked thebeginning and the end of the regular Gospel and Epistle lessonsfor each Sunday. This was done for the benefit of both pastor andparishioner. But aside from the text, perhaps the most useful addi-tions were Luther’s introductions to the various biblical booksand the notations on the Bible’s margin. For those of us who donot use Luther’s German Bible, the English translation of the BiblePrefaces gives us the flavor of Luther’s writing. They are classicsand deserve to be read.

Luther also added comments in the margin for the guidance ofthe 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 deniesthe request and tells Moses to be satisfied in knowing God by hisname. And then adds, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gra-cious.” To this scene Luther commented in a side-note:

All this refers to Christ; how he should live, preach, die, andrise in the midst of Moses’ people, who will not see his coun-tenance, but only see him from behind. That means, they willsee Christ by faith in his humanity, but not yet [see] his divin-ity. And this is the Rock on which all believers stand in this life.Yet this is entirely a gift of God without our merit. Thereforehe says, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.⁴⁹

Luther’s insight leads each reader directly into the heart of theScripture’s gospel message.

That very gospel also moved Luther to work countless hours inpreparing his translation. “I gave it my utmost in care and effort,”he related,

and I never had any ulterior motives. I have neither takennor sought a single penny for it, nor made one by it. Neitherhave I sought my own honor by it; God, my Lord, knowsthis. Rather I have done it as a service to the dear Christiansand to the honor of One who sitteth above, who blesses meso much every hour of my life that if I had translated a thou-sand times as much or as diligently, I should not for a singlehour have deserved to live or to have a sound eye. All that Iam and have is of his grace and mercy.⁵⁰

We cannot, however, leave the workshop of the translator with-out hearing his closing wish. We have learned the problems anddifficulties that a translator faces. We have recognized the joys ofaccomplishment. We may use the insights from Luther’s prepara-tion of the German Bible as a springboard for a discussion oftranslation today. But we have overlooked something very basic ifwe do not feel the force of Luther’s admonition to his people,“Now you have the translated Bible. Only use it well also after mydeath.”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 UniversityPress, 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 becited 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 thePsalms”). 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

they used in everyday life. This is the real issue so far asLuther is concerned. He thought it was his task to make theWord of God as readily understandable as he could to themasses. That is why he translated as he did.¹

Despite this commitment by Luther to make the Bible speak thelanguage of everyday people, many of his English-speaking heirs,especially among the clergy, have not taken his example to heart. Itis not uncommon to hear Lutheran pastors endorse translationsthat are not, in the aggregate, in everyday English—for example,the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American StandardBible (NASB), or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

In some cases the pastors’ endorsement is implicit in the trans-lations they use from the lectern or the pulpit. Anecdotally, whenmy son was in the fourth grade, we attended a Lutheran churchwhere he heard, for the first time, the Scripture lessons read fromKing James Version. He turned and asked me what language thepastor was speaking, suggesting that it was, perhaps, German.Clearly, a ten-year-old boy who had attended Lutheran schoolswhere the Bible is regularly used did not recognize ElizabethanEnglish as his own language.

Some apparently think that using the King James Versionin the twenty-first century is realistic. We should ask ourselveswhether Luther would have considered publishing a translation inthe middle-German language as it was spoken four hundred yearsearlier in .. (akin to reading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales).That would certainly have been nonsensical.

Even some modern translations, however, are not committedto common English. For example, consider these verses:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, andbetween your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, andyou will strike his heel” (Gn : NIV, ).

“Or anyone who strikes another with a weapon of wood inhand 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 Hiskind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to anadministration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, thesumming up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens andthings on the earth” (Eph :- NASB, revised ).

One wonders how any of these can claim to reflect commonEnglish. How often do people use a word like enmity in everyday

j

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 atConcordia University, River Forest, Illinois.

B noted that Lutherproduced a Bible translation that was intentionally in thecommon language of the German people. Unfortunately,

many of Luther’s heirs use English Bible translations that are not incommon English. This article explains contemporary translationtheory and relevant linguistic concepts to help readers evaluateBible translations for their own use. In addition, three case studiesinvolving translation of idioms, unmarked and marked meaning,and inclusive language are included to demonstrate how transla-tions should be judged. Concluding remarks offer a general evalu-ation of modern English Bible translations and urge that thosewho claim to be Luther’s heirs follow his example by using trans-lations that clearly communicate the Word of God in translation.

LUTHER THE TRANSLATOR

Luther’s translation of the Scriptures has often been characterizedas a masterpiece of translation. It is also one of the first greatworks of German literature. That the Bible, composed in Hebrew,Aramaic, and Greek can be seen as a great work of German litera-ture is a tribute to Luther’s accomplishment: he made Holy Writspeak German to real, living Germans. The German that Lutherused was that of the masses, not of the elite—and this was thegenius of his work as translator. Thirty-five years ago HeinzBluhm noted,

For Luther there was no doubt about where the living lan-guage is to be found: in the house and in the marketplace.The language of daily life, as used by the common manunspoiled by Latin idiom, is the yardstick by which Luthermeasures real, natural German. Whatever other scholarsmay do and believe, he has, linguistically speaking, cast hislot with “the mother in the house . . . the children in thestreet, the common man in the market.” It is their languagehe listens to, it is their mouths he watches in order to deter-mine the nature of truly idiomatic German. If a translationof the Bible is to reach the people, it must be couched in theirlanguage. Since his translation was most definitely made forthe people, Luther did his utmost to put it in the language

paraphrase, terms that are vague and often betray a prejudiceagainst whatever translation is perceived to be a paraphraseinstead of a true translation. Clearly those who exercise such prej-udice need to become better acquainted with the theory of trans-lation and the linguistic principles that support it.

What is often called literal translation is more accurately calledformal equivalent translation. In formal equivalent translation thetranslator attempts to match the original text of the source lan-guage in the target language on a word-by-word basis. In addition,the word order of the original is preserved whenever possible. Thetranslation attempts to meet the semantic (meaning) challenge oftranslation as well as to preserve the form of the original (hence thename). Most who have studied the biblical languages will identifythis as the technique often used by beginning students. Yet onewould hope that Bible translators are more sophisticated in theiruse 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 ofPsalm ::

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of thewicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat ofmockers (NIV).

This translation matches the form of the original fairly well. Itonly changed the word order slightly to match English prefer-ence, and it does not repeat the negative not twice to match theHebrew.² This translation does preserve the conceptual sequenceof the Hebrew: walk, stand, and sit. Yet despite its supposed liter-alness, this translation is not in common English. After all, whatdoes “standing in someone’s way” mean in English? It signifiesbeing an obstruction. Certainly, the Psalmist did not intend tosay that one is blessed if he does not obstruct sinners in their sin-ful ways! Instead, the Psalmist was saying that one is blessed whenhe does not join sinners in their sinning. This verse from the NIVis an example of a translation that is literal but inaccurate.

The problem with formal equivalent translation is that it placestoo great an emphasis on a language’s form as a semantic feature.Certainly, the form, especially word order, can be an importantfactor in the meaning of a text. This is particularly the case in lan-guages such as Hebrew or Greek that are not as dependent onword order as is English. Form, however, does not usually serve asa reliable guide for translating idioms. In the case of Psalm : theproblem is actually in English. The Hebrew “stand in the way of”is not an idiom; but when translated in a formal equivalent man-ner into English, the result is an idiom that means somethingother than the sum of the semantic values (meanings) of the indi-vidual words. In other cases, the problem can manifest itself in theopposite direction. Hebrew or Greek idioms cannot be translatedmerely by matching word-by-word because the result is almostnever an equivalent idiom in English. Thus semantic matchingfrom one language to another cannot always be accomplished onthe level of individual vocables (words).

In fact, a myriad of problems can manifest themselves in formalequivalent translation. The word order of an English translationmay match the original, but may be awkward English. Greek tol-erates long sentences, but English prefers sentences of no longerthan twenty-five words.³ One lemma (root word) in Hebrew or

speech? What is the average reader to make of the phrase a weaponof wood in hand? Who would use a verb like purposed or a phrasesuch as an administration suitable to the fullness of the times? SurelyLuther, if he were translating into modern English, would avoidthese constructions. Yet such constructions are common in mod-ern English Bibles.

This situation is unfortunate since we, through the discipline oflinguistics, possess a much broader knowledge of language thanLuther could have dreamed. Luther had to rely on his own obser-vations of German usage. We not only have the benefit of observ-ing the current use of modern languages as Luther observedGerman in his day, but also possess the theoretical underpinningof modern linguistics to aid us.

So how are we to evaluate Bible translations? First of all, thoseof us who have been trained in the biblical languages need tomove beyond evaluating translations based on a mechanicalmatching of English translations to the original on a word-by-word basis. In addition, we must not rely on a simplistic referenceto the English glosses (“meanings”) found in lexicons. Next, wemust apply the findings of theoretical and practical linguistics.Finally, we need to understand the challenges of Bible translationso that we can better evaluate translations and use them intelli-gently. I will therefore offer a few suggestions as to how we canbetter appreciate the challenges of Bible translation. In addition, Iwill introduce a few concepts from the science of linguistics so thatwe can be less harsh in our condemnation of translators’ attemptsto communicate in contemporary English. Hopefully, we can, atthe same time, become more judicious in our choice of transla-tions to use in preaching and teaching.

TRANSLATION THEORY

A few years ago at the Annual Meeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature I attended a session that examined the translation tech-nique of several ancient Targums to the Old Testament. One pre-senter analyzed a Targum by classifying the translator’s techniqueat various points as “literal,” “paraphrase, but accurate,” or “para-phrase and inaccurate.” After the presentation, when the moder-ator solicited questions from the audience, I asked whether thepresenter found any examples of “literal, but inaccurate” transla-tion. In reply, he asked me what my question meant. His pre-sumption was that literal translation (whatever literal may mean)was inherently accurate, whereas paraphrase (whatever thatmeans) can vary in its accuracy.

Clergy and many scholars such as the one I questioned at theSBL Meeting often characterize Bible translations as literal or

What is often called literal trans-lation is more accurately calledformal equivalent translation.

nb

’

Nevertheless, functional equivalent translation is not withoutits pitfalls. Often scholars who have studied texts for years are notalways agreed on information that is implied by the text. Nor arethey agreed on the meaning of some idioms (or whether a phraseis an idiom) or on the exact meaning of some phrases or sen-tences. The most pervasive problem with functional equivalenttranslation is that translators are often tempted to place theirown interpretation of the text into their translation. If we were tobe honest, all translators do this to some degree, even if only intheir choice among competing terms in the target language thatcould be chosen to translate a particular word or phrase.(Consider the Roman Catholic-produced New JerusalemBible’s constant translation of dikaiosuvnh with uprightnessinstead of the usual righteousness.)

Moreover, in functional equivalent translation the translatorcan be tempted to place the interpretation squarely in the text.Take for example these passages from the New LivingTranslation ():

This messenger was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilder-ness and was preaching that people should be baptized to showthat they had turned from their sins and turned to God to beforgiven (Mk :). Then John went from place to place on bothsides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be bap-tized to show that they had turned from their sins and turnedto God to be forgiven (Lk :). Paul said, “John’s baptism wasto demonstrate a desire to turn from sin and turn to God. Johnhimself told the people to believe in Jesus, the one John saidwould come later” (Acts :).

All three of these passages contain the phrase bavptismametanoivaß, usually translated a baptism of repentance.Considering the wide range of meanings that an English readercould assign to this phrase, almost no one found it objectionable.The relation between baptism and repentance is hidden in theword of. The NLT, however, assigns one possible meaning, onethat is acceptable to a wide range of conservative AmericanEvangelicals, but not to Lutherans. Our understanding of John’sbaptism is not that it was a mere sign that one had repented or waswilling to repent.

Perhaps a more blatant example of the abuse of functionalequivalent translation is the American Bible Society’sContemporary English Version (). Its text often incorpo-

Greek may require different lemmas in different contexts inEnglish. Wordplays that depend on sound may not be repro-ducible in English, and if the translation matches the word play itmay sacrifice the meaning of the passage being translated.⁴ Inaddition, information that was implicit for the readers of the orig-inal text is left untranslated in formal equivalent translationsbecause it does not appear in the form of specific vocables.However, the English reader may need that implicit informationstated explicitly to appreciate the full meaning intended by theoriginal author.

While English translations have traditionally been more or lessformal equivalent in their approach, formal equivalence is not anoption in other languages. The past century has seen the world-wide effort of Bible societies and mission groups to translate theBible into languages that are more distant from Greek (orHebrew) than is English. In many cases, translators are forced totry other techniques to transfer meaning from one language toanother. The most prevalent of these is functional equivalenttranslation (sometimes called by the older label dynamic equiva-lent translation). As the name implies, this technique focuses onmaking the translation function semantically in the target lan-guage in the same way that the original text functioned semanti-cally for its original readers. It is, in effect, a thought-by-thoughttranslation instead of a word-by-word translation. This techniqueis often labeled paraphrase. This is an unfortunate identificationand one that is often used to imply that translations produced inthis way are deficient and defective.

Translators have come to use functional equivalent translationsfor a number of reasons. For instance, some languages do not havereadily available terms that correspond to concepts in the Bible’soriginal languages. For instance, I have spoken to translatorsworking in Africa who were translating the Bible into languagesthat had no term for crown. Another translator was translating theBible for people who had never seen the ocean and, therefore, hadno nautical terms whatsoever, not even a word for boat! The caseof translation of the Bible into English is not as problematic asthese cases, but there is something to be learned from them.

Functional equivalent translation can be very accurate.Consider the following example:

Then all Israelites from Dan on Israel’s northern border toBeersheba on Israel’s southern border and from Gilead east ofthe Jordan River came to Mizpah. The assembly was united inthe presence of the Lord (Jgs :, my translation).

This translation might be faulted by some for adding wordsthat are not in the original, such as “on Israel’s northern border,”“on Israel’s southern border,” and “east of the Jordan River.” Yetthis information was implied for the ancient Hebrew reader. Theoriginal readers would have immediately understood that peoplefrom all over Israel, even from the extreme north and south andeast, came to Mizpah. The biblical phrase “from Dan toBeersheba” contains this information implicitly (cf. Sm :; Sm :; :; Kgs :; Chr :; Chr :; Amos :). MostEnglish-speaking readers do not know that this is implied. In thiscase, functional equivalent technique makes this originallyimplied information explicit, giving the reader of the English thesame meaning as conveyed to the original readers.

The most pervasive problem with func-tional equivalent translation is thattranslators are often tempted to place their own interpretation of the text into their translation.

nb

So what should we look for in a translation, and what kind oftranslations should we, as heirs of Luther, use in the lectern, thepulpit and Bible class? What kind of translations should we seekto produce? I would argue that we need to avoid the hazards thatbeset both formal equivalent and functional equivalent transla-tion. Instead, we should strive for something that mediatesbetween the two. We should preserve the form of the originalwhenever possible as long as this does not impede translatinginto English that clearly and accurately portrays the meaning ofthe original to the general reader.⁵ This always involves a balanc-ing act. When is form to be preferred over function? When isfunction to override form? When can the translator preserveboth? These are decisions translators and translation teams willconstantly have to make. To illustrate, I would like to explore sev-eral case studies.

Case Study 1TWO IDIOMS IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Two idioms used in Daniel offer a challenge to translate accurate-ly while preserving the form of the original. The first occurs atDan :. In this verse Nebuchadnezzar complains that his advi-sors, the Babylonian wise men, are engaged in delaying tactics.The king has demanded that they tell him what he dreamt and thedream’s interpretation. Of course, they cannot know what hedreamt, so when they delay, he threatens them. The Aramaicidiom for their delaying tactics is ˆynIb]z: ˆWTn“a' an:D:[i yDI hn:a} [d"y:. A typ-ical English translation for this is “I am certain that you are tryingto gain time” (NIV, cf. NKJV, NRSV, NJB). Other translationshave “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 andNLT are striving for natural English and capture the meaning wellwith the word stall, but they have retained the form of theAramaic with the addition of the words “for time.”⁷ After all, thetypical English speaker would simply say, “You’re just stalling.”

In Aramaic ˆbz can mean gain, but more commonly means buyand is probably a loan word from Akkadian, where the same rootmeans buy, gain, or engage in commerce (thus the translation bar-gain).⁸ Therefore, we have a happy and unusually rare occurrencehere: an Aramaic idiom that matches exactly an English idiom.The Aramaic says, “I know that you are buying time.” Thus, a nat-ural English translation that would satisfy the need to be func-tionally equivalent and yet preserve the form is “I’m sure you’retrying to buy some time” (GW []).⁹ In this case GW has cap-tured both function and form and is perhaps to be preferred.

Another idiom is found at Daniel :, . In this case Daniel’sskill as a seer is characterized as ˆyrIf]qi arEv;m]. This is usually trans-lated “able to solve [difficult] problems” (cf. NIV, NASB, NRSV,NAB, NLT, CEV). The Aramaic idiom, however, is literally “ableto untie knots.” Thus NJB has “unraveling difficult problems”and GW has “untangle problems.” In this case, both NJB andGW have managed to preserve form without sacrificing func-tion, whereas the other translations have opted for a purelyfunctional equivalent approach to this idiom. This is true evenof translations that in the minds of many are “literal”: NASB,NRSV, and NAB.

rates the translator’s interpretation. Some of these, such asMatthew :, contain a theological bias: “This is my blood andwith it God makes his agreement with you.” The CEV consis-tently translates diaqhvkh as agreement, despite the fact thatagreement implies a two-way consent, whereas diaqhvkh impliesonly the consent of one party. While traditional translations of

diaqhvkh, testament and covenant, are not common Englishwords (they are hardly used outside of ecclesiastical or legal con-texts), agreement is a poor alternative. A better choice wouldhave been promise, which like diaqhvkh implies only the consentof one party. I suspect the choice of agreement was a theologicalone, even if it was not consciously theological. Most AmericanProtestants do not understand the Lord’s Supper as a gift fromGod that brings us his favor in Christ’s body and blood. Instead,they understand it as a human response to the historical sacrificeof Christ. Thus the two-way commitment better fits their theo-logical presuppositions.

Nevertheless, the CEV also contains interpretations that donot appear to be theologically motivated. For instance, Samuel: reads:

Saul was furious with Jonathan and yelled, “You’re no son ofmine, you traitor! I know you’ve chosen to be loyal to that sonof Jesse. You should be ashamed of yourself! And your ownmother should be ashamed that you were ever born.”

Certainly translating rm,aYOw" as yelled is appropriate here, con-sidering that the text does tell us that Saul was angry. The usualtranslation said is rather insipid in this case. The other equiva-lents are questionable, however. Is tWDr“M'h' tw"[}n"AˆB,, (a twisted,rebellious son) really a traitor, a term that implies perhaps trea-son against the state? Or is Saul implying that Jonathan hasbetrayed him personally? Or is he implying that Jonathan hasbetrayed him both as his son and as his subject? Does ÚT]v]b;l](“to your own shame”) mean “you should be ashamed of your-self”? Instead, it means “you have disgraced (or brought shameupon) yourself.” Does ÚM≤ai tw"r“[, tv,bol]W (“to the shame of yourmother’s nakedness”) really mean “your own mother should beashamed you were ever born”? Rather, it means that Saul isimplying that Jonathan is not his son. The CEV goes too far inits functional equivalence here. Perhaps this a better functionalequivalent translation:

Then Saul got angry with Jonathan. “Son of a crooked andrebellious woman!” he yelled. “I know you’ve sided with Jesse’sson. You have disgraced yourself. You act as if you are yourmother’s son but not mine.”

We need to avoid the hazards thatbeset both formal equivalent andfunctional equivalent translation.

nb

Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So shewent and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.

Omit “of water” and read it again. Absolutely no meaning is lostfor the English reader, and it becomes more natural English.This retaining of the Hebrew marker where it is not needed inEnglish is common in NIV, NASB, NRSV, NJB and NAB. OnlyNLT, CEV and GW recognize that the marker is not needed inEnglish translation.

This specific case illustrates two important principles. First,one cannot blindly use or eliminate a marker like “of water.” Forinstance, it needs to be retained in many passages such as Kings: (“jar of water”). One must know when the target languageneeds the marker and when it does not. Second, the retaining ofthe 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 transla-tions in many English Bibles awkward and unnatural. This isperhaps more insidiously damaging than having a wrong mean-ing. Repeated instances of awkward, unnatural English (anunfortunate side effect of over-reliance on form-equivalenttranslation) have convinced many that the Bible is difficult,obscure, archaic, and out of touch with contemporary needs.

Case Study 3INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

Inclusive language, once a controversial issue, is now an expectedstandard in many contemporary formal written and oral contexts.One can still hear uses of man to mean humankind, even occa-sionally on network news. Yet it is increasingly common, especial-ly among younger adults, to find that the audience no longeraccepts or understands terms such as man and men in the gener-ic sense of person or human. Because of this trend, and because ofallegations of some American theologians that the Scriptures, par-ticularly in English translation, were unnecessarily gender-specificand male-biased, the convention of the LCMS asked itsCommission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to studythe theological implications of using inclusive language. Theresult of this study is the CTCR document Biblical Revelationand Inclusive Language (BRIL).¹¹

BRIL very capably sets out and applies principles about the use ofinclusive language in five sections: Introduction, Language about God,Language about Christ, Language Concerning Christians and People inGeneral, and Summary. The short Introduction sets forth the basis forconcern about this issue and how God’s revelation in the Scriptures is

Case Study 2 UNMARKED VERSUS MARKED MEANING

One concept we learn from linguistics is the semantic categoriesof unmarked meaning and marked meaning. Words, as we know,can have a range of meanings. But how do we know which par-ticular meaning is being used by a speaker or writer at any giventime? One of the ways we know is whether the meaning of theword is unmarked or marked by features in the context. Theunmarked meaning of a word is the meaning one would associatewith it without any contextual indications of what it means. Thusthe unmarked meaning of a word is the meaning that comes tomind without any clues as to what the speaker or writer means.For instance, the unmarked meaning of boot for most peoplewould be a type of footwear. The marked meaning is the meaningone would assign to a word because of the context in which it wasused. The word may be marked by the overall context, by itsimmediate context, or by specific words used in conjunction withit. Thus a group of computer users who are using the term boot areprobably talking about turning on their computer and loading itsoperating system.

The challenge that marked and unmarked meaning presentsto translators is that the source language may employ a mean-ing marker that is not needed in the target language.Alternatively, the opposite may occur. The source language mayemploy an unmarked meaning, but to make the transition tothe target language, the translator may have to provide markingfor readers. These cases are examples where formal equivalenttranslation fails because it translates only form with little regardto function.

I would like to offer one example of marked meaning in theoriginal text that is often translated incorrectly. This is theprepositional phrase “of water” used as a marker. This marker isused in English in various ways, such as in the phrases “drop ofwater” or “cup of water.” This marker distinguished betweendrops of other liquids (for example, a drop of blood) or cupscontaining other beverages (such as a cup of coffee). In English,however, we normally do not mark bodies of water with thisphrase. We do not say, “The Mississippi is a major river ofwater,” or, “The farmer drilled a well of water in order to supplywater for his farm.” The reason is simple. English was shaped(and is often still used) in parts of the world where water is rel-atively plentiful. We expect that our wells will have water andour rivers will flow with it. We mark wells and rivers when theyare empty: “dry well” or “dry riverbed.” In the case of well, wehave to mark it only if it is not a well for water: “gas well” or “oilwell.” (Or it may be marked by context. I might use well withoutexplicitly marking it to mean gas well or oil well if I am speakingto a geologist.)

Hebrew, however, was shaped in a part of the world wherewater is a precious resource. Parts of Palestine receive fewer thaneight inches of rain each year. In this context one cannot assumethat a riverbed will have water in it or a well will not be dry. ThusHebrew (and hebraized Greek) marks bodies of water with thephrase “of water.” It is common to read English Bible translationsthat contain the unnatural phrases “well of water,” “streams ofwater,” “pools of water,” or “springs of water.”¹⁰ For instance, con-sider Genesis : in the NIV:

’

The source language may employ ameaning marker that is not neededin the target language.

nb

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 direct-ness of the singular of the original. It also recognizes that thechange to second person from third person risks losing the possi-ble universal application of the text by restricting the meaning tothe original readers.

The problem, however, is that BRIL offers no solution. If onedoes not get rid of man in the translation, one risks restricting theapplication to males in the minds of some contemporary readers.By not offering a solution, the document seems to imply thatthere 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 inclu-sive, and it is doubtful that readers would mistake this as a refer-ence to males only.

Moreover, this subsection gives the impression that is italways incorrect to change number or persons in translation.While these devices should not be used routinely, there areplaces where they are proper and actually make the translationmore understandable. One case is the frequent switching ofgrammatical persons in Leviticus, though the referent is thesame. For instance, Leviticus : begins by stating, “If you bringa burnt offering;” and then switches to the third person to referto the person bringing the sacrifice: “He will place his hand onthe animal’s head” (Lv :). In English translation this switch ofgrammatical persons can leave the impression that someoneother than the person bringing the sacrifice is placing a hand onthe animal’s head. One solution is to switch the subsequentthird person pronouns to the second person (“you will placeyour hand on the animal’s head”). Thus there are times whenthe translation actually is better when person or number isswitched. These devices ought to be used sparingly, however.Moreover, BRIL is certainly correct in saying that they shouldnot be devices merely to make the language inclusive.

The other place where the document overreaches is in sub-section F, “Christians as ‘Children’” (). The statement is madethat “the actual language ought to guide and determine the waywe translate and read.” This statement is true in itself, if by“actual language” BRIL means the original language of theScriptures. The problem is that one cannot use this principle toargue ipso facto that uiJoi; qeou' cannot be translated “children ofGod,” as BRIL appears to do. The question is whether uiJoi; qeou'is ever used in an inclusive sense in Greek. To understand thisissue, we must understand how words in language often func-tion in a hierarchical relationship of meanings.

For instance, we have the hierarchy:

animalmammal bird fish insect

whale starling barracuda anthuman ostrich guppy beeape

not to be dismissed as coming from a patriarchal culture. Therefore,BRIL states, “The language of the Scriptures is the foundational anddeterminative language which the church is to use to speak about Godand the things of God” ().

The next two sections, Language about God and Languageabout Christ, are well-reasoned and insightful, not only defendingthe traditional language referring to God in masculine images ofFather and King and Christ as Son of Man, but also in counteringfeminist arguments that would have us change this historic andbiblical language. Therefore, the first person of the Trinity is Father,not Mother or Parent. Christ is Son of God, not Child of God, andthe Holy Spirit “is not to be understood as a feminine principle ofthe Godhead and/or described with feminine pronouns.” Yet BRILdoes note that “feminine similes for God occur in the Scriptures,albeit rarely, and may also be used in appropriate ways” anddevotes over three pages to the discussion of such texts and theirinterpretation by contemporary theologians ().

All this is well and good. Nevertheless, when it comes to apply-ing these same principles in the fourth section, “LanguageConcerning Christians and People in General,” BRIL has some-times, in my opinion, overplayed its hand. Not that everything inthis section is wrong. Much of it is well argued and sensitive to theuse of terms in the original biblical texts. For instance, the docu-ment recognizes that a[nqrwpoß is often used in a generic sense inScripture and can be rightfully translated person, human, or in theplural people, humans. (Presumably, though not stated, so occa-sionally can ajnhvr [e.g., Mt :, ; Lk :, ; Js :, , , ; :]and vyai [e.g., Ps :].) Other good examples are the approved ren-derings of impersonal pronouns in inclusive language (anyone,everyone, no one instead of any man, every man, no man), indefiniteconstructions (as in Cor : “Whoever boasts, boast in the Lord”instead of “Let him who boasts”), and the concession that some-times ajdelfoiv may mean “brothers and sisters,” not merely brothers.

Despite these strengths, it is this fourth section that exhibits anumber of weaknesses in its argumentation, especially when weare considering Bible translation. First, in subsection A, “Use ofWords Not in the Biblical Text,” BRIL notes that there is often nogood reason for changing the persons or number of pronounsmerely to make them inclusive (–). For example, manbecomes those in Psalm in the NRSV:

Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked; buttheir delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they med-itate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams ofwater. In all that they do, they prosper.

But perhaps more importantly, we haveto learn to be more sensitive to actuallanguage usage when we evaluate Bibletranslations.

nb

principle that the actual language guides and determines transla-tion. (That is, uiJoiv can be translated by the words sons, grandsons,children, descendants, depending on context, but it cannot betranslated by other words such as father, mother, cousin, uncle,aunt, predecessor, which are related but not part of the semanticrange of uiJoiv.)

It is especially disappointing to read BRIL’s treatment of uiJoivqeou' given its sensitive treatment of ajdelfoiv. In addition, to beevenhanded, 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 usedis not uiJovß but tevknon. To be consistent BRIL should have assertedthat “my child” would have been a better translation in theseinstances (see NRSV). (To my knowledge tevknon is never used onthe more gender-specific level in Koine Greek that would corre-spond to son in English. It always appears to correspond to child.)

Admittedly, these are not criticisms of BRIL’s principles, but ofthe application of those principles. But in this case, the applica-tions are important. Let me use a biblical example as an analogy.

When the Israelites were encamped at Mt. Sinai, God instruct-ed Moses to place a fence around the mountain because anyonewho touched the mountain would die (Ex :). Now supposeMoses had the fence placed up the mountain instead of at its base.It would have allowed someone to tread on the mountain and bekilled. Suppose on the other hand that Moses, in an effort toensure that no one touched the mountain, placed the fence anextra hundred yards from the mountain. Some people whosepropensity is to challenge limits may have hopped the fence andfound that they did not die. This could have led to many otherpeople hopping the fence and the eventual death of a good num-ber who did eventually tread on the mountain.

The point of this illustration is this: because of current sensibil-ities about gender issues in language, it is important we draw theline precisely where Scripture draws the line. If we put the fencetoo high up the mountain (that is, if we unjustifiably allow toomuch of the Scripture and our theological language to be con-verted to inclusive language), it will lead to harm. On the otherhand, if we put the fence too far away from the mountain (inallowing too little of the Scripture and our theological language tobe expressed in inclusive language), some will surely notice thatthe land on the other side of the fence doesn’t really cause harm.This is why we should commend BRIL in most cases, because itdoes draw the line carefully. Nevertheless, we should also be cau-tious about those places where it wishes to exclude inclusive lan-guage unjustifiably.

In the case at hand we have the English hierarchy:

childrensons daughters

This hierarchy goes from the generic (gender inclusive level) tothe specific (gender specified level) with these meanings:

[offspring][male offspring] [female offspring]

BRIL’s logic seems to be that uiJoiv functions only on the bot-tom level where sons operates in contemporary English. Weknow, however, that sometimes a word can function at morethan one level in a meaning hierarchy. One determines by contextat what level a writer or speaker is using the word. In English,man used to function both at the generic level of human and themore specific level of male human, though it functions increas-ingly only at the more specific level in contemporary English.Moreover, that the existence of one or more synonyms at themore generic level does not keep a word from functioning at bothlevels. For instance, man used to function at the generic levelalthough English had alternatives: human, person.

Thus the old hierarchy in which man functioned in English was:

human, person, manman 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 HebrewµynIB; means not only sons, but also often means children or descen-dants 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 tothe English word sons, but also to the English word children. In fact,it can denote sons, grandsons, descendants or children and is oftenused to translate µynIB; when it carries any of these meanings. ThusBRIL’s principle that the actual language guides and determinestranslation does not in itself determine which sense of uiJoiv isintended unless we also take context into account.

Moreover, the context of Galatians :, the example BRIL usesas an example of when not to translate uiJoiv as children (),would seem to be a perfect example of uiJoi; qeou' meaning “chil-dren of God.” Verse is explicitly gender-inclusive (there is nei-ther male nor female in Christ Jesus), as is verse , which switch-es from the uiJoi; qeou' of verse to the descendants (inclusivelanguage) of Abraham (tou' ∆Abraa;m spevrma)! I wouldrespectfully disagree with BRIL’s assertion that uiJoi; qeou' shouldnever be translated “children of God,” although I agree with the

’

If one does not get rid of man in thetranslation, one risks restricting theapplication to males in the minds of some contemporary readers.

nb

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 ofsinners 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 adequateword play without totally sacrificing the meaning.

. By general reader I mean average readers with no theologicaltraining or a modicum of theological training. Such a translationshould avoid theological and specialized jargon whenever possible. SeeAndrew E. Steinmann, “Preaching without Confusing Jargon,”Concordia Pulpit Helps (, no. ): –; “Communicating theGospel Without Theological Jargon: Translating the Bible into Reader-Friendly Language,” Concordia Theological Quarterly ():–; and “When the Translations of Catechetical Proof Texts Don’tCommunicate,” Concordia Journal (): –.

. The New American Bible is an American Roman Catholic trans-lation conducted under the guidance of the Catholic BiblicalAssociation.

. 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 byGod’s Word to the Nations Bible Society.

.For instance, NIV uses “well of water” (Gen :,), “streamsof 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 theCommission on Theology and Church Relations of the LutheranChurch—Missouri Synod (St. Louis: LCMS, ). Page references tothis document will be indicated in the body of the text.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this essay I have touched on only a few of the challenges that faceboth Bible translators and those who evaluate and use the Bible intranslation. I would advocate that we need to avoid both extremesof strict formal equivalent translation and unfettered functionalequivalent translation. Instead, we should insist on a balancebetween function and form. In a way, I am arguing that we shouldview translation on a spectrum from rigidly formal to extremelyfunctional. If we were to construct such a spectrum and place on itthe translations mentioned in this essay, it might look somethinglike the diagram below.

Wherever one would place a particular translation on this spec-trum, it is important to keep in mind that at any particular pointthe translation may be more formal or functional equivalent thanit is in general. For instance, we saw above that in the case ofDaniel :, that many of the translations on the form equiva-lent side of the spectrum used a very functional equivalentapproach. Thus each instance of translation has to be evaluatedindependently.

But perhaps more importantly, we have to learn to be more sen-sitive to actual language usage when we evaluate Bible translations,just as Luther was sensitive to the actual German language beingspoken in the marketplace and the home. This means that pastorsand academicians alike will have to abandon simplistic characteri-zations of translations as literal or paraphrase and the impliedequations literal = good and paraphrase = bad. It also means thatwe have to be more sensitive to the balancing act that translatorsmust perform so that we are not overly critical of their work.Finally, it means that those who claim to be Luther’s heirs shouldnot simply seek to produce sound theology for their day. Theyshould also strive to use and produce good Bible translations.Both, when done in humility and with a sensitive treatment ofHoly Scripture, bring glory to God. LOGIA

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

NKJV NASB NAB NRSV NIV NJB GW NLT CEV

1985 1995 1991 1989 1984 1985 1995 1996 1995

j

Caveat Emptor!Let the Buyer — and the Reader — Beware!

A B

Martin’s book is an examination of the New Testament sec-tion of the NIV Study Bible. The significance of this bookfor Missouri Synod Lutherans is its examination of the Bibletranslation used in the synod’s lectionary, catechism, Bible studymaterials, 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 ConcordiaPublishing House edition of the NIV was the overwhelming“favorite version of the Scriptures” in a recent survey of MissouriSynod Lutherans; it won hands down.⁴

Martin’s book is significant also for Wisconsin SynodLutherans, because the NIV is its official Bible translation, hav-ing been blessed by the faculty of the Wisconsin LutheranSeminary.

Ten years ago the seminary faculty expressed its opinion thatthe NIV is a contemporary Bible translation which . . . maybe used with a high degree of confidence. . . . The facultyremains convinced that for all-around use—in private devo-tions, 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 pub-lished by the Wisconsin Synod—materials designed to strength-en the faith and to increase the piety of its lay people, and mate-rials designed for pastoral care.

Martin’s examination of the NIV begins by investigating thephilosophy underpinnings of the NIV. There are two philosophiesof translation—formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

A formal equivalence philosophy of translation treats eachword of the original language, its grammatical style, and its lin-guistic forms, with care and importance. This type of translationattempts to reproduce as accurately as possible the words, phras-es, style, and forms of the original Greek and Hebrew texts ofHoly Scripture. This formal equivalence philosophy of transla-tion produced the King James Version, the New King JamesVersion, the American Standard Version, and the New AmericanStandard Bible.⁶ A formal equivalency translation is not a wood-en, stilted translation. It is a careful and accurate rendering fromone language into another.

Dynamic equivalence translations try to capture “the mostnatural form of the language of the reader . . . whether or notthis closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text.” In

A J. B is pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church, Waseca,Minnesota.

T to internet buying,stock trading, and other forms of e-commerce. With therise 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 notnecessarily what it appears to be.

The same warning can also apply in the area of religion. Noteverything labeled religious is always religious or good. This canbe true in any number of areas. This essay is written to helpmake buyers and readers aware that a Bible translation may notalways be what it appears to be.

A partial basis for this essay is a book written by RobertMartin that examined the New International Version (NIV) ofthe Bible to see if it lives up to its own claims.¹ Martin’s bookshould be read and studied by every Christian and everyLutheran who considers using, or who actually does use, theNIV. Martin, a Baptist, wrote his book out of concern for themany Christian pastors and lay people who are bewildered bythe large number of Bible translations currently flooding thereligious market.

This essay also notes the ties between a particular philosophyof Bible translation and inclusive-language versions of the Bible.Martin asks, What is the “pre-eminent trait of a good Bibletranslation?” His answer is that “accuracy of translation . . . isthe overarching issue.” This is so because “the Bible is the Wordof the living God . . . the inscripturated revelation to mankind ofGod’s mind and will and the inspired record of his redemptivework.” The church’s need for a Bible translation that is “an accu-rate and reliable standard of faith and practice supersedes everyother concern.”²

Martin gives two reasons for his examination of the NewInternational Version (NIV) of the Bible: () the NIV translatorsdesired to do “for our time what the King James Version did forits day,” and () the claim that the “first concern of the [NIV]translators has been the accuracy of the translation and itsfidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.” Because the NIVdesires to be the modern replacement for the King JamesVersion, Martin examines the NIV to see whether it “is accurateenough as a translation to warrant its becoming the standardversion of the English-speaking world.”³

riated verbal inspiration as a “heresy” that makes the Bible a“false god.” For Bratcher, the “authority” of the Bible “is not inthe words themselves” but in Jesus, “THE Word of God.”¹¹

Eugene Nida, one of the best-known writers on the subject oftranslating the Bible, writes that neo-orthodox theology

conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the responseof the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happenedto the source at the time of writing . . . . “The Scriptures areinspired because they inspire me.” Such a concept of inspi-ration means, however, that attention is inevitably shiftedfrom the details of wording in the original to the means bywhich the same message can be effectively communicatedto present-day readers. . . . Those who hold the neo-ortho-dox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to befreer in their translating.”¹²

Martin concludes this section of his book by saying that theformal equivalence method of translation is philosophicallycommitted to regarding and guarding the individual words ofthe original text as the primary units of translation; the dynam-ic equivalence method is not. Thus, the further the translatordeparts from formal equivalence in his work, the less compati-ble his method and ultimately the finished product become withthe orthodox doctrine of biblical inspiration and authority.¹³

What characteristics determine whether a Bible version is adynamic equivalence or a formal equivalence translation?Martin lists the following elements as characteristic of a dynam-ic equivalence translation: () the elimination of complex gram-matical structures, () the addition of words in translation, ()the omission of words in translation, () the erosion of theBible’s technical terminology, () the leveling of cultural distinc-tives, () the presentation of the interpretation of Scripture asScripture, () the paraphrasing of the biblical text. Martin pro-ceeds to examine the NIV with these criteria to see what itstranslational philosophy really is.

THE ELIMINATION OF COMPLEX GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURES

Formal equivalence translations attempt to retain the long andcomplex sentence structures that God the Holy Spirit inspired inthe original biblical writers. Dynamic equivalence translationsattempt to break these long complex sentences into short simplesentences. In their own Preface, the NIV translators admit theiradherence to the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translationby saying that “faithful communication of the meaning of thewriters of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentencestructure.”¹⁴

Martin lists six long complex sentences in the New Testament:Acts :–; Corinthians :–; Ephesians :–; Ephesians:–; Thessalonians :–; and Hebrews :–. He examinesseven translations of these verses: those of the AmericanStandard Version, the King James Version, the New King JamesVersion, the New American Standard Bible, the RevisedStandard Version, the New International Version, and the GoodNews Bible, also known as Today’s English Version. Martinfound that the NIV was the most dynamic version in its render-

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 gener-al idea of the biblical text. The focus is on today’s reader’sresponse, not on yesterday’s text. Dynamic equivalence is moretypically the paraphrase type of Bible version popularized by theGood News Bible, the Living Bible, and translations like the NewEnglish Bible that exhibit many of the characteristics of a para-phrase.⁷ Dynamic equivalency is also basic to inclusive languageor gender-neutral versions of the Bible.

The NIV claims that its emphasis is “for the most part on aflexible use of concordance and equivalence, but with a mini-mum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equiva-lence. In other words, the NIV stands on middle ground—by nomeans the easiest position to occupy.”⁸ Martin’s book examineshow the NIV as a finished product stacks up against its ownclaims.

Why does Martin examine the translational philosophy of theNIV? Because, generally speaking, “the translator’s view of thenature of the Bible’s inspiration greatly influences his philoso-phy of translation.” One who believes that every word of theBible is inspired (verbal inspiration) and that all of the words ofthe Bible are inspired (plenary inspiration) will generally tend touse “formal equivalence” in translational work.⁹

The dynamic view of inspiration

argues that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writ-ers but left them to express those thoughts or ideas in theirown words. . . . [Thus] as long as we have the general ideas,then the exact words do not matter; and, thus as long as thetranslator captures the biblical writer’s “idea,” then he isfree to express that idea in whatever words he chooses.¹⁰

As evidence of the ties between a dynamic philosophy of Bibletranslation and a rejection of verbal inspiration, Martin cites theexamples of James Moffatt and Robert Bratcher. Moffatt pro-duced a very dynamic English version of the Bible that he want-ed “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 trans-lators of the Good News Bible, said, “Only willful ignorance orintellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible isinerrant and infallible.” He further stated that belief in the ver-bal inspiration of the Bible was “a patent error.” Bratcher exco-

As long as the translator captures thebiblical writer’s “idea,” then he is freeto express that idea in whatever words he chooses.

nb

John :; Acts :; :; Romans :; :; :; :; Ephesians:; Philippians :; Peter :; Revelation :; :.

Martin, however, also lists examples that illustrate the factthat in the NIV “liberties have been taken with the addition ofwords” to the text of the Bible. These additions have altered themeaning of the text, and are interpretation or commentary onthe biblical text rather than a translation. These representativepassages are: Corinthians :; Acts :; Matthew :; :;John :; Mark :; John :; Hebrews :a; Peter :.Martin labels this practice “interpretive translation.” He believesthese additions to Scripture violate the doctrine of inspirationand fall short of the “accuracy” claimed by the translators.¹⁹

Other scholars point out instances of NIV “interpretation”rather than translation. Ed. Miller examines John :– in a briefreview of the edition of the NIV in the Harvard TheologicalReview. In verse , Miller said that the NIV translation “requiresa degree of interpretation not strictly justified by the [Greek]text.” And he said of another NIV rendering that “it is a com-pletely unwarranted intrusion of interpretation and emphasis.”In concluding his review, Miller wrote that he found “at leasteleven important shortcomings in the NIV rendering of thePrologue of John.” Many of those eleven “points involve aston-ishing ‘interpretational intrusions’ beyond what is actually givenin the [Greek] text.”²⁰

Inclusive-language versions of the Bible also add words to thebiblical text. An example is The New Testament and Psalms: AnInclusive Version.²¹ In this version, the Lord’s Prayer begins“Our Father-Mother in heaven” (Mt :). Additions to the textare even found in genealogies: “Abraham and Sarah were theparents of Isaac, and Isaac and Rebekah the parents of Jacob,and Jacob and Leah the parents of Judah and his brothers, andJudah and Tamar the parents of Perez and Zerah” (Mt :–).Compare the above verses with the original Greek text, as wellas with the NRSV.

THE OMISSION OF WORDS IN TRANSLATION

Dynamic equivalence translations “frequently treat conjunctions,participles, pronouns, articles, adjectives, adverbs, and evenphrases as surplus verbiage.” In this section, Martin lists repre-sentative examples of the NIV’s removal of inspired words thatthe Holy Spirit placed into the text of Holy Scripture: Mark :;Luke :; Matthew :; Ephesians :; Colossians :; Matthew:–. Martin mentions especially “the NIV’s widespread elim-ination” of two “distinctive literary features” in the Gospel ofMark: Mark’s repetitive use of kai (“and”) and his frequent use of

ing of one passage, and was only superseded in dynamic equiv-alency by the Good News Bible in the other five passages. Thusthe evidence indicates that in this category “the NIV has more incommon with the philosophy of dynamic equivalence than withthe philosophy of formal equivalence.”¹⁵

The concern about breaking down one complex sentence intomany simple sentences has to do with the issue of accuracy andfidelity to the inspired Word of God. How does a translation thatturns one complex sentence into eight simple sentences (as theNIV did with Ephesians :– and Thessalonians :–)remain faithful to the original text? Was it the formal equiva-lence Bible translator who made the long complex sentence, orwas it the biblical writer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?And if the Holy Spirit made a sentence, can a translator remainfaithful when arbitrarily changing the original biblical text usingdynamic equivalency? The NIV’s arbitrary changing of sentencestructure is contrary to the its own claim that the “first concernof the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and itsfidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.”¹⁶

Martin expresses the concern that dynamic equivalence triesto make the Bible “simple” at the expense of serious biblicalstudy on the part of the reader. Martin writes that the “Bible isnot a pulp novel” or “the modern newspaper” that can begrasped with an “absolute minimum of effort.” Rather, the Biblemerits more effort, “more study, more investigation, morethought, more prayer.” Though Martin does not say it, the abil-ity to grasp the truth of Holy Scripture requires the work andassistance 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 theitch of our age for instant gratification. Many . . . havecome to regard instant spirituality and instant Bible knowl-edge as their birthright. The idea that one must labour overthe Word of God in order to mine its gold is a revolution-ary concept to many in our day.¹⁷

THE ADDITION OF WORDS IN TRANSLATION

Dynamic equivalence translations tend to add words to the textof Holy Scripture. Formal equivalence translations do this spar-ingly, and usually note additions by identifying them with ital-ics. Dynamic equivalence translations add a great number ofwords 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 theoriginal texts but required by the context. If there was uncer-tainty about such material, it is enclosed in brackets.” Martinfound only eight such verses where additions to the biblical textwere marked by brackets, though he grants that he could havemissed some. The reason for this is that in “many places the NIVis so paraphrastic that a convention such as italics or bracketswould be meaningless as far as indicating verbal deviations fromthe formal linguistic pattern of the original text.”¹⁸ He lists thefollowing as representative examples of verses that contain addi-tions, yet (in his view) without significantly altering the mean-ing of the verse: Matthew :; :; :; Mark :; Luke :;

Dynamic equivalence tries to make theBible “simple” at the expense of seriousbiblical study on the part of the reader.

nb

“gender-neutral”) these same verses also had singulars changedto plurals, hes changed to yous, Messianic prophecy removed,and so forth.²⁵ When, however, it was discovered that the CBThad done this, they were forced by public outcry to revise theNIrV to remove the gender-neutral material from it. John Pipersaid of these NIVI revisions, “If you believe in the verbal inspi-ration of Scripture you really can’t play fast and loose with thewords the Holy Spirit chose to inspire.”²⁶

THE EROSION OF THE BIBLE’S TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY

Martin notes, “dynamic equivalence translators frequently elim-inate the difficult or technical terms” found in the Bible in theapparent “interest of simplicity of expression.”²⁷ Can translatorsclaim faithfulness to the inspired text when they purposefullyremove technical words from an English translation of the Bibleand replace them with different, supposedly simpler Englishwords? Would doctors rewrite their medical textbooks to elimi-nate the technical? Do auto mechanics rewrite their technicalmanuals so that those who aren’t mechanics can better under-stand them? If these do not and would not, should Christianstreat the Bible this way?

In the NIV, Martin found “an erosion of the New Testament’stechnical vocabulary.” The NIV translates huiothesia withoutany reference to adoption in Romans : and Galatians :. TheGreek word mysteria is not translated as “mystery” at Matthew:; Mark :; Luke :; Corinthians :; :; Thessalonians:; Timothy :. The word “propitiation” (hilasterion) doesnot appear in the NIV at Romans :; John :, :.²⁸

Martin does not mention the mistranslation of koinonia (“fel-lowship”) in Corinthians : and , and the mistranslationsof the Greek word for tribulation (thlipsis) in all the NewTestament verses (Mt :; :, ; Jn :; Acts :; :; Rom:; Cor :, ), except for Revelation :. Nor does he men-tion the removal of the technical term “soul” (Hebrew nephesh,Greek psyche) from Genesis :; Kings :–; Proverbs :;Matthew :; Luke :–, and many other passages. At timesthe NIV eliminates “word” (logos) and replaces it with otherterms (Matthew :; :; Luke :, ; :; :; :;:; John :, ; :–; :; :; Acts :). The NiceneCreed’s “Only-begotten Son” (monogenes) becomes “one andonly Son” in the NIV (John :, ; :, ).²⁹ The OldTestament “peace offerings” (Hebrew shelemim) become “fel-lowship 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) ischanged to “favor” (Ex :; Ps :). Many more examplescould be cited in evidence. This kind of translation can onlyserve to impoverish theologically those who use the NIV as theirregular Bible translation.

Martin argues that it is “dangerous” for a Bible translation toeliminate technical terms. Translators who make simplicity thekey “will sacrifice accuracy in the process.” Sacrificing accuracyfor simplicity erodes the Bible’s “precision of meaning.” Theselosses contribute to a lack of theological precision and “curren-cy of the faith.” They contribute to the perpetuation of “serious

euthys (“immediately”). In addition, Martin points out the NIV’snon-translation of thirty-seven of the sixty-two occurrences ofidou (“lo” or “behold”) in the Gospel of Matthew. Likewise, theHebrew word hinneh, translated “lo,” “behold,” or “see,” is oftenmissing 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, thatthey are little, insignificant words. So what if they aren’t trans-lated in the text? Christ said, “He who is faithful in a very littlething is faithful also in much” (Lk :). If a Bible translation isfound unfaithful to God’s inspired word in little things like con-junctions, participles, pronouns, articles, adjectives, andadverbs, how then can it be trusted in larger and more impor-tant words? Martin’s concern about these “little words” is a con-cern for fidelity to the inspired text. These words in the originalGreek text give evidence of specific authorship, are evidence ofHebrew or Aramaic thought patterns, and bring unity ofthought to sections of the biblical text. The omission from theNIV translation of so many words that the Holy Spirit placed inthe Greek text “is without warrant by any just standard of trans-lation.” These omissions call into question the NIV’s claim of“accuracy” in translation and “fidelity to the thought of the bib-lical writers.”²³

Martin wrote his book well before the NIV Committee onBible Translation (CBT) decided to publish an inclusive lan-guage edition of the NIV in England known as the NIVI and theNIrV in the United States.²⁴ The adherence of the CBT to gen-der-neutrality commits the CBT to make changes to the originaltexts of Holy Scripture. Some of those changes will removewords found in the original languages. Other changes will addwords that are not in the original texts of the Old and NewTestaments. Such changes are made easier when one is also com-mitted to “dynamic equivalency” as a philosophy of translation.

Using this dynamic equivalency philosophy and commitmentto gender-neutrality, the NIVI changed singulars to plurals inGenesis :–; Genesis :; Numbers :; Psalm :–; Psalm:; Matthew :–; Luke :; John :; John :; Acts:; Corinthians :; James :; Revelation :. Third-per-son 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

“If you believe in the verbal inspirationof Scripture you really can’t play fastand loose with the words the Holy Spiritchose to inspire.”

nb

cal message from today’s world. These supposedly relevantchanges in the NIV will actually contribute to the irrelevancy ofthe Bible and remove the Bible’s influence in our culture. TheNIV translation treats modern culture as most relevant and thefilter through which to understand biblical times. Thus the NIVfails to live up to its claim to be faithful “to the thought of thebiblical writers.”³⁵

Many inclusive-language Bibles like the NIVI, and also theNRSV, attempt to be culturally relevant by changing the text ofHoly Scripture to make it speak with the modern world’s view ofideas and language. Mostly, these changes come at the expenseof the original text of Holy Scripture and the worldview of bib-lical times. As a result, the people of the Bible are made to speakas though they were modern-day individuals.

Robert Jewett, a self-described “liberal evangelical,” said,“Gender-neutral language obscures the genuine revelation thatis there in Scripture.” For Jewett, liberal dishonesty and notpatriarchalism or any other ancient element is the enemy ofscriptural truth. A gender-neutral translation that claims to beaccurate is “almost as bad as Stalin’s revisions of world history inwhich every ten years he’d change all the history books.” FurtherMr. Jewett said,

We’re facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades.The modern liberated perspective that imposes itself on thetext is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way throughthe NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated con-cepts and so forth like the current politically correct personin an Ivy League school: I mean that’s just ridiculous. Hereyou have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblicaltext with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liber-al views were Paul’s.³⁶

Christians need to remember that the wisdom of God is astumbling block and foolishness to the world. The gospel is anoffense 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 eternallife.” Cultural offense dare not drive them away from his words(Jn :–). Jesus said, “Blessed is he who is not offendedbecause of me” (Mt :; Lk :). Human wisdom and the waysof the spirit of the world would lead Christians to be offended bythe word of God. So, by the help of the Holy Spirit, believersneed to have the mind of Christ revealed in his inspired word.

error” in the church, contribute to biblical and theological illit-eracy in Christians. They are “hazardous” because much of thegospel 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 indi-cation of an underlying change in theology.³¹ Recent surveys ofreligious beliefs seem to echo Martin’s warning that the tenden-cy to eliminate the technical terminology of Scripture in ourmodern day will make those who regularly read these “simple”translations “biblically and theologically illiterate from havingsuffered long-term exposure to inaccurate and imprecise ver-sions of the Bible.”³² By eliminating many technical biblicalterms, the NIV helps to rob the church of its historical termi-nology. It also places a barrier between those who use the newterminology it espouses, and those in the church who use thehistorically accepted terminology—the “faith once delivered tothe saints” in Holy Scripture (Jude ).

It is the task of the church to teach each generation what itsbiblical terms mean, not to invent new terms for the faith. Godwarns his people against adding to his word or subtracting fromit (Dt :; Rv :–). God commanded his people to teachtheir children diligently the very words he had given them (Dt:–; Mt :). Jesus reminds us that we are saved by believinghis words (Jn :, ). If the church removes the words of Christfrom her Bible translations because they are technical terms, thechurch 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 trans-lators first concern was “the accuracy of the translation and itsfidelity to the thought of the biblical writers.”³³

THE LEVELING OF CULTURAL DISTINCTIVES

These examples show how the NIV’s philosophy of translationremoves the distinctive culture of biblical times from the mod-ern-day reader of Holy Scripture. The NIV desires to be moreculturally relevant to the modern Bible reader by focusing on theresponse of the modern reader rather than the actual words ofthe biblical text. Thus the NIV changed “seed” to “offspring”(Gn :; :), and “showbread” was translated as “consecratedbread” (Mt :).³⁴

Yet the NIV’s attempt to modernize distinctively biblical cul-ture and words forgets that western culture has been influencedby the biblical worldview, and that the English language is filledwith 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 everydayspeech. Biblical stories are frequently referred to in books,newspapers, magazines, and on television. Many paintingsand other works of art portray people or scenes from theBible. Furthermore, the Bible is the basis of some of ourmost important ideas about law and government. Becauseit is such a basic part of our culture, it is important for youto know something about the Bible, regardless of your indi-vidual religious beliefs.

Culturally motivated Bible translations will actually cut peopleoff from their biblical past and separate the real historical bibli-

By eliminating many technical bibli-cal terms, the NIV helps to rob thechurch of its historical terminology.

nb

official human interpretations of Scripture that contradict theplain and simple meaning of God’s word.⁴⁰

Martin lists twenty-one representative examples of interpreta-tion in the NIV. These examples include interpretive paraphrase,interpretive word addition to the text, interpretation that nar-rows or limits the meaning of a passage, and translations that areunique to the NIV. In contrast, he emphasizes the importance ofclearly and accurately translating the original text of Scripture sothat God’s people might read the actual word of God that theHoly Spirit has written, not some human words of interpretationthat are passed off as the Spirit-inspired text of Holy Scripture.Having noted these examples, Martin writes,

the NIV translators have not limited their interpretiveactivity to places where the original text is grammaticallyambiguous. On the contrary, they have been too unre-strained in offering their interpretive opinions. Too oftenthey have assumed the role of expositor; but the translator’stask is not that of an expositor. His job is not to give a run-ning commentary nor to explain the parts of the text thatare theologically difficult to understand.⁴¹

Instead Martin writes that the

translator’s role is like that of an ambassador to a foreignpeople. He is to be faithful and precise in delivering thewords that God has given to him. If this is his task, and it is,then only a careful formally equivalent rendering of theoriginal will pass on to the people of God the messagewhich the Lord intended us to receive.

Because of the extremely large number of interpretive transla-tions found in the NIV, Martin concludes that the NIV is not afaithful “ambassador” of God’s word! By passing off the inter-pretive words of human beings as the text of Scripture, the NIVhas fallen short of its claim to “accuracy” and “fidelity.”⁴²

Inclusive language versions often follow the principle ofdynamic equivalency, give greater fidelity to the receptor lan-guage, and present the interpretation of Scripture as Scripture.This is openly admitted in inclusive language versions of theBible. The following is representative:

This introduction is intended to inform the reader aboutthe interpretive character of the text. Attention should bepaid to the kinds of adaptations in language that have beenmade in order to express the intent of the text in the mostinclusive way possible. . . . we are aiming at producing aspecific version of the biblical text: an inclusive version.

How much interpretation is given as though it were really thetext of Holy Scripture?

This version has undertaken the effort to replace or rephraseall gender-specific language not referring to particular histor-ical individuals, all pejorative references to race, color, or reli-gion, and all identifications of persons by their physical dis-ability alone, by means of paraphrase, alternative renderings,

The wisdom of this world is not wiser than God or his word (

Cor :–). If removing the offensiveness of the inspired wordof God removes the offense God put there, it also removes theword 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 tosay; and when the text read to congregations is rewritten asif he had, Scripture is insofar simply abolished. Some maywish that the grammatical gender of Israel’s God were notmasculine, or at least that Paul’s and other biblical authors’texts were not so syntactically complex as to need pronounsto make sense. But neither of these is the fact; and readerswho rewrite to pretend that they are the fact simply rob theirhearers of the text of Scripture. There is no such usage in anycanonical text as the gnostic “Godself”; necessarily, a readingwhich 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,” orJohn : as “And this is the judgment, that the light has comeinto the world, and people (anthropoi) loved the darkness morethan light,” are valid attempts at making the generic language ofthe Greek Bible generic in English.³⁸ The real point of concerncomes when changes to the biblical text make the Scriptures saysomething 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 placesbetween the biblical text and the reader. He recognizes that everyBible translator has to do this to some extent, but formal equiv-alence translations contain less interpretation than do dynamicequivalence translations. Dynamic equivalence translations mis-lead readers by giving them interpretations rather than thedivinely inspired text itself. Citing Eugene Nida’s remark that thedynamic equivalence translator “is often inclined to be moreinterpretive on the basis of such” a philosophy of translation,“than if he attempts to stay closer to the actual wording of theoriginal” text of God’s Word, Martin asserts the “dynamic equiv-alence translator . . . reveals a lack of confidence that the mod-ern Christian is able to interpret the Bible for himself.” As oneindividual said to Martin, “Most people, however, are incapableof interpreting and so need a scholar to interpret for them.”Martin believes that such an attitude “places too much authori-ty into the hands of the translator.”³⁹

He is also concerned these translators “have either con-sciously or unconsciously retreated to some degree from one ofthe Reformation’s cardinal doctrines”: the ability of a Christianwith the aid of the Holy Spirit to read and understand the HolyScriptures without the interpretation of the pope or a churchcouncil. The Scriptures can be read, believed, and understoodwithout an “official” scholar to interpret them. In spite of theBaptist mooring of Martin’s thought that reduces biblical inter-pretation to a matter of individual freedom, his main concern isstill valid. Luther and Lutherans have voiced objections to

and other acceptable means of conforming the language of thework to an inclusive idea.

What is of major importance to this version? Is it fidelity to thetext of Holy Scripture? No! This version notes that “inclusivity isof major importance” no matter how much the original Greektext is changed.⁴³

THE PARAPHRASING OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT

As was seen above, the NIV claims only “a minimum of . . . para-phrase.” Yet upon careful examination, Martin finds that “theNIV translators frequently engaged in paraphrase,” and that“paraphrase is not an isolated phenomenon in the NIV NewTestament.” Martin lists forty-eight representative examples ofoutright 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 Hebrewand who is thus dependent on the formal accuracy of the Englishtranslation 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 isnot as “dynamic” as the Good News Bible or the NewEnglish Bible, nevertheless the NIV translators have beenheavily influenced by the dynamic equivalence philosophyof translation. Indeed, the NIV has more in common withthe dynamic equivalence translations than with the formalequivalence translations.⁴⁵

Because he found the NIV to be more of a paraphrase, Martinbelieves that the NIV’s claim to be an accurate translation is wrong.

Thus we arrive at the answers to Martin’s questions: Is theNIV an accurate translation? Is the NIV accurate enough as atranslation to warrant its becoming the standard version of theEnglish-speaking world? Does the NIV meet the church’s needfor an accurate translation of the Scriptures, which are her onlystandard of faith and practice? Martin states that if we judgeaccuracy “in terms of close correspondence to the structure andwording of the original texts, then the NIV must be judged inac-curate on a number of counts.” Martin’s answer to all threequestions is, No! The NIV translators stated that they “wereunited in their commitment to the authority and infallibility ofthe Bible as God’s Word in written form.” Martin commendsthem for their adherence to a “high view of the Scriptures,” butexpresses his concern that “heavy use of the dynamic equiva-lence philosophy is at odds with the doctrine of verbal inspira-tion.” While it is possible for Bible translators to embrace ortho-dox views of inspiration even when using dynamic equivalencyas a translational philosophy, this is really an inconsistency. ThusMartin says, “history teaches that inconsistency in one genera-tion becomes heterodoxy in the next. Where the dynamicmethod of translation is embraced, it is but one small step to theembracing of the dynamic view of inspiration as well.”⁴⁶

Martin believes that dynamic translations have a place in theChristian church. Nevertheless, they

should not be used as our primary study Bibles or as thestandards from which we derive our personal or corporatetheology and practice. It is also probably unwise to use themas pulpit Bibles or as pew Bibles, because in so doing theyare invested with the aura of the approval of the church.⁴⁷

Because the text of the NIV gives so much evidence that it is adynamic equivalence translation, Martin’s book needs to becarefully examined and evaluated by any in the Christian churchwho now use the NIV in the above ways.

Martin objects when some say that people will not read theBible unless it is translated into simpler and less precise termsthan can be found in formal equivalence translations. Martinwrites that we “must beware of the long-term costs of supposedshort-term gains.” What are those supposed short-term gains?Supposedly more people will read the Bible if they use suchdynamic equivalency translations like the NIV. Martin warns,however, that

sacrificing precision for simplicity is no bargain. Inaccurateand paraphrastic Bible translations cannot but contributeto the further erosion of theological precision in thedecades to come . . . . We must be cautious and conserva-tive. We must insist that new versions earn their right towidespread use in the churches not by advertising finessebut by our careful scrutiny of their accuracy. . . . We cannotafford to be careless and uninformed in these matters.

After careful scrutiny, Martin’s final conclusion is that the “NIVis not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world. Its accuracy is suspect in too many ways.”⁴⁸

The end of Martin’s book contains three appendixes, whichcover textual changes made in the NIV since its first edition,some comments on archaic language in Bible translations, andsome comments for those who say the Textus Receptus is the onlyGreek version to be used as the basis for a Bible translation.

CONCERNS FOR CONFESSIONAL LUTHERANS

Martin’s book raises concerns with which the LutheranChurch—Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, and othersmust deal. First, these denominations believe in the verbal inspi-ration of the Holy Scriptures. Yet the NIV, now used in almostall of both synods’ educational, devotional, and liturgical mate-rials, is a Bible version translated with a philosophy antagonisticto that doctrine. Jakob van Bruggen wrote about “the inadequa-cy of dynamic equivalence” as a method of Bible translation “for

The Scriptures can be read, believed,and understood without an “official”scholar to interpret them.

nb

those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.” Inaddition, van Bruggen taught that Christians must rejectdynamic equivalence as a method of Bible translation because it() “rejects the orthodox doctrine of the unity of the unchangeddivine and human natures of Christ by making his words sub-ject to all the limitations of the first century,” () “denies that theBible reveals absolute truth that transcends the time in which itwas written,” () “limits the horizon of God’s speaking in theBible to the centuries of the past,” and () “fails to account forthe creation of man in God’s image, the unity of the human racein Adam, and thus its unity in guilt and punishment.”⁴⁹

The concern about whether the NIV translators (known asthe Committee on Bible Translation—CBT) remain committedto the doctrine of inspiration has increased due to the fact thatthe NIV Committee on Bible Translation quietly worked onreleasing a gender-neutral “inclusive language” NIV translationin or . When the American Christian public becameaware of this proposed gender-neutral inclusive language revi-sion of the NIV, the CBT had already quietly published a gender-neutral inclusive language children’s Bible in America known asthe NIrV, and had published an inclusive language NIV—theNIVI—in England. Only after great public outcry was the gen-der-neutral NIrV phased out and modified, and the proposedgender-neutral inclusive language version NIV for Americadropped. Some expressed the concern that the CBT could startprinting the proposed gender-neutral changes to the NIV at anytime in the future. This fear was not unfounded, since inOctober of the International Bible Society reprinted anNIrV New Testament called Bright Beginnings in its original gen-der-neutral version.⁵⁰

When news about the original gender-neutral NIV firstappeared, the Southern Baptists said that the International BibleSociety (IBS) and its CBT were revising God’s word “to meet thedemands of political correctness.” They said that if the IBS con-tinued with these gender-neutral changes they would boycott theNIV. Southern Baptists took note of the fact that the IBS couldreprint the gender-neutral NIV at any time. It is also apparent thatthe Southern Baptists took note of the IBS’s October reprint-ing of the original gender-neutral NIrV, because they recentlyannounced that they and their publishing house (Broadman andHolman) would no longer use the NIV in its publications.⁵¹

A month later it was revealed in World that the InternationalBible Society (IBS) “had to acknowledge that it is giving consid-eration to publishing a new English-language ‘rendition’ of the

Bible” that will be gender-neutral. This “rendition” would reflectthe 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 theBritish Inclusive Language Version of the NIV (the NIVI) isoffered for sale here in the United States, supposedly with theapproval of Zondervan Publishing House that said that the NIVIwould not be sold here in the United States.⁵²

The NIV’s recent Hispanic version has changed the reading ofPsalm : and Hebrews : from “hijo del hombre” (Son ofMan) to “el ser humano” (the human one/human being). TheSpanish term for Son of Man is also removed from Daniel :.The wording of Acts : makes it seem that when the discipleschose a replacement for Judas they could have chosen a womanor a man. This means that the NIV Hispanic version is a silentgender-neutral version. In other words, as with the originalNIrV, the publisher did not say that it had done a gender-neutraltranslation, even though it had. This seems to be a recurring pat-tern with NIV gender-neutral versions.⁵³

Martin’s book places before the whole Christian church theconcern that continued use of the NIV by pastors and lay peoplewill result in the loss of a proper understanding of the doctrineof the inspiration of the Bible.⁵⁴ The gender-neutral plans of theCBT should certainly cause Lutheran Christians committed tothe doctrine of inspiration to reexamine the NIV and their useof it in their churches. Thus Martin’s book poses this question tothe LCMS, to WELS, and to all other evangelical Christians: Canyou use the NIV as your official Bible translation and continueto hold to the doctrine of verbal inspiration?

Second, both synods desire to promote Bible study as well astheological and biblical literacy with Life-Light and other Biblestudies, and commentaries like The People’s Bible Commentary.Yet the NIV translation, which is the English text for these Biblestudies, commentaries, and almost all materials published bythese confessional Lutheran synods, eliminates a number of theBible’s technical terms and elevates current culture over the cul-ture of the Bible. Thus Martin’s concerns need to be carefullyinvestigated, for if the NIV truly is as problematic as Martinclaims, then its long-term use will spiritually impoverish itsLutheran readers rather than make them more biblically andtheologically literate.

Third, these synods diligently strive for theological accuracyand doctrinal precision. Yet Martin raises the concern that theBible translation these synods promote and use is one that hasbeen translated by means of a philosophy opposed to real theo-logical and doctrinal accuracy and precision because it subtractsGod’s words from the divinely inspired text and adds humanwords to the word of God.

Of special concern here is the doctrine of justification.Radmacher and Hodges (who are not Lutherans) raise some veryserious questions about the NIV’s view of salvation. These ques-tions 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 somethingwrong or feels ill will toward another Christian he is not reallysaved!” Furthermore, to render Romans : “as the NIV does, is toopen the door widely to perfectionism and eradicationism.”

Where the dynamic method of transla-tion is embraced, it is but one small step to the embracing of the dynamicview of inspiration as well.

nb

version is accepting Christ rather than him choosing and receiv-ing us (Jn :, –; :, –; Gal :), the term “SovereignLord” (more than two hundred times in Ezekiel alone), theabsence of Christ from his church today (Acts :), and others. AReformed cast to the NIV should concern Lutheran pastors andtheologians when Lutherans (lay and clergy) claim the NIV astheir overwhelmingly favorite Bible version.⁵⁸

Lutherans from Harold Senkbeil to Carter Lindberg haveexpressed concern about the growing influence of Reformed andneo-evangelical theology in Lutheranism.⁵⁹ The heavy use of theNIV by Lutherans is undoubtedly a contributor to this phenom-enon. There is a very real danger that, over time, a confessionalLutheran denomination that regularly uses the NIV will sufferdamage to its sound biblical and confessional heritage.

The LCMS in its constitution demands the “exclusive use ofdoctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in churchand school.”⁶⁰ If the concerns about the NIV are true, then theMissouri Synod’s use of the NIV as the Bible translation for itsnew catechism, worship books, lectionary, and Bible studiescauses the synod and its individual congregations to experiencesome serious internal conflict regarding her constitution.

Lutherans have done some examination of the NIV in thepast. The NIV received more critique and commentary in thetheological journals of the Wisconsin Synod than it did inMissouri Synod publications. The Wisconsin Synod’s accep-tance of the NIV, and her resolve to maintain this decision, maybe seen in many articles and materials.⁶¹

The Missouri Synod’s acceptance of the NIV is in part basedon the Wisconsin Synod’s usage. It is also, in part, a result of themisuse of an examination of ten Bible versions by theCommittee on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). ThisCTCR study examined selected passages contained in the expla-nation section of the Second Article of the synodical cate-chism. It desired to “provide guidance in evaluating contempo-rary Bible translations and paraphrases” and to “stimulate Biblestudy throughout the Synod.” This CTCR study was also issuedin the hope that individuals and “groups in the Synod will makeuse of the following samples of this study to check out transla-tions and paraphrases for themselves.” This study was able toexamine only New Testament NIV passages because the NIVOld Testament was not yet available in . The NIV did lookgood in the passages that were examined. Nevertheless, thisCTCR examination of various passages from one section of thesynodical catechism was neither intended to be an in-depthstudy, nor the final answer for determining the suitability of a

The NIV choice of the paraphrase “controlled by” (inRomans :) serves the interests of those forms of theologythat insist on perseverance in godly living as a necessarymanifestation of true regeneration. But even those whohold this view ought to be uncomfortable with the NIVtreatment of these verses. . . . The NIV translation of thissection of Romans [vv. –] is a doctrinal nightmare.⁵⁵

Recent studies of the beliefs of Christians indicate that there is agreat deal of confusion in the minds of many Christians as tohow sinners are saved. Translations like those above would haveto be included as possible contributing factors to this confusion.

Other doctrinal concerns about NIV translations include thatthey lessen the divinity of Christ (Col :; Tim :), inade-quately portray his existence from eternity (Mi :), and raiseambiguities about conversion (Jn :, –; :; Gal :).⁵⁶

Both synods encourage the use of the NIV as pulpit andlectern Bibles. The Missouri Synod used the NIV as the text of itsLutheran Worship Lectionary. The NIV is the text of Scriptureused in its hymnal, Lutheran Worship. Yet Martin’s book emphat-ically states that the NIV should not be used as a primary studyBible or as the standard translation from which Christians derivetheir personal or corporate theology and practice. His book alsostates that it is unwise to use the NIV as a pulpit Bible or as a pewBible, because doing so invests the NIV with the aura of theapproval of the church when it should not have such approvaldue to its inaccuracy and its lack of fidelity to the inspired text.

Fourth, these synods have invested the NIV with official sta-tus by using it in catechisms, hymnals, books, Bible studies,commentaries, and other materials. The Missouri Synod hasissued a slightly revised version of the NIV Study Bible enti-tled the Concordia Self-Study Bible. The revisions in thisConcordia Publishing House edition of the NIV did not occur inthe biblical text, but were made in the study notes. Another edi-tion of the NIV issued by Concordia Publishing House is calledThe Concordia Reference Bible. The comments on the box lidstate that this edition is “Thoughtfully Lutheran.” The –

Concordia Catalog states that this CPH edition of the NIV is “aLutheran Bible.” Many Lutheran lay people have taken theseabove statements to mean that the NIV is a “Lutheran” Bibleversion 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 theLutheran NIV translators were “vastly outnumbered by menwhose basic theological convictions are pointed in the directionof the Reformed tradition.”⁵⁷

Lutheran Christians need to examine carefully this little-stud-ied aspect of the NIV. Even non-Lutherans like Jacob vanBruggen admit that the NIV translators have freely translated theNIV “for doctrinal purposes.” Since the NIV translators wereoverwhelmingly Reformed, it is difficult to imagine that there isnot some amount of Reformed theology in this translation. Anumber of Lutheran theologians have for some years raised theconcern that the NIV has a decidedly Reformed theological slant.Those who have written on this subject note that the Reformedinfluence can be seen in the NIV renderings of passages in whichfaith is cast as obedience (Mt :; Lk :; Jn :–), con-

Can you use the NIV as your officialBible translation and continue to holdto the doctrine of verbal inspiration?

nb

. Robert Martin, Accuracy of Translation and the New InternationalVersion: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions (Edinburgh:Banner of Truth Trust, ). Other non-Lutherans have also examinedthe NIV, most notably Earl D. Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges, TheNIV 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 DavidStrand, “Twelve Books Every Lutheran Should Read,” Lutheran Witness, no. (July ): .

. John C. Jeske, “Faculty Review of the Revised NIV,” WisconsinLutheran Quarterly , no. (Spring ): .

. Martin, . Here Martin and Radmacher-Hodges differ. The latterdefine dynamic equivalency with the definition Martin gives to formal

equivalency. Their definition of formal equivalency is a woodenly rigidliteral translation of the original text. Their definition of formal equiva-lency 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 NIVagainst Martin’s book, saying: “The most glaring weakness of bothworks [Martin and Rademacher-Hodges] is that faithfulness and accu-racy are measured too much in terms of the original or source lan-guage” (Barker, ).

. Martin, –.. Ibid., .. Ibid., , also n. ; James Moffatt, The Bible: A New Translation

(New York: Harper and Row, ), vii. Moffatt also refers to “transla-tors” as “interpreters.”

. Martin, . For a critique of Nida’s translational philosophy by

NOTES

Christian church, Caveat emptor! Let the buyer and readerbeware. Confessional Lutherans and other Christians need toexamine carefully the claims of Martin, Radmacher and Hodges,van Bruggen, and others, to see whether their concerns areunfounded or if they are true. The CBT’s production of, andcommitment to, a gender-neutral inclusive version of the Bibleamplifies the concerns these books have voiced about adherenceto the doctrine of inspiration. Concerns about the Reformedslant of the NIV further demonstrate the necessity for confes-sional Lutherans to do a careful examination of the NIV.

The above criticisms of the NIV should not be taken to meanthat there is nothing good or commendable in the NIV. There ismuch that is good therein and much has been said and writtenin favor of the NIV. Unfortunately, the few books that carefullyexamine the NIV translation have remained relatively unknown,even in Lutheranism. There have been very few careful exami-nations by Lutherans that have studied the expression ofChristian doctrine (especially Lutheran doctrine) in theology ofthe NIV. Therefore, this study has attempted to distill the con-cerns of those books and to encourage a thorough Lutheranexamination of the NIV.

May the Lord of the church bless his people as they diligentlystudy his word, examine translations of that word, work totranslate it clearly and properly, and preach his clear word of lawand gospel that sinners might always be sure of God’s love andforgiveness in Christ. LOGIA

Bible translation for use in the church. Nor was it intended to bean endorsement of any one Bible translation. In fact, as was seenabove, the CTCR report hoped to stimulate further study of thesuitability of the various Bible translations. Instead of being usedto further the examination of Bible translations in the Synod,this CTCR report has at times been misused by some as a finalword to justify the use of the NIV in the Missouri Synod, and toend any debate on the subject. Significantly, the LCMS’s cat-echism used every one of the NIV Bible passages that the CTCRstudy 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 Lutheranpastors because NIV Bible passages Martin describes as “interpre-tation of Scripture” and as bad “paraphrasing of the biblical text”are contained in the LCMS’s catechism. Martin called someof these passages being memorized by Lutheran catechism stu-dents “unwarranted addition,” “the liberty taken by the transla-tors has impoverished the text,” and said that the NIV rendering“obscures the apostle’s point.”⁶³ Perhaps Martin’s book willprompt Lutherans to a renewed study of Bible translations, and bea spur to their own diligent in-depth study of the NIV. It is hopedthat Martin’s book will not be ignored, relegated to obscurity, orshoved aside by confessional Lutherans.

Confessional Lutherans should remember Dutch Reformedscholar Jakob van Bruggen’s conclusion:

In the New Testament, the NIV is . . . too free in its trans-lation. To a lesser extent than in the case of the TEV, how-ever, the NIV misuses this freedom for doctrinal purposes.Often the NIV does not transmit the intention of Scriptureaccurately or completely. . . . The NIV New Testament inits present form cannot be considered a reliable substitutefor the KJV or even the RSV.

Van Bruggen’s study also found that the NIV New Testamentwas less than faithful to the Greek text. He too consistentlyclassed the NIV with the Good News Bible/Today’s EnglishVersion and the Living Bible because the NIV is a dynamicequivalency translation, that is, more of a paraphrase.⁶⁴

Books written by Martin, van Bruggen, and others say to the

A confessional Lutheran denominationthat regularly uses the NIV will sufferdamage to its sound biblical and confessional heritage.

nb

. Martin, , . For some other NIV passages that turn the bibli-cal world into the modern world, see Genesis :; Samuel :; Job:; :; Amos :; Mark :. Compare these NIV renderings with theoriginal Hebrew and Greek texts.

. E. D. Hirsch Jr., A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What OurChildren Need to Know (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, ), .“No one in the English-speaking world can be considered literate with-out a basic knowledge of the Bible” (E. D. Hirsch Jr., J. F. Kett, andJames Trefil, eds., Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Boston: HoughtonMifflin 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 ashamedof her God’s name is ashamed of her God.”

. “Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language,” –.. Martin, –. Interpretation or commentary rather than transla-

tion 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 examineMartin’s concerns, the twenty-one verses he notes are listed here:Matthew :; John :; John :; John :; Acts :; Romans :;Romans :; Romans :; Corinthians :; Corinthians : ( exam-ples); Corinthians :; Galatians :; Ephesians :; Colossians :;Colossians :; Thessalonians :; Timothy :; Philemon ;Hebrews :; Peter :.

. Ibid, . “But it is the translator’s responsibility to reproduce, ifpossible, the ambiguity of a text, placing the English reader in the sameposition as the ancient Greek reader. . . . The [NIV] translators here[John :] have usurped the reader’s right to an accurate, even if ambigu-ous 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 some-what ‘free-wheeling’ strain [of translation] were to be found through-out [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, theNIV indulges in changes from the familiar translations of previous yearswithout any appreciable gain to the reader at all. What is more, thesechanges often leave the reader worse off than he was before. Weighed inthe scales of general accuracy and reliability, much too often the NIV isfound wanting” (Radmacher and Hodges, ). “Measured against its ownstated goal of accuracy, the NIV fares poorly in some very importantprophetic texts” ().

. Jakob van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible (Nashville: ThomasNelson 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,”

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 mean-ingful to any reader, irrespective of his degree of literacy, intelligence orinterest” (Tony Naden, “Understandest What Thou Readest?” BibleTranslator [July ]: ).

. The NIV Study Bible, xiii; Martin, . The lack of brackets toindicate additions to the text is also a problem in another “dynamicequivalency” translation, God’s Word. Here see John M. Moe, “ReviewEssay: God’s Word: Today’s Bible Translation that Says What It Means,”L (Reformation/October ): –.

. Martin, , ; NIV Study Bible, xi. For other examples of NIVadditions to and deletions from the Greek text, see Green, –.Please note that many of the changes are the result of the NIV’s usageof a different Greek text than the one used for the KJV. This is also amuch-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 inGod’s Word—see Moe, “Review Essay,” –.

. Martin, , . For other examples of NIV additions to and dele-tions 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: ZondervanPublishing House, ). The CBT admitted that the NIrV was released“with a Preface which did not explicitly notify parents that gender-related changes were made in this version” (Susan Olasky, “Bailing Outof 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, “TheBattle 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 . . . thiskind of ‘biblical theology’ requires the addition of certain terms to ourtheological vocabulary; it may require the redefinition and themodification of some of the wonderful systematic terms in our heritage,simply because they have become colorless through long use. Everydenomination is facing the question of what to do with the fruits of thebiblical research of the past years. Some have in effect accepted themlock, stock, and barrel. No major group, to our knowledge, has turnedthem down in similar fashion. Honesty compels us to say that untilrecent years The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod was one of the fewmajor denominations which was in danger of following this course.Now, it seems to us, that the Lord of the church is being particularlygood to our body by giving us men who will not let us ignore the newerbiblical studies. Men of our church in teaching positions at every insti-tution and in parishes in every District have tasted the fruit of heils-geschichtliche theology . . . . And so there is confusion, tension, and evenstrife in our denomination” (Herbert T. Mayer, “Editorial,” ConcordiaTheological Monthly , no. [February ]: –).

. Martin, .. NIV Study Bible, xi.

(April–July ): –; Robert J. Koester, Law and Gospel: Foundation ofLutheran Ministry with Special Reference to the Church Growth Movement(Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, ); Craig Parton, “TheNew 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 EnglishVersions of the Bible Evaluated (Milwaukee: Wisconsin EvangelicalLutheran Synod, ), –; Ernst H. Wendland, “Exegetical Briefs:Suggested NIV Changes New Testament,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, no. (Winter ): –; Faculty, “Exegetical Briefs: Suggested NIVChanges 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: Reportof the Bible Versions Committee (St. Louis: Distributed by theCommission on Theology and Church Relations of the LCMS,September, ), –; Forward; . See – for the listing of the pas-sages. These passages, which only come from the Christology section ofthe Catechism, are Matthew :; John :; John :–; Romans:; Cor. :–; Timothy :. The passages are found on pages ,, , , –, and of Luther’s Small Catechism withExplanation (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, , –.

World , no. (May , ), .. Susan Olasky, “There they go again. . . .” World , no. (June ,

): , . “Recognizing this need, the Committee on BibleTranslation made a decision in that the New International Versionshould be made available in an inclusive language edition” [NIVI—“Preface to Inclusive Language NIV,” vii]. Susan Olasky, “Life on theBible 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 ina body,’ but they would have objected to the thought that He ‘was man-ifested in the flesh!’” (Radmacher and Hodges, ).

. – Concordia Catalog, ; Frederic E. Blume, “The NewInternational Version —First Impressions,” Wisconsin LutheranQuarterly , no. (April, ): .

. Van Bruggen, The Future of the Bible, . The wording of the NIVand NIVI translation of Acts : (“He [Jesus] must remain in heavenuntil the time comes for God to restore everything.”) attempts to makeScripture 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 heavilyinfluenced by Reformed theology, see Moe, “Review Essay,” .

. Harold L. Senkbeil, Sanctification: Christ in Action—EvangelicalChallenge and Lutheran Response (Milwaukee: Northwestern PublishingHouse, ); Carter Lindberg, The Third Reformation: CharismaticMovements and the Lutheran Tradition (Macon, GA: Mercer UniversityPress, ); James Gustafson, Lutherans in Crisis: The Question of Identityin the American Republic (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), especially thelast chapter entitled “Unfinished Issues Regarding Confessional Identity”;Carter Lindberg, “Pietism and the Church Growth Movement in aConfessional Lutheran Perspective,” Concordia Theological Quarterly ,nos. – (April–July ): –; Carter Lindberg, “Church Growth andConfessional Integrity,” Concordia Theological Quarterly , nos. –

You donÕt actually expect me to believe all that stuff . . . do you?

Inklin

gs

H B in contemporarycircles, “What is your method?” How means method, thenecessary prerequisite to interpretation. Every interpre-

tation is based on a method, or so goes the current consensus;therefore it is best to make one’s method clear before interpreta-tion can effectively take place. The question here is whether it istrue that method precedes interpretation, that every interpreta-tion is based on a method, and, therefore, that method drivesbiblical interpretation.¹

Methodenlehre has been a preoccupation of biblical inter-preters for a few centuries, especially in historical-critical circles.It has not always been that way. In fact the church existed quitehappily for a good sixteen hundred years or more before the M-word came into prominence.

Methodenlehre is important, to be sure, along with other asso-ciated disciplines reaching prominence in the nineteenth century,such as hermeneutics and exegesis. My concern is not to challengethe importance of the discussion of method in and of itself. Myonly concern here is to test the widespread assumptions () thatmethod is prior to interpretation, () that method is clean andclear of philosophical presuppositions, and () that method thenis the necessary prior discipline, that is, the prolegomenon uponwhich are built systems of particular points of view.

IS METHOD PRIOR TO INTERPRETATION?

The assumption of contemporary “method-ists” is that methoddrives practice. They assume that every interpretation of Scriptureis governed by a method. And so, in the twentieth century, thediscussion of method is carried on up-front, with the assump-tion that one needs to be clear about one’s method in order tomake one’s interpretation clear. The scholars of the Bultmanngeneration were very proud of announcing that they were openand up-front about methodological presuppositions.² The claimwas that all scholars should come out of their closet and declaretheir method.

Is it possible to engage in biblical study without a method? Ofcourse. Biblical scholars for centuries did so—and continue to doso. Not only did Luther not have a hermeneutic, but he also spoke

j

Does Method Drive Biblical Study?

K H

against the idea of interpreting the Bible. “Interpretation” sug-gested to him that it was the interpreter who was providing theunderstanding—that is, the clarity, the importance, and the mes-sage. For Luther, Scripture was quite capable of interpreting itself.

Much is to be gained in the contemporary discussion ofhermeneutics and method for those so interested and soinclined.³ My concern here is the relation of method to inter-pretation. My objection to the claim that every interpretationemploys a method and therefore that method of necessity drivesinterpretation is that such a claim is reductionistic and deter-ministic. It is similar to the claim that all language presupposesa philosophy. Whenever it is claimed that “all” something isdetermined by something else, disciplines become blurred.What is worse, it assumes some neutral beginning point in thehuman endeavor of understanding that is itself uncaused and isthe unmoved mover. Human understanding is complex, andevery discipline has something to offer; but to make one disci-pline, for example, Methodenlehre, the basis of another exceedsthe 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, andto sustain its own discipline of inquiry without trying to run theworld of understanding.

Does method drive the practice of biblical interpretation evenamong the modern practitioners of the historical-critical method?I think not. The rise of the historical-critical method has a histo-ry, a fairly long history; and it is not over yet, since the methodcontinues to change. I would argue that the history and changesin the historical-critical method are the result of the fact thatmethod does not always produce perfect or satisfying practice,hence the method needs to be adjusted and revised to accommo-date the new results. The new results are not the product of theprevious method but of the new method forged in practice. Thehistory of historical-critical methods—and you need more thantwo hands to count them—means that method evolves with inter-pretation, which suggests to me that interpretation drives methodat least as much as method drives interpretation.

New methods arise when old methods do not work. This onlyconfirms what I have observed for years in the practice of inter-pretation, namely, that method comes as a result of work. I haveobserved this especially in my own field of historical theology.Method is a posteriori not a priori. In research one tries as manyangles and approaches as possible to get to the bottom of the prob-lem, question, or text. Method is forged in the heat of research.

K H, a L contributing editor, is Professor Emeritus ofHistorical Theology at Marquette University and chief editor of LutherDigest, a publication of the Luther Academy. He resides in Lake Mills,Wisconsin.

ogy in the sixteenth century from philosophy —more specifically,in the case of Niels Hemmingsen, from logic, and within logicfrom dialectic. It was a part of the general trend of the time toorganize and order one’s discipline, an admirable venture, to besure. As the quip goes: What is the opposite of organized reli-gion? Disorganized religion.

Method came into several disciplines in the sixteenth centuryas a way of tidying up the mass of information. This was parallelto the discipline of the summa in Aquinas’s generation. Providingorder in the discipline did not mean that method must be priorto interpretation. Method seeks to be clear about the via docendi(the way or manner of teaching) —the ancient, classical, andphilosophical definition of method —where the logic of interpre-tation must be laid out. But logic is not a presuppositionless dis-cipline. It has a very long history; just try to sort out the historyof medieval logic. I did and was relieved when an expert told methat there was no logic to medieval logic.

The point here is that what arises in history is not clean andclear of presuppositions. Method has a history. It is the historyof Methodenlehre. My concern here is not to debunk the disci-pline of method, but only to dethrone it as the necessary prole-gomena to the study of the Bible. Order, definition, presupposi-tion, via docendi, and principles of interpretation are all impor-tant areas of study, and they are all interrelated.

After being accepted in other disciplines, Methodenlehrebecame a theological question. Likewise in the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, the disciplines of biblical introduction,biblical theology, and dogmatic theology became separate sub-jects of theological work and publication. These fields, alongwith exegesis, hermeneutics, historical theology, and systematictheology all became a part of the plethora of theological inquiryby the end of the nineteenth century.⁶ Each subject had—andcontinues to have—a history and a place in theological discus-sion. Each of the disciplines mentioned in this paragraph has aplace in the effort to understand Scripture.

The claims of “method-ists” are simply unrealistic. They can-not possibly deliver on the claims of objective neutrality. Thefact that there are a plethora of method-ists should tell yousomething about objectivity.

By saying that a discipline has a history, I mean that it arisesin particular historical circumstances with the usual influencesof time and space. Method is not presuppositionless. Theseinfluences shape its historical development. I dare say that alltheological disciplines, including theology itself, arise in human-historical circumstances. Only Scripture is God-given and

What works one time may not work well the next time, hence newresults. My experience is that people write their introductions afterall the results are in and not before. It is in these introductionswhere methodological claims of superiority are often made.

What bears this out, and it is too embarrassing to mentionnames, is when a scholar announces in a second book that herejects the method employed in the previous publication. This ismost likely not at all what happened and is off the mark. Twodifferent books entail two different sets of sources, circum-stances, problems, and issues, which result in different methodsthat solved the new venture. The second successful book is theresult of new research, not a new method. The new research fol-lowed a new course and came up with new results. This is thenabstracted for the purpose of an introduction into claims of anew and superior method. Contrary to these claims, the ruleseems to be that method follows practice.

IS METHOD CLEAR OF PHILOSOPHICALPRESUPPOSITIONS?

One of the attractive claims of those who insist on the priorityof method over interpretation is that, while interpretation canbe colored by one’s biases, method is free of bias. This claim isbased on the notion that method is an “objective”⁴ science moreclosely related to the pure science of history, to philosophy andlogic, than to the muddied waters of biblical commitments.Method does not dictate results, so it would seem, since resultscome 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 neutralstarting point —has never driven interpretation. Method is tooclosely tied in with results, with interpretation that works, to beconsidered separate and prior to interpretation. The venture ofmethod and interpretation involves a whole complex of researchtools, no one of which is necessarily prior to another. In thepractice of interpretation, one tries time-honored methods andnever-heard-of methods to see what works, what is true to thetext. Method and practice go hand in glove. The text, notmethod, drives the interpretation.

The idea of a value-free method means to me that it is free ofvalue, that is, valueless or worthless. Method is a part of histori-cal 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 neutrali-ty is a myth. Ask any scientist how objective his work is. Whatconvinced me was when our mathematics chairman told methat numbers are relative.

There is no clean and clear neutral point of beginning.Nineteen hundred years of biblical interpretation show that thestudy of the Bible, with or without a method, is inextricably cou-pled with all kinds of theological commitments. What elsewould you expect when we are dealing with God and his word?How can one be objective and scientific about God? The Bible iscertainly 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 his-tory.⁵ My research indicates that Methodenlehre came into theol-

Whenever it is claimed that “all”something is determined by some-thing else, disciplines become blurred.

nb

The point is that the scholar begins with a task. Method is fardown on the list of priorities. Reading the text is the mostancient of disciplines. It still works. Study drives interpretation.Study brings understanding. Methodus? She might show up dur-ing coffee to see how we are doing. Reading and more readingare the only way to read and see.

I see nothing wrong with scholars coming along with newresults on the basis of new procedures, and then in their intro-ductions or conclusions claiming insight, victory, and nirvana,as far as their method was concerned. What I do find objection-able is the claim that all subsequent research must follow thesame procedures or method.

My own concern about method and Methodenlehre is not justthat it has come to dominate modern historical studies—I amthinking specifically of the use of the historical-critical methodfor the study of the Bible and “social history” for the study of theReformation —but that it distorts the study of the history of thechurch prior to the rise of Methodenlehre. To put it bluntly, forthree-fourths of the church’s life, method did not exist. And fora few hundred years after that, it was only one of many new kidson the block. To force everyone prior to the discovery of methodto have a method is anachronistic.

To ask about Augustine’s method is horrible. It turns historyupside down. Luther said that the Holy Spirit was a masterrhetorician, but not a method-ist. To ask about Augustine’s rulesfor the study of Scripture is consistent with his document OnChristian Doctrine. To ask about Luther’s method—likewise hishermeneutics and exegesis —would make as much sense as to askabout Luther’s inclusive language, racial toleration, multicultur-alism, or ethic of cloning. Questions do have their time andplace. Method is not a timeless question.

When Methodenlehre dominates the history of biblical studyprior to the Renaissance, all sorts of distortions occur. Againthese distortions are too embarrassing to mention by authors’names. What I have in mind here is the study of historical figureson the basis of Methodenlehre, where these figures are studied fortheir “methods” of biblical interpretation. This is usually basedon their prefaces or introductory sections to their commentaries(the Argumentum), or methodological-sounding statementsmade elsewhere. The resulting study claims to portray the histo-ry of biblical methodologies. The main flaw is not just thatmethod did not exist, but that the authors’ actual interpretationof Scripture does not seem to follow their stated methods in the

divinely inspired. The point is that until very recently no onetheological discipline enjoyed lordship or dominance over allthe others. Even so today, many segments of the theologicalworld outside of Western Europe and the U.S. are not dominat-ed by Methodenlehre.

A peculiar thing about method—and perhaps one could addhermeneutics and exegesis —is that it is something of an intru-sion into theology from the outside. Method in its classicaldefinition of via docendi does not come from Scripture, councils,creeds, or confessions. It is not a part of any of the ordinary andtraditional theological subjects from creation to eschatology. It isa philosophical abstraction from the practice of biblical study.

Another aspect to method that makes it problematical is thatit is anachronistic to the study of Scripture. It is extraneous toScripture and superimposes agenda and presuppositions that donot arise from Scripture itself. Hence it violates one of its ownpresuppositions, namely, consistency. Method is not consistentwith the document it seeks to clarify. Method is an abstraction. IsGod driven by method? Scripture is a faith document.Eschatology in Aristotle is very different from eschatology inPaul. A document should be approached for what it is and towhom it is addressed. The task of interpretation is to lay out themessage of Scripture. Otherwise it is ripped out of historical con-text and made to float on the horizons of Western philosophicalinquiry. Methodenlehre is a modern discipline. Scripture shouldnot be expected to have a Methodenlehre.

The argument here is based on historical, theoretical, andpractical considerations. Historically, Methodenlehre is itself ahistorical discipline. Theoretically, the history and variety ofmethods—to say nothing about the variety of interpretations—

show that method is not neutral or objective, that is, never a sta-tic starting point. Practically, the actual exercise of interpretation,which produces variances on methods, shows that method pro-ceeds from interpretation, not the other way around.

IS METHOD THE NECESSARY PRIOR DISCIPLINE?

To make such a claim, that method dominates or drives interpre-tation, limits the interpretation to what is consistent with themethod. For over thirty years of teaching and researching histor-ical theology and for forty years of observing changes in biblicalmethods of interpretation, I have come to see what a shackle amethod can be. When a professor is an adherent to one method,then the student must pursue research within the confines of thatmethod. In the old days of German theological scholarship, ittook a generation of students to go beyond their professor andforge a new corrective to the method. Now these students changemethods at will, which only goes to prove that a new methodcomes as a result of new research, not a new method.

When it comes to understanding Scripture, interpretation isin the driver’s seat, not method. To make rules of interpretationthe necessary prolegomena to the actual interpretation preju-dices the result at the start. Rules are restrictive and delimiting.

If you want to talk about method, be realistic. We begin withthe text, the Book. We begin with eyes, hands, minds, questions,issues, goals, and yes, deadlines. The task is study and interpre-tation. How to read the Book? The best way is to start by read-ing —slowly.⁷

When Methodenlehre dominates thehistory of biblical study prior to the Renaissance, all sorts ofdistortions occur.

nb

. Author’s meaning of terms: “interpretation” means to under-stand and explain; “method” means the manner of proceeding;“study” means immersion into the text or reading; Methodenlehremeans the question, problem, or topic of method.

. Rudolf Bultmann and his immediate students were explicitabout theology’s necessary relation to philosophy, which carried overinto the post-Bultmannians’ discussion of method as well.

. The Ebeling school has done much for promoting the under-standing of the Word of God in Luther’s theology via a discussion ofthe hermeneutics of the young Luther. Hermeneuticians have built onthe idea of the power of the text of Scripture for the transmission ofunderstanding.

. 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. DavidSteinmetz, Duke Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, ), –, –.

. See my chapter “The History of Scripture in the Church,” in TheBible 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 stu-dents, here abbreviated: () Read it. This rule is important especially forthose who think they know a lot of Scripture. The trained theologian ismost 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 slow-ly, . We often come to Scripture with many other thingson our mind. We are not ordinarily tuned in to the extraordinary. It isbetter 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 byverse. () Read it slowly, over and over, forwards and . To readbackwards means to take the chapter and start with the last verse andtake it verse by verse backwards. If you are very familiar with Scriptureand are accustomed to reading only forwards, you are likely to skip andjump precisely because you are so familiar with the material. If you alsoread backwards, it forces you to concentrate more. () Read it slowly,over and over, forwards, backwards, and . The procedure ofreading sideways is important because that is how Scripture interpretsitself. To read sideways means to read across the terrain of Scripture. Itmeans to check out parallel verses in both Testaments. () Read it slow-ly, over and over, forwards, backwards, sideways, and, above all, it.St. Augustine says that we are to enjoy God and not to use him. Thingsare to be used. God is to be enjoyed. Since Scripture is all about God, itsproper use is that he should be enjoyed.

. Luther’s “rules” are sometimes called the principles of biblicalinterpretation, which are to be considered before interpretation canfruitfully begin. “Principles of biblical interpretation” are necessaryand important to have clear in mind. Whether they must be discussedfirst before interpretation can take place effectively is another matter.

NOTES

Argumenta and elsewhere. A biblical commentator’s actualinterpretation —not its methodological justification—is the mostimportant source for the history of biblical study.

To put this a little more imaginatively and daringly: to studythe Argumenta of historical figures —let us say, Augustine,Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin —and take their methodological-sounding statements at face value, and then write a history ofhermeneutics is utter nonsense. Such authors in the history ofbiblical interpretation did not assume that “method” was a nec-essary step prior to interpretation. What they wrote in their pref-aces were time-honored claims about literal and spiritual inter-pretation, without ever thinking that they should follow their“method” in their practice of interpretation. I do not know howelse to explain that these historical authors did not practice whatthey preached in their introductions. In other words, it neveroccurred to them that method drives interpretation, especiallysince method did not exist. For historical authors, biblical studydrove biblical study.

Not only is method not the necessary prior discipline, namely,the prolegomenon, upon which interpretation is built; it never hasbeen so, and it never should be. To make method dominate inter-pretation exceeds what method is good for. Systems of particularpoints of view are built not on method but on particular points ofview. About the only thing that is built on method is method.Hemmingsen’s work On Methods included a discussion of amethod for method. It is easy to imagine where the logic of amethod for method leads: more method.

Luther’s well-known rules for biblical interpretation—prayer,meditation, and experience—are consistent with the text underinvestigation and are the kind of prior preparation that yields fruit-ful results.⁸ Method is abstract, removed from the sacred page. Themethod-ist seeks a neutral point of entry so as not to prejudice theresults. Scripture’s response to neutrality is hardly a point of entry,since God says, “I will spew them out of my mouth.” Scripturerather speaks the language of prayer, song, and meditation.Approached in such a vein, the results are very rewarding. LOGIA

E the sacraments and preachesthe gospel. Church liturgy determines how he administers thesacraments. How he preaches is not predetermined. Within

the context of confessional Lutheranism hermeneutics or biblicalinterpretation is not an autonomous science reserved for the lec-ture halls, but an art practiced within the church for the purposeof preaching. Often, however, in a perceived inability to interpretthe text, the preacher takes refuge in the sermons and outlines ofothers and so in effect distances himself and his sermons from theBible. Homiletics and hermeneutics become separate and virtual-ly unrelated disciplines.

But sermons are for persuading people and hermeneuticsdraws meaning out of text. Thus a separation of the two is theroad for disaster. A lack of confidence in interpreting the text maycome from the false belief that hermeneutics is rigidly bound toone particular method or the application of certain rules. Theseallegedly objective principles of interpretation take the place of theScriptures themselves and become a subsidiary dogmatics. Theyfunction as judge and jury. Hermeneutics becomes not what theBible says but what somebody else says. The Bible remains the for-mal canon, but commentaries, hermeneutical principles, and lec-ture notes become the functioning canons. Lutheran hermeneu-tics must avoid these pitfalls.

Several perspectives set the boundaries of the hermeneuticaltask. First, the Scriptures are inspired. This has two ramifications:() They are distinguished from all other literature —includingcontemporary productions, a distinction that Helmut Koesterfinds impossible. For him the category of sacred literature doesnot exist. Our response is that words taken from the secular arenainto the sacred take on a new and (for the world) unrecognizablemeaning. Studies provided by Kittel are of limited and often noultimate value. () Verbal inspiration means that the Bible’s wordsare God’s words. Plenary inspiration means all Scripture servesGod’s redemptive purposes and demands our attention. Theassessment that one passage of Scripture is to be preferred overanother in setting forth these purposes is a subjective judgment.

A second perspective for hermeneutics is that the Scriptures havetheir origin in the church (which includes Old Testament Israel).The Scriptures thus preserve what the church already believed at the

j

Lutheran Hermeneutics

D P. S

time they were written. Scripture did not bring startling new reve-lations even to its first hearers. So, for example, Paul draws his prin-ciple of justification from Genesis: Abraham believed God and itwas counted to him as righteousness. The first hearers of theGospels knew that Jesus had been crucified and raised from thedead. Hermeneutics, however, is a church activity. Since theEnlightenment, universities have claimed an almost exclusive rightof interpretation. Churches deal with faith; university scholars havethe hermeneutical privileges. Though findings of the professionalscholars who work outside the church are of value, ultimately theright of interpretation belongs to the church in which the Scripturesoriginated. The Scriptures are the church’s book.

The perspective that the biblical texts originated with the HolySpirit, who creates faith in Christ and took form in the churchwhich confesses Christ requires a thoroughly christological inter-pretation of the entire Bible and not merely a few isolated or evenmajority of the texts. The inspiring Spirit proceeds from the Sonand was given by the crucified (Jn :) and resurrected Lord to hisapostles (Jn :), so the Spirit is as much the Spirit of Jesus as heis the Spirit of God. Zionism, millennialism, all forms of fanaticism,and the Reformed view that the Bible is an ethical codebook allcome from a partially or completely non-christological interpreta-tion of the Bible. At the very least, a non-christological reading ofthe Bible is symptomatic of other, often more serious problems.

Hermeneutics precedes homiletics. For the sake of argumenta-tion, let us reverse the order and begin with homiletics and move tointerpreting the divinely inspired text. St. Paul described his ownproclamation as a preachment of Christ and him crucified. But howdid he come to this conclusion? St. Paul’s christological preaching,far from being an alien intrusion into the Old Testament, wasderived 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 andJesus were convinced that Christ had to die and rise from the deadbecause the Scriptures required this. In other words, this was ahermeneutical conclusion. Though the New Testament writers doselect certain verses or episodes from the Old Testament, the totali-ty of the Scriptures, and not just this or that verse, speak of thenecessity of Christ dying and being exalted by God (Mt :). Thechristological hermeneutic is not an exclusive but inclusive princi-ple. It embraces the entire Bible, not merely some verses to theexclusion of others. Both the Emmaus account and the appearanceof Jesus to the disciples make it clear that the entire Old Testamentis to be read christologically (Lk :, ). A christological her-

D P. S, a contributing editor for L, is Chairman ofSystematic Theology and Professor of Dogmatics and ExegeticalTheology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

philosophy. The purpose of the Bible for the Reformed is not Godcoming to the aid of man, but man serving God with holy living.Accordingly sanctification takes the place of Christology as thepredetermined goal of hermeneutics. The gospel serves the law,and the focus is not what God has done in Christ but what theChristian can and must do for God.

Biblical interpretation is on one side determined by the histor-ical incarnation, incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, and on the otherside by the actualization of that incarnation in eucharistic breadand wine. A christological hermeneutic is inherently a sacramen-tal one, because it requires that it express itself in a preaching thatinvites the hearers to find Jesus in the sacrament of his body andblood. The Gospels were written not that our souls should findChrist at God’s right hand, as the Reformed believe, but that weshould find him with both our bodies and souls in his sacraments.I cite Luther as an exponent of the christological hermeneuticwith hesitation, for Luther was only doing what the Scripturesthemselves require. Robert D. Preus claimed that for Luther “theentire Scriptures were Christocentric in content.” Luther himselfsaid, “Christ is the sum and truth of Scripture.” Or again, “TheScriptures from beginning to end do not reveal anyone beside theMessiah, the Son of God, who should come and through hissacrifice carry and take away the sins of the world.” And still again,“One must not understand Scripture contrary to Christ, but infavor of him; therefore Scripture must be brought into relation-ship to Christ or must not be regarded as Scripture.”* The wordsof Jesus in this matter should suffice; I cite Luther for those whobelieve that a Luther quotation provides conclusive evidence.

The grammatical details, the structure of entire biblical booksand their parts, and the original languages of the biblical books willalways remain at arm’s length for every pastor and scholar, no mat-ter how learned he thinks he is. Grammatical rules are only approx-imate explanations of the structure of ancient languages by scholarsliving much later. Just how certain can we be whether a genitive isan objective or subjective one? Was the original speaker aware ofthis distinction? Did the category even apply then? A person versedin biblical Hebrew may be less than competent in biblical Greek. Aperson versed in the epistles of St. Paul may not find the Gospels asaccessible. Linguistic knowledge will always remain partial and theprinciples of interpretation open to revision. Solomon’s predictionof an endless supply of books and St. John’s claim that not all thebooks in the world could contain all the acts and words of Jesus findsome kind of fulfillment in the endless production of commentariesand hermeneutics. The biblical treasure, which is inspired by theHoly Spirit, is so vast that no mortal (including the professionalscholar) can claim to have exhausted the meaning and techniquesof the holy writers. Rather, Christians can be certain that all theScriptures point to Christ. Not finding Christ throughout theScriptures suggests that the principles of interpretation are not asrock solid as their practitioners claim. When this happens, there isno other choice but to forsake the paths beaten into our minds bythe commentators and teachers so that we may enjoy the christo-logical grandeur of the biblical scenery. God save us from the daywhen we hear the Scriptures read and do not find Christ in a way inwhich we did not see him before.

*Robert Preus, “Luther: Word, Doctrine and Confession,” LutheranSynod Quarterly , no. (December ): –.

LOGIA

meneutic involves the reader or hearer of the Scriptures intimatelywith the Scriptures as the words connect him with Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection. Christ was put to death for our sin and raised forour justification. Lutherans recognize this as the source and centerof C. F. W. Walther’s understanding that all the Scriptures serve thelaw and the gospel. So the Scripture has at its first level an historicalreference that involves and requires a christological interpretation.Christology is inherent in and intrinsic to the original events orwords. The words of the Bible tell about what happened in history,but they also tell us something about Jesus. Moreover, the words ofScripture also involve the Christian who by baptism is included inChrist. So in speaking of Christ, the entire Bible tells us somethingabout ourselves. The Jonah account provides an example.Historically it is the account of a “near-death experience” of a reluc-

tant prophet whom God rescued from the sea: “For thou didst castme into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was roundabout me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me” (Jonah :).Within the context of Israel’s history Jonah’s story continues thestory of God’s deliverance of Israel, especially the deliverance fromEgypt by passing through the sea. What God did in making Israel anation he later did for Jonah. According to Jesus, Jonah’s plight andrescue sets the pattern for his own death and God’s deliverance ofhim by resurrection (Mt :). All three accounts—deliverancefrom Egypt, the fish, and the grave—find a focus for the Christianin baptism, which is a dying and rising with Christ, and as suchanticipates and actualizes the death of our bodies and resurrectionon the last day. The water that drowns us is the means of deliver-ance. The God who delivered Israel, Jonah, and Jesus delivers usnow and will continually deliver us. This christological hermeneu-tic involves and provides the foundation for the law and gospelmotif: the God who kills is the God who resurrects. Only that whichis dead can God make alive. Bugenhagen hit the nail on the headwhen he said that the Psalms have a first referent to the author, thento Christ, and then to us.

The christological principle is not one hermeneutical principleamong several, but the foundation, goal, purpose, and content ofall biblical interpretation. Without it we are left with grammaticalrules, disjointed linguistic data, an historical account of an ancientpeople, and for some, reworked legends and tales about Jesus, orin the case of the Old Testament, an inferior, morally undevelopedreligion. Without a totally christological hermeneutic the veil ofMoses hangs over the eyes of the interpreter: he really does not seewhat the Bible is all about because he does not see Christ. Thisapplies to the Jews but in a certain sense to the Reformed. Theirhermeneutic is not wrong because it is not Lutheran, but becauseit is guided by an anti-incarnational and hence anti-sacramental

Without a totally christologicalhermeneutic the veil of Moses hangsover the eyes of the interpreter.

nb

Review Essay

An Evaluation of Kent Hunter’s Confessions

Confessions of a Church Growth Enthusiast: An Evangelical,Confessional Lutheran Takes a Hard Look at the Church GrowthMovement. By Kent Hunter. Lima, Ohio: CSS PublishingCompany, . Paper. ..

h Kent Hunter is a prolific author, speaker, and advocate forthe Church Growth Movement, especially among Lutherans.His most recent book, Confessions of a Church GrowthEnthusiast: An Evangelical, Confessional Lutheran Takes a HardLook at the Church Growth Movement, is an apology for theChurch Growth Movement in the face of the many criticisms themovement has received of late. It purports to expose these criti-cisms as “biased,” “uninformed,” “morally and ethically fraudu-lent” (), and “ridiculous” (). Hunter wants to show thatthe theology of the Lutheran Confessions is not only compatiblewith church-growth methodology, but also that true Lutheranconfessionalism actually promotes the Church GrowthMovement. So he uses Martin Luther, the Lutheran Confessions,C. F. W. Walther, and Francis Pieper, among others, to promotehis view of missiology. The idea is worthy. It would be nice forboth church-growth advocates and confessional Lutherans ifthey could find common theological ground.

Advocacy of church-growthism, or attempts to defend themovement from a Lutheran perspective, are nothing new.Hunter’s defense is noteworthy on two accounts. First,Confessions presents the clear and consistent theology of theChurch Growth Movement. For this we owe Hunter a debt ofthanks. Rarely has the theology of the movement been so clear-ly presented by one of its advocates. Second, Hunter’s theologyis not merely his own. Twenty-seven pastors and administratorswithin the Lutheran Church —Missouri Synod endorse the book.They call it a “must read” (John Heins), “the answer” (RobertScuderi), “a breakthrough and challenge to return to ourReformation roots” (Dale Olson), “a textbook to train pastors”(Dave Anderson), “the expression of my own feelings regarding

R“It is not many books that make men learned . . . but it is a good book frequently read.”

Martin Luther

j

Church Growth” (Bill Thompson), “solid theology” (PhilBickel), “a fine job” (David Luecke), “a marvelous service to thechurch” (Stephen Carter), “a high quality book” (ElmerMatthias), “a milestone in Lutheran evangelical writing” (ErwinKolb), “worth its cost several times over just for the definition ofChurch Growth principles from a confessional viewpoint”(Norbert Oesch), and “one of the most significant writings ofthese latter days of the twentieth century” (Gerald Keischnick).This list contains mission executives at the highest level of thechurch, 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 ChurchGrowth Movement within the Lutheran churches today. His the-ology is a major force within Lutheranism. This theologyrequires deep and critical analysis, and it requires vigilantresponse.

Hunter’s theological effort fails. Rather than dressing theChurch Growth Movement in Lutheran apparel, Hunter pre-sents a theology that is thoroughly un-Lutheran. It is a theologythat begins with a two-tiered understanding of the church andthen invades every article of faith with this ecclesiology.

Two Types of Church: The Pentecostal Connection

To Hunter there are two types of churches. The first churchis that which gathers. It is a weak church. It needs to bechanged. The second church is that which scatters (). Thischurch, to Hunter, is defined in active terms. The church mustbe doing in order to be the church. The first type is the “tradi-tional” church. The second type of church is the church that hasaccepted the “mission paradigm” advocated by Hunter and theChurch 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 “turnedinward on itself” (). The “mission” church, on the otherhand, is active, involving the “priesthood of all believers” in itsministry (). “The traditionalists are gospel-reductionists —

limiting where and how the Gospel can be utilized to reach allpeoples” (). But “in spite of all the rhetoric of those whoclaim ‘confessional purity’ the truth is that Church Growth rep-resents the authentic Reformation evangelical movement offocused Christianity” ().

How does a church move from level one to level two? Hunteroffers a simply formula: “(D+Rx)HW + PG = Changed church.”

This means diagnosis plus prescription times hard work plus thepower of God will lead to change in the church. So when thechurch-growth principles are added to the traditional passivechurch, 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 “Fellowshipwith 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 thirdand do not reach the highest level of congregation.

A strong resemblance exists between Pentecostalism in its clas-sic form and the Church Growth Movement. Church growth hassimply applied to the church that which Pentecostalism applied tothe individual. Pentecostalism also postulates a two-tieredChristianity. Some are justified and forgiven but have not experi-enced the second-level Christianity proposed by Pentecostalism.They are saved but still in the enemy’s war-camp. With the neces-sary prodding these carnal Christians can be brought to the sec-ond level of Christianity. They can experience the baptism of theSpirit and be filled with the Spirit. At this point they becomevibrant witnesses for God, their prayer life explodes, and they areable to read the word and receive the sacraments with more focusand power.

Not surprisingly then, Hunter dedicates his book to C. PeterWagner, pioneer of the Church Growth Movement. Wagner’s

Look out, the Pentecostals are Coming is an unabashed endorse-ment of Pentecostal strategies in creating new churches. Hunter’sand Wagner’s contribution to the developing two-tiered theologyof Pentecostalism is its application to congregations. Without the“mission paradigm,” says Hunter, churches are traditionalistic andritualized. In these churches the word and sacraments have notcreated a “great commission church.” But when these dyingchurches move to the second level they explode with the power ofGod. Every criticism that the Lutherans over the centuries haveapplied to Pentecostalism and to enthusiasm can also be appliedto the Church Growth Movement. The only difference is that theapplication has moved from the individual to the congregationand the church.

Lutherans have no such doctrine of the church. The classicalLutheran 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 gatheraround the word and sacraments. In Lutheranism the church isalways defined in passive terms. “The church is the assembly of allbelievers among whom the Gospel is preached in it purity and theholy sacraments are administered” (AC ). “Thank God a childof seven years knows what the Church is, namely the holy believ-ers and lambs who hear the voice of the their shepherd. Holiness. . . consists in the Word of God and true faith” (SA , ). “Ibelieve that there is upon earth a little holy group and congrega-tion of pure saints under one head, Christ, called together by theHoly Ghost in one faith, . . . I am brought into it and incorporat-ed into it by the Holy Ghost by having heard and continuing tohear 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 theshepherd. The church is headed by Christ and incorporated by his

word. Because the church exists by grace alone its essence is pas-sive. The essence of the church is the word of the gospel, the voiceof the Lamb. Now, obviously, Christians also do something.“Faith is a living busy active powerful thing so that it is impossi-ble for it not to do good without ceasing” (FC SD , ). Theessence of the church, however, is not in its doing but in its receiv-ing what God has done. We are purely passive in the article ofjustification. This article defines the church passively.

The Central Article of the Faith

Lutherans, of course, believe the great commission. Huntershows that the earliest Lutherans had an urgent sense of mission.But Lutherans do not make Christ’s commission their central arti-cle. Lutherans consider the doctrine of the justification of the sin-ner before God by grace for Christ’s sake through faith as the cen-tral article of the faith, the article by which the church stands orfalls. Justification “is the chief article in the entire Christian doc-trine” (FC SD , ). The article of justification is central becauseit alone can give true consolation to the sinner. It is also centralbecause it is against this doctrine that all other doctrines must beevaluated (Ap , ). If any other article of faith replacesjustification by grace as the chief article, then the entire system oftheology will ultimately be corrupted.

His two-tiered view of the church forces upon Hunter adifferent material principle of theology. The article that givesdefinition to all others is “The Great Commission.” “I believe thatGod has raised up the modern Church Growth Movement torestore the church to the biblical priorities which He intended”(). “The Great Commission is . . . the primary purpose of thechurch” (). Hunter relates a brief anecdote in which a couple feltthey were failing in their ministry until they “allowed themselvesto be the tools in the hands of the Lord who wants to build thechurch. It was then they began to practice genuine ChurchGrowth. This is the essence of grace” ().

This central article has other names. Earlier church-growthpractitioners called it “Church Growth eyes.” Hunter speaks of“thinking like a missionary” (, ). Elsewhere and through-out he speaks of a “paradigm shift” or a “mission paradigm” inwhich the church learns to think in new ways in order to “letGod take control of his church” (). To Hunter, the primarypurpose of the church is to grow. It is no wonder that Huntercan offer his book “In memory of Martin Luther and DonaldMcGavran, heroes of the Christian Reformation in theology andpractice” (). Hunter believes that the emergence of the ChurchGrowth Movement in these latter days is as important as theReformation. This is a small wonder. He has replacedjustification by grace with the great commission as the centralarticle.

This replacement is clearly evident from Hunter’s polemics. Theexclusive target of Hunter’s frequent invective is “traditionalists.”

Church Growth has helped me and many others rediscoverthe genius of the Lutheran protestant Reformation. Thepower of the Reformation was expressed by our forefathersin the commitment to say, in so many words, “Up withgrace, down with tradition.” Their attitude was, “If it is use-ful and helpful, keep it; if it is not, change it” ().

The church-growth paradigm shift, claims Hunter, “is a majorchange for people trained in systematic theology, especially tradi-tionalists who come from a world perspective of the Reformation”(). Hunter’s novel historical revisionism views the Reformationnot as a response to the works-righteous Roman Catholic theolo-gy of Luther’s day, but to outdated traditions.

See how easy it is to practice salvation by works? To make tra-ditional forms more important than a commitment to grace-driven communication is to depart from the evangelical her-itage of the Reformation. Church Growth is not the enemy butthe advocate for the essence of what it means to believe in God’sgrace. (, emphasis Hunter’s)

The difference between Lutheranism and the Church GrowthMovement is clear. The Lutheran reformation was based on thedoctrine of justification, not on the “great commission.” Forexample, Melanchthon condemns the use of the rosary becausethe Roman church taught that merit was earned through it. Hisevaluation was based on the surpassing value of the merits ofChrist (AC , ). In contrast, Hunter cautions against point-ing “a finger at the Roman Catholics, who say the Rosary orHail Mary in repetitious fashion, without recognizing that anyworship ritual can become rote and meaningless” (). BothLutherans and the Church Growth Movement oppose rosariesand the Hail Mary, but for different reasons. These reasonsreflect the central teaching of each. To Lutherans all changes inworship forms were intended to serve the gospel of justificationby grace alone. Forms were rejected if they violated the doctrineof justification (AC , ); otherwise they should not be theoccasion for controversy and were retained by the Lutherans(AC , ). Not so with Hunter; to him traditions are mea-sured differently. “The litmus test for whether or not the localcongregation should keep a tradition or not is this: Does it help orhinder the church in fulfilling its mission?” (, emphasisHunter’s).

Christology

Corruption falls upon Hunter’s system of theology in virtuallyevery article. His new paradigm forces a Reformed, almostGnostic view of Christ upon his theology. According to Hunterthe cross of Christ has two sides, “the suffering side and the mis-sion 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 limi-tation (self-imposed) of being in human form. As God inman (the incarnation), Jesus was limited in His presence. Hecould only be in one place at one time and impact only thosefew around Him at that particular moment. However,through the cross event, God’s plan of salvation moves to theSpirit at Pentecost ().

So who is Jesus? He is God in man who is not capable ofomnipresence, a singularly Reformed view that makes the bodilypresence in the sacrament an impossibility, as every goodCalvinist would assert. Jesus also, it seems, is either still limited or

no longer a man. A ministry or mission of Christ can be a missionabout Christ according to the church-growth paradigm. But itcould never be a ministry in which the man Christ Jesus actstoday. Yet, according to Hunter, this is all right, because the HolySpirit compensates by taking over and applying the “mission sideof the cross.” So the crucified Jesus is far away from the ministryof the church, except as the content of the message. He is nolonger speaking the message. It is not the incarnate God who stillfeeds us, washes us, and speaks to us today. “The Spirit is thebridge between the suffering side of the cross and the mission sideof the Cross” (). This is more than a mere confusion of theincarnation and the humiliation. This statement is a radicalredefinition of the cross.

Hunter calls himself a confessional Lutheran, thus implyingthat he subscribes to the Lutheran Confessions. What do theseConfessions 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 humannature to right hand of the almighty majesty . . . because Hewas assumed into God when He was conceived of the HolyGhost in His mother’s womb. . . . This Majesty He alwayshad (FC SD , –).

“We reject . . . That because of the property of the humannature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the sametime in more than one place, much less everywhere, with Hisbody (FC SD , ).

Why does Hunter so clearly and easily contradict the veryConfessions that he purports to defend? Because his centralteaching forces him to do so. His radical redefinition of the crossis necessitated by his two-tiered concept of the church. As thereare 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 commissionrather than the great commission in terms of the cross. Nolonger does the cross inform us that disciples are made by bap-tizing into the death of Christ and teaching the doctrine of theblood atonement. Rather, the great commission informs us that“we are in partnership with God” (), because of “the multipli-cation that comes about through His death and resurrection. Itmoves the mission of God from the one (Jesus) to the many (Hisdisciples)” (). The suffering and death of Jesus serve the greatcommission. And that is the essence of the Church GrowthMovement.

What is incarnational ministry to Hunter? “The desire to let theGospel get through to the target audience with the least amountof resistance is nothing other than the desire for incarnationalministry” (). What is the humiliation of Christ?

Jesus emptied Himself. He stripped away all of His heavenlyculture in order to meet human beings where they are. Hedid away with all the things that were comfortable for Him,putting His target audience at such an important prioritythat He literally emptied Himself of those things that werecomfortable for Him. Of course He didn’t empty Himself inthe sense of denying His values or the essentials of the theo-logical issues connected with the mission of God. But He

emptied Himself of everything else because he had a purposein mind ().

Observe how the atonement language of Scripture is transformedinto the church-growth language of Hunter. Hunter is not merelyoffering a transliteration of Philippians that will inspire peopleto make sacrifices for the sake of the gospel. He is articulating thereason for the death of Christ. The great commission has replacedjustification as the central article.

The Means Of Grace

The faulty theology trickles down into other articles of thefaith. Hunter’s understanding of the means of grace is creative ifflawed. He, happily, acknowledges that the word and sacramentsare the means of grace. Yet Hunter also makes a subtle but tellingdistinction between the word and the sacrament on the one handand the great commission on the other. “Church Growth advo-cates are concerned with the purity of the Gospel and, from theLutheran perspective, the means of grace, but these are not anend in themselves. They are a means to a greater end, sharing theGospel” (). The notion seems to be that there is a differencebetween “word and sacrament” and “sharing the Gospel.”Hunter is not just sloppy in his talk. Again he writes: “There arethose, however, who will emphasize the power of God at workthrough Word and Sacrament, to the exclusion of the human ele-ment” ().

It is unfortunate that some would describe the mission of thechurch as proclaiming the Word and administering theSacraments. While there is nothing intrinsically in errorabout this statement, the implication is that the church holdsthe means of salvation and that people ought to come to thechurch ().

Hunter, apparently, does not see the word and sacraments asthemselves containing the “human element.” To him, the meansare the divine element to which the human is added, forming apartnership ().

This is a type of word-and-sacrament Nestorianism in whichthe human and divine sides of the means are separated. It is asthough the means of grace were purely divine. Then they areplaced into the hands of people who have accepted the “ChurchGrowth paradigm” and who “think like missionaries.” Once thishuman element has been added to the gospel, the means havebecome incarnational. “The means of grace are given to adynamic group of people who are sent to the world . . . . Thechurch 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 bedynamic? Can he work through “clay vessels?” Can he workthrough “things that are not?” Can the word do it all while Lutherdrinks Wittenberg beer with Philip and Amsdorf? Hunter appar-ently says, “No!”

Admittedly Hunter is concerned that “The Word is the powerunto 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 wholimit the power of the gospel to the “worship service setting” ().These are praiseworthy concerns, although it is difficult to under-stand how one could refer to the sacrament “without distribu-tion.” The sacrament is no sacrament without distribution. Still,Hunter’s theology is flawed. The Calvinistic dualism so apparentin Hunter’s christology appears again. Why? Because he has lostthe corrective of the cross. The article of justification no longerdominates. His two-tiered ecclesiology coupled with his notion ofthe great commission have defined the word and sacrament ratherthan letting these divine-human means of grace stand as vehiclesof the salvation of Christ.

Even when the means are spoken as having a salvific forcethere is still a nasty dualism present. For example, Hunter extolsbaptism.

Baptism, then, is not only a sacrament of salvation, but it isthe Church’s entrance into Christ’s body, the living organismof the church. Jesus’ baptism was the inaugural event for Hispublic ministry. Likewise, then, for the Christian, baptism isthe commissioning of one’s place in God’s Great commis-sion ().

To Hunter there seems to be a difference between salvation andentrance into Christ’s body. This difference is explained whenwe apply his two-level understanding of church life. The onelevel of baptism is salvation. The second level is the great com-mission level. Just as the cross “has two sides,” so baptism hastwo sides.

What really are the means of grace for Hunter? How can thechurch make sure that it is adding the proper power to the wordand sacraments? According to Hunter, Luther defined the churchby the word and sacrament because he was searching for theessentials. It was a time in which the Protestants [sic] were toldthey were not the church. They were defending themselves ().Now we must go forward. Beyond what the church is bydefinition, Hunter tells us what the Church Growth Movementwould have the church do.

The primary purpose of the church is to make disciplesaccording to the great commission. It is to share the forgive-ness of sins in Jesus’ name. To be witnesses to the ends of theearth. There are many means toward accomplishing thatend. One is to maintain a clear confession of faith. Anotheris to help people discover their spiritual gifts. Another is toequip people for the work of the ministry. Another is to pro-vide worship services in the heart language of the people youare trying to reach. Another is meeting the felt needs of peo-ple in your community. All of these and many more aremeans to the greater end, which reflects the primary purposeof the church ().

What really is the primary means of grace? It is the ChurchGrowth Movement itself. That is why Hunter can warn that “acongregation that does not take on a mission posture within thenext years will be nonexistent in . . . years” (). What arethe 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 ofthe inherent power of the gospel. The gospel does not becomepowerful when and if something is added. It is powerful alwaysbecause Jesus is both its content and its administrator. Everyfalse teaching can be evaluated and described in terms of whatthat false teaching tries to add to the gospel to make it work.The word becomes powerful when it is preached by a spirit-filled preacher or when the message is “anointed” by the spirit(Wesleyanism, Holiness Movements, Pentecostalism). Theword becomes powerful when the sovereign God wills it orwhen preached to the elect (Calvinism). The word becomespowerful when placed into the teaching office (Romanism.)The word becomes powerful when combined with the willingheart (Arminianism). The word becomes powerful when the“meaning of the words,” combines with the “power with whichthese words are spoken,” and the “existential reception of thecontent” and the “correlation of these” into a “constellation inwhich the words become the Word” (Paul Tillich). The wordbecomes powerful in an “I/thou encounter” (Barth). The wordbecomes powerful “when we get out of God’s way,” or whenplaced into the hands of a church that has accepted the “missionparadigm” or “thinks like a missionary,” or that has become a“great commission church” (Hunter and the Church GrowthMovement). To Luther, and we might add, to the Holy Spirit,the word is powerful because in it Jesus speaks and forgives. “Atwhatever hour, then, God’s word is taught, preached, heard,read or meditated upon, there the person, day and work aresanctified thereby, . . . because of the Word which makes saintsof us all” (LC , ).

Hunter’s bad theology of the means of grace, not surprising-ly, leads him into synergism. Whenever the inherent power ofthe word is questioned, then people substitute for it “their ownpreparations and works” (AC ). And what are the preparationsand works of the Church Growth Movement? In the speaker it isthe development of the “mission paradigm.” In the hearer it is“receptivity.”

Church growth advocates even identify unchurched peopleas being in certain stages of receptivity. . . . They clearlyadhere to the truth that while the Holy Spirit is the one whobrings a person to faith, the receptivity of the person can bestronger 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 ofthe unregenerate man are utterly unable by their own natur-al power to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin,effect, do, work, or concur in working anything. Beforeregeneration there is not the least spark of spiritual powerremaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can preparehimself for God’s grace (FC SD , ).

It is difficult to find within these words or between these lines anynotion of receptivity. Why does Hunter use such synergistic lan-guage? Certainly he must know that his position is condemned by

the Lutheran Confessions, which he claims to defend. He speaksthis way because his system cannot accept the “where and when itpleases God” of Article of the Augsburg Confession.

When faced with the unanswerable question “Why some andnot others?” the Lutheran has learned to answer, “Don’t ask.” Ifyou do answer, you will become either a Calvinist or a synergist.We simply say that faith is engendered “where and when Godwills” (AC V). But Hunter asks and he answers. Some are savedbecause they are more receptive. Some are saved because they arereached by a church that “has moved to the mission side of thecross.” Some are saved because they are brought into a churchthat does more than preach the word purely and administer thesacraments rightly. Some are saved because “the communicationpath [has taken] the form of country-western culture, includingcountry-western songs with Christian content” (). Some aresaved because the pastor, recognizing the “blue collar lifestyle” ofa group within the community, moved the service to the gym,changed it to a contemporary service, expected casual attire, andstressed the less formal aspects of the worship service ().Hunter speaks synergistically because if he did not he would haveto reject one of the basic principles of the Church GrowthMovement, namely, that the gospel needs the Church GrowthMovement or churches will die.

The Church’s Unity

As the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit is the unifyingprinciple of Pentecostalism, so the doctrine of “the mission par-adigm” is the central and unifying principle of the ChurchGrowth Movement. This is why Hunter can link Martin Lutherand Donald McGavern as if the two share a common theologi-cal 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 theyare concerned . . . with the deep theological issues of theReformation” (). Wesley lived over two hundred years afterLuther 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 notthe result of doctrinal differences to Hunter, but of a denial of hisversion of the great commission, such as traditionalists are wontto do. Hunter also has a tendency to minimize or disparage anytype of unity of doctrine within the church. For example,Hunter praises the work of Robert Schuller, defending his Biblestudies: “One is quickly immersed in a thorough, long termlearning process which moves into the whole counsel of God.”But what of Schuller’s doctrine? “While one might not agreewith all of the doctrinal content [of Schuller’s Bible study],depending on denominational perspective, it is easy to realizethat proper attention is given to the depth of God’s teaching.” SoHunter can disagree with Schuller but also praise him for teach-ing the “whole counsel of God.” Hunter can refer to theLutheran Church as “my denomination” () or a “branch ofChristians” (). By doing so he minimizes all theologicaldifferences between the various churches. Nowhere do theLutheran Confessions refer to the followers of Luther as “adenomination” or a “branch of Christianity.” The authors of theFormula of Concord were “willing, by God’s grace to stand with

intrepid hearts before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ andgive and account of [their doctrine] and neither privately norpublicly speak or write anything contrary to it” (FC SD , ).Is it even conceivable that these men would have risked life limband staked eternal salvation on a “branch of Christianity”?

But Hunter goes further. He claims that public debate of doc-trinal disagreement is wrong, embarrassing, and harmful. Helikens various church leaders to “generals” who “don’t all agreean everything.” But as long as we can believe of each other thatwe are all going to heaven, then despite “that different point ofview, . . . that different doctrine, . . . that different emphasis, . . .that different style of worship,” we should not “‘go public’ withdisagreements before the foot soldiers.” This “confuses, dividesand hands the victory to the enemy, whose strategy is to divideand conquer” (, ). Such extreme doctrinal indifference cer-tainly is not confessional. The first Lutherans condemned,rejected, and warned against every false doctrine that robbedChrist of his glory. Why is Hunter so indifferent to false doc-trine? Because his “church-growth paradigm” is more importantand more unifying than “agreement in the doctrine and all itsarticles, 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 gospelnor administer the sacraments. While such an understanding ofthe ministry would further the notion of justification by grace,the great commission requires something more. In the church-growth paradigm, for a congregation to move from the first levelto the higher level it must activate the “priesthood of all believ-ers.” So, to Hunter, the task of church leaders is nothing morethan to activate the people of the church to carry out the “greatcommission.” The job of a pastor is to “cast a vision” (), or to“serve as inspirer” (), so that the people can be ministers. ToHunter God has established the “office of ministry” for the sakeof order. “Someone is provided to be an equipper, trainer andencourager” (). Hunter contends that God “has a lot to sayabout the function of ministry, . . . and less to say on the officeof ministry” (). The cleavage between office and function is areflection of the two-tiered understanding of the church. Thosechurches in which the office of the ministry performs its func-tions have “an institutionally-centered view of mission [which]is totally contrary” () to God’s will. Rather, pastors (Hunterusually refers to them as church workers or leaders) are to “lib-erate the energies of the people, inspire confidence, and arouseenthusiasm” (). Once that happens the “great commission” isattained. Who then are the ones who actually minister the gospelto 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 relat-ed to the idea of shepherding or caring for another person.The word for “ministry” is similar to the concept of serviceto other people. Since these are both spiritual gifts they aredistributed by the Holy Spirit to all sorts of members ofthe church, both men and women. There is no biblicalargument against anyone who is a Christian being

involved in ministry or in acts of pastoral care in the tech-nical sense ().

Certainly this idea of the ministry affects the pastor’s jobdescription. For example, although Hunter mentions the officeof the keys at least eight times, nowhere does he indicate that thepastor has any responsibility in administering the office of thekeys. Rather,

the head of the church does not exist without the body. JesusChrist has chosen to attach Himself to the body and makeHimself known through believers in the world. And He hasentrusted to them the means of grace and the Office of theKeys ().

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 “savingsouls” (). The church gathers, not for its minister to forgivesins, but “the church in its gathered state is a staging ground, anequipping area to prepare God’s people for the real work of min-istry” ().

Hunter’s interpretation of certain biblical passages is especial-ly telling. He refers to Ephesians :– often, and understands itto mean that God has given apostles, prophets, and pastors “toequip saints so that they can do the work of the ministry” ().Second Corinthians : is applied not to pastors as stewards ofGod’s mysteries, but to all Christians (). When Paul inRomans asks how people can hear unless someone is sent(), and when John recounts Christ’s sending his ministers inJohn (), these, to Hunter, refer to all Christians, and notspecifically or in any way to pastors. In fact, to Hunter thereseems to be no indication anywhere in the scripture that God hasestablished an office of the ministry and appointed men to it, nordoes Hunter’s theology need an office of the ministry.

The Lutheran Confessions, of course, hold to quite a differentview. Clearly the keys are given to the whole Christian churchof saints, as Melanchthon asserts strongly in the treatise (Tr ).Just as clearly, God through the church appoints men to beministers of these keys to the church. These ministers are notappointed to inspire, energize, or motivate others, much less tocast visions. Rather, “on account of the call of the church, theyrepresent 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 thatGod approves this ministry and is present in it. It is good toextol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind ofpraise” (Ap , ). The ministry spoken of in the AugsburgConfession is not “every man a minister” (), as Hunter avers,but the ordained ministry. Further, the purpose of called andordained ministers according to AC is “so that we may obtainthis faith” by the preaching of the gospel and administering ofthe sacraments.

Why does Hunter promote a doctrine of the ministry sodifferent 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 withword and sacrament, and yet church-growth diagnosticiansdetermine that the congregation is not “thinking like a mission-ary?” A confessional Lutheran would still joyfully praise theLord for his abundant grace and gifts since these are bestowedthrough the office of the ministry. But a church-growth diag-nostician would have to assert that the church is ill or lackingsome fundamental blessing. When the “functions” of the min-istry are taken from the called servant of Christ and placed intothe hands of all Christians, then the theological system is forcedto redefine pastors as cheerleaders or visionaries.

Conclusion

The Church Growth Movement is a broad and seeminglyamorphous thing. Ostensibly, it advocates, among other things,sensitivity to people, an understanding of them and their needs. Itchallenges the church to reach out for the lost. It pleads thatChristians share their faith and their Lord with others. It exhortsthe church “to work toward the building of God’s kingdom” and“to lift high the cross” (). What Christian could possibly opposethese things? Who could gainsay a holy repetition of Pentecostwith thousands and thousands of sinners being brought into thekingdom through the great commission? In fact, these sinceredesires are felt and have been felt by all Christians since the timeof Jesus. These sentiments are neither new nor unique. Christthrough his church was saving people long before there was aDonald McGavern, a Fuller Theological Seminary, a Kent Hunter,or a Church Growth Movement.

The Church Growth Movement’s unique and identifying fea-ture is not its zeal for the lost, but its theology. Kent Hunter’schief article of faith is “the mission paradigm.” For him, thosechurches that do not use this paradigm are simply not pleasing toGod. His ecclesiology is Pentecostalism gone corporate. “Missionparadigm” churches are those that do not limit themselves to the“suffering” side of the cross but that bridge over it to the missionside. In these churches the word and sacraments then lead to the“great commission.” Such churches experience “the essence ofgrace” when they rid themselves of empty traditions and breakdown cultural barriers of those who are receptive to God. In“missionary-thinking” churches, the clergy inspire and encour-age while the ministers, that is, all Christians, take up the voca-tion of pastor. Unity in the Church Growth Movement is basednot on a common confession of the doctrine of the gospel, but ona common acceptance of the church-growth paradigm. All arti-cles of faith are measured against the movement’s understandingof the “great commission.”

Hunter’s theology is consistent. It is widespread, as witnessedby its many endorsements. It is the theology of the ChurchGrowth Movement and its advocates. But it is a theology thatdeviates from confessional Lutheranism at virtually every turn.

Klemet PreusGlory of Christ Lutheran Church

Plymouth, Minnesota

Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and SystematicDevelopment. By Bernhard Lohse. Translated and edited by RoyA. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, . Hardcover. pages.

h Students of Martin Luther and the Reformation have benefitedgreatly over the years from the efforts of Fortress Press to produceEnglish translations of some of the more important works comingfrom Germany. The last of three volumes on Luther by MartinBrecht was published in English translation by Fortress in , pro-viding a definitive biographical study for modern Luther studies. Anew translation of the Book of Concord has just been published in. Also among these vital books for every Lutheran pastor’sstudy is this work by one of the greatest German Luther scholars ofthe later twentieth century, Bernhard Lohse, which appeared in itsGerman original in as Luthers theologie in ihrer historischenEntwicklung und in irem systematischen Zusanunenhang.

Lohse’s study provides something not attempted since JuliusKöstlin’s Theology of Luther in : an analysis of Luther’s theolo-gy both in terms of its historical development and its systematiccontext. Such a study has long been vitally needed. Luther studieshave been plagued by systematic analyses wherein the interpreter’stheology comes through perhaps more clearly than Luther’s in hisown historical context. As Lohse states about many recent Lutherstudies in an introductory chapter, “lines of convergence with thetheological and political history of the [author’s] time can easily bedrawn” (). Lohse’s historical approach begins in part with ananalysis of the theological and ecclesiastical situations on the eve ofthe Reformation. An analysis of Luther’s own development in part, set against this background, enables the reader to follow Lohsethrough a careful study of when and how Luther’s distinctiveimpulses emerged over against both his medieval background andhis conflicts with Rome and the emerging left-wing movements ofthe sixteenth century. Through this historical approach Lohseavoids the pitfalls of focusing too strongly on decisive momentsand instead looks at Luther’s whole career as a theologian.

Lohse’s analysis of Luther’s “reformation discovery,” for exam-ple, skillfully charts a course that declines to endorse either theview which emerged from the Luther renaissance initiated by KarlHoll, namely, that Luther’s Reformation theology is already clearin Luther’s earliest lectures on the Psalms (–), or the viewargued since the s that Luther did not have his “tower experi-ence” discovery of the justifying righteousness of God until late in or even . Lohse shows, rather, that the Reformation theol-ogy of justification by faith was emerging throughout this period.Definable points of development and clear indication in thesources demonstrate that the issue is a complex and not a simpleone. God’s passive righteousness is already known by Luther in, yet the vital concept of the certainty of salvation emergesonly later. Throughout part , Lohse brings such clarifying andprecise developments in Luther’s theology to the fore.

A systematic treatment is helpful for the reader seeking toresearch a particular locus in Luther’s theology. Lohse providesthis in the third part of this study. The result is that, by readingsections of part in correlation with topics as they emerge in thehistorical development of Luther’s theology, one can dive into the

whole system of Luther’s theology while studying its emergencethrough his early lectures, his attack on indulgences, the crisis ofhis dispute with Rome, and through his later disputes with radi-cal tendencies, with Erasmus, with Zwingli, and with theAntinomians. Or one can simply look in part for subjects ofinterest and be directed by references, in many cases, to sectionstreated in their historical development. Of particular interest toLutheran pastors are Lohse’s balanced and erudite treatments ofsola scriptura, of law and gospel (with sections on Luther’s under-standing of the law’s twofold use as well as a treatment of the thirduse of the law in Lutheran theology), of the two kingdoms, and ofeschatology, including Lohse’s clear statement that there is it nodoubt that Luther held to the “immortality of the soul,” evenwhile he acknowledges Luther’s use of phrases teaching “soulsleep” (). Lohse wisely relegates treatment of Luther’s unfortu-nate statements concerning the Jews to an excursus, for they are,as Lohse notes, “a marginal theological issue, not at all part of thecentral themes” (xi).

This English edition by Fortress Press has its strengths but alsoits significant flaws. Helpful are the inclusion of the Latin andGerman texts in the footnotes, with English translations citedfrom the American Edition of Luther’s Works and references list-ed to the Weimarer Ausgabe. Usually the title and date of thespecific treatise is also noted, though sometimes incorrectly, forexample, where the date of the Bondage of the Will is given as

(), and AE is incorrectly cited as AE (). The book thusprovides something absolutely essential: entrance into Luther’sown writings. One could spend a lifetime of research in Luther’slife and thought with this book as the key. On the other hand,Fortress has failed to provide an accurate edition. Typographicalerrors 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 exten-sive errors is that a beautifully designed and nicely bound book isnevertheless seriously flawed. It is to be hoped that Fortress Presswill issue a page of errata and invest the time and expense neces-sary to produce a much improved subsequent printing. A pagelisting abbreviations should also be supplied. In the present edi-tion, you need to have access to Siegfried Schwertner,Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie undGrenzgebiete (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, ) in order to deci-pher the abbreviations!

Such disappointments do not cloud my overall enthusiasticendorsement for this important book for English readers. Lohse’swork surpasses all other studies. It provides most helpful guidanceinto Luther’s own writings, so many of which are also available inEnglish. His historical approach is a desperately needed correctiveto systematic studies that have simply distorted much of Luther’stheology. Every Lutheran pastor should purchase this book anduse it as a tool for understanding the reformer who brought thegospel back to a church that had corrupted it, whose theology,grounded in Holy Scripture, is a desperately needed light for ourown day.

John Arthur MaxfieldPh.D. Candidate, Princeton Theological Seminary

Director, Luther Academy

“The Way to Heavens Doore”: An Introduction to LiturgicalProcess and Musical Style. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . BySteven Plank. Edited by Robin Leaver. The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,. Hardcover. pages.

h This second in a series of Studies in Liturgical Musicologyfocuses on text-painting in the liturgy. Series editor Robin Leavernotes that the frequent divorce between liturgy and music allowsmusicians to concentrate solely on the ‘performing’ aspects ofworship without troubling themselves with understanding thetheological principles and liturgical imperatives of worship.Similarly, it allows clergy to assume that they have no need tounderstand the musical aspects of worship, expect for music’sbasic propaganda value (ix).

The purpose of this volume is “to raise some of the issues andthen to invite and encourage the reader to make further studiesinto the relationship between music and its functions withinspecific liturgical forms” (x).

The intriguing title of the book is derived from a poem by theEnglish poet and cleric George Herbert (–), who describedchurch music as “the way to heavens doore.” In surveying the closerelationship between liturgy and music, Plank writes primarily fortwo groups: “music history students who seek a contextual under-standing of their subject, and practitioners of church music wholook to explore broader aspects of their vocation” (xi).

Plank teaches musicology and early music at Oberlin College inOhio and is also an active church musician. He combines hisknowledge of both fields into six chapters: “Liturgy and Music,”“Time and Text,” “The Daily Office,” “The Mass,” “Liturgical Musicas Homily,” and a very brief “Coda” as chapter . “Liturgy andMusic” draws musicians and theologians together in the context ofthe historic liturgy. “Time and Text” explains the Christian churchyear as sacred time with sacred words. “The Daily Office” and “TheMass” offer a layman’s overview of the mass and its offices alongwith their rituals and music. “Liturgical Music as Homily” providesa look at the English anthem and the Lutheran cantata as two exam-ples of liturgical music with a homiletical purpose.

The highlight of Plank’s work for Lutheran readers will certain-ly be his overview of Bach’s cantatas as liturgical music for the sakeof preaching the gospel. Plank notes that the cantata is based onthe Scripture lessons for the day and functions as a sung sermon(). Plank passes the vital litmus test of knowing that Bach wasnot a Pietist and cites excellent sources on Bach and Pietism byRobin Leaver. The author analyzes the text painting in BWV /,/, and /. Editor Robin Leaver may deserve most of the cred-it for this section, but it is a welcome alternative to the plethora ofBach material that assumes Bach was in fact a Pietist.

The other strength of Plank’s book is his knowledge of tune andtext, music and theology. Unlike many musical sources that ignorethe text and theological resources that ignore the music, Plank isconscious of the reciprocal relationship between the two fields.According to Plank, the question is “not what musical style(s) istraditionally associated with particular liturgical texts, but ratherwhat liturgical process is active and how does a particular musicalstyle function within that process” (–). For example, Planknotes 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 univer-sity setting is the need for theological resources that will findacceptance in the postmodern university. Plank succeeds in Bachstudies, as noted above. His sources for the work as a whole, how-ever, are mixed. His three primary referents are James McKinnon’sMusic in Early Christian Literature, Joseph Jungmann’s The Massof the Roman Rite, and Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy.McKinnon’s work is a book of primary readings and can hardly goastray. Jungmann, of course, writes from a uniquely RomanCatholic perspective. Gregory Dix is popular for promulgating thefour-part scheme for celebrating the Lord’s Supper (LutheranBook of Worship), contra the Lutheran three-part plan (TheLutheran Hymnal, Lutheran Worship, Christian Worship,Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary).

In the final analysis Plank successfully introduces music histo-ry students to the liturgy. Yet he offers very little to our confessionthat is not already available in Lutheran Worship: History andPractice; Commentary on The Lutheran Book of Worship; ChristianLiturgy: Catholic and Evangelical; and Christian Worship Manual.Even from the perspective of music history students, his brief tourof the mass and daily office is easily trumped by the much moredetailed and readable account in Jeremy Yudkin’s Music inMedieval Europe.

We must study and digest the vital topics in liturgical processand musical style. But we will study the issues through the filter ofWittenburg, not Rome or Canterbury.

Brian J. HamerChrist The King Lutheran Church

Riverview, Florida

A Theology of Music for Worship Derived from the Book ofRevelation. Studies in Liturgical Musicology . By Thomas AllenSeel. Edited by Robin Leaver. The Scarecrow Press, Inc., .Hardcover. pages.

h Thomas Seel introduces the third volume of this series bynoting 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 ‘aurallubricant’ which serves as a transition between other parts of theservice” (). With this promising preface, Seel seeks to show “thatthe writer of the Apocalypse used the breadth of his multiculturedlife experiences to portray the fulness of the vision he receivedfrom the Godhead” (). Seel notes that Revelation is not a col-lection of unrelated visions and music, but “the music providesthe basis of a well conceived theology of music in worship. Thethesis of this study breaks new ground and has not been addresseddirectly in any other study to date” ().

After a lengthy introduction to his theological and musicalmoorings, Seel attempts to break this “new ground” by exploringthe origin and use of “pray” (proskuneo) in Revelation, the musi-cal forms in Revelation, performing groups, performance prac-tice, a theology of music for worship, and implications for today’schurch musicians. The denouement of his study is a list of tencharacteristics of music in worship from the Book of Revelation:

. A continuum of vocal sound ranges from declamatoryspeech to sung word as revelation and response mecha-nisms.

. A mandate exists for the saints to continue the Imago Deiprocess by creatively composing new songs of praise.

. Instrumental accompaniments (specifically, timbres thatblend with the human voice) are used to aid in the vocalresponse to the Godhead.

. Instrumental heralding (specifically, the trumpet call) isused to announce the revelation of the Godhead.

. The exhibition of emotion in the performance of the musicexists owing to the use of a variety of Greek verbs such assay, sing, rejoice, cry, and a variety of sounds from nature.

. The postures for the performance of music in worshipinvolve more than just sitting and standing.

. The music of worship includes the use of the sounds ofnature from all creation, both animate and inanimate.

. A sense of unity (koinonia) is perceived via the dynamics ofantiphonal and responsorial response by the variousgroups.

. Old worship (proskuneo), motivated by reverential fearhaving a vertical master-to-slave nature, merges with a newworship (proskuneo), motivated by love having a horizontalhost–to-guest nature. Theology becomes doxology as thesolemn act of worship.

. Music dramatically involves all the senses of humanity andall the collective resources available in all Creation(–).

Seel’s approach to scripture is straight biblicism. The bookoriginated as a DMA church music dissertation in the SouthernBaptist 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] respectfulbiblicism reflects the evangelical perspectives of the author and ofthe seminary for which the dissertation was written” (v). Theauthor approaches Revelation (and all of Scripture) as a “show-me-a-passage” book of detailed rubrics for church music, insteadof a book of the revelation of God in Christ to be read aloud andpreached in Christian worship. With the absence of a how-tomanual for church music dropping out of heaven after Pentecost,Seel forces the Apocalypse into such a mold and thwarts thenature and function of holy scripture. He finds in Revelation theprecedent for soloists, ensembles, quartets, offstage choirs, newtypes of sounds, improvised music, and even support for laserlight shows (). His work recalls those who think that referencesto clapping hands in the Psalms are stage directions for contem-porary worship and that house churches in Acts are support forcell group Bible studies. In that sense, he breaks no new ground.In the final analysis, this is merely a theology of music for worshipcontrived from the Book of Revelation.

To be sure, the ongoing work of Studies in Liturgical Musicologyholds a great deal of promise. The series has a stellar editor and alegitimate aim to synthesize music history and church music. Butthis particular volume is not worth the price of admission.

Brian J. Hamer

Hymnology: A Collection of Source Reading. Studies in LiturgicalMusicology . By David W. Music. Edited by Robin A. Leaver.Lanham, Maryland, and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., .Hardcover. pages.

h Robin A. Leaver of Westminster Choir College notes in theForeword to this volume,

Discussions of these matters [of hymnology] can, of course,be found in numerous studies of the development ofhymnody, but documentary sources, which present theissues within the contemporary thought forms and presup-positions, have been inaccessible in a single source until thepublication of this volume! (x).

David W. Music divides the readings into five broad categories:The Early Church and the Middle Ages, The Reformation, EnglishHymnody, American Hymnody, and Vatican . Subdivisions ofeach chapter and an index allow the reader to proceed immedi-ately to the author or document of personal choice. Each selectionis introduced by the author with a concise and helpful summaryof 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 VaughanWilliams. But the main attraction of this volume is certainly themore obscure readings from Palladius, Cassiodorus, Sozomen,Notker Balbulus, Clement Marot, and even The Boston Handeland Haydn Society.

Highlights of the book for Lutheran readers include Sozomen’s(c.– c.) comments on the chaos that results when people ofdifferent doctrinal positions try to sing together: “Leontius, thebishop of the opposite faction, who then presided over the churchof Antioch, did not dare to prohibit the singing of hymns to Godwhich were in accordance with the Nicene doctrines, for he fearedto excite an insurrection of the people” (). The words of theRoman Catholic Nausea Blancicampianus on Lutheran hymnsteaching Lutheran doctrine have lost none of their weight: “I sayin addition that it will not be very easy for them (namely theProtestants) to agree with us, because it will be necessary afterpeace is established to do away with those German songs, whichthey use very much in many of their churches” (). The Prefaceto the pietistic Geistreiches Gesangbuch sounds remarkably similarto the preface of some songbooks used in the LCMS. It is evendescribed as a “new songbook” and is arranged according to theorder of salvation instead of the seasons of the church year ().The response of the theological faculty of the University ofWittenburg () notes how the editors of the Gesangbuch omithymns that pray for the preservation of true doctrine, confusepeople about the origin of texts and tunes, and fill their songbookwith false doctrine and “high questionable phrases” (). To readthe response of the Wittenburg faculty and insert The OtherSongbook or twenty-page bulletins of praise music and home-made liturgies in place of Geistreiches Gesangbuch is an enlighten-ing experience. And what faithful pastor or church musicianwould not be thankful for Ralph Vaughan Williams’s words aboutchildren and music: “Children at all events have no old associa-tion with any particular tune, and incalculable good or harm may

be done by the music which they sing in their most impression-able years” ().

Are their any weaknesses to this volume? The scope andbreadth of the topic in a -page book will be its greatest strengthand weakness at the same time. David W. Music succeeds in pro-viding the overall panorama of hymnology from Pliny theYounger to Vatican , but the balance along the way is somewhatobscured by Music’s Baptist roots. Luther receives fewer than fivepages of attention, a fraction of the space allotted for Isaac Wattsand other English writers. Along the same lines, many of theEnglish documents are presented in their original Old English,which may be awkward for some readers. Similarly, some of theGerman phrases from the Reformation section are untranslated.One may also wonder why Music ends with Vatican , yet realitysuggests most people’s knowledge of church history barelystretches back to the s or to their baptism, whichever camefirst. Perhaps the author also wants the reader to see the parallelsbetween the Council of Laodicea and the failed reforms of Vatican, nearly years after the fact.

These concerns aside, the strengths of Hymnology: A Collectionof Source Readings far outweigh its weaknesses. As a whole theselections are well chosen from a vast field of literature, accurate-ly introduced, and surprisingly applicable to our own sung con-fession of the faith. (As an aside to pastors and interested laity ofthe LCMS: buy and read this book before . It will help us(LCMS) all answer the question, “How came we here?” as weapproach our next hymnal and as we seek a hymnody which is atonce catholic and evangelical.)

Brian J. Hamer

Music in Early Christian Literature. The Cambridge Readings inthe Literature of Music. By James McKinnon. General Editors:John Stevens and Peter le Hurray. Cambridge University Press,. Hardcover. pages.

h This is a parallel volume to Oliver Strunk’s Source Readingsin Music History: Volume One: Antiquity and the Middle Ages(W.W. Norton , ). Whereas Strunk offered primary read-ings from secular sources from Plato through the Middle Ages,McKinnon’s book “aims to be inclusive rather than representativein its selection of material and to be a resource for the serious stu-dent of music history rather than merely a pedagogical resource inthe manner of the typical anthology of source readings” (vii).(This reviewer first encountered the book in a graduate course inmusic history at a secular university.) McKinnon also narrows thescope “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 categoriesand proceeds in chronological order. Readings are included fromdirect New Testament citations, the Apostolic Fathers, the GreekApologists, nonpatristic Christian literature, and the standardarray of Christian writers through St. Augustine. Familiar authorsinclude Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement ofAlexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, GregoryNazianzus, 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 thefirst known references to the office of cantor (attr. PseudoIgnatius) in the fourth century: “I greet the subdeacons, the read-ers, the cantors, the porters, the laborers, the exorcists, and theconfessors” (). Comments from Tatian (fl. c. ) on properdecorum in church music may become a celebrated quote amongconfessing evangelicals: “I do not wish to gape at many singers nordo I care to look benignly upon a man who is nodding andmotioning in an unnatural way” (). Novatian’s (d. c. )thoughts show his awareness of the different cultural use ofinstruments in the Old and New Testaments: “That David leddancing in the sight of God is no excuse for the Christian faithfulto sit in the theatre, for he did not distort his limbs in obscene ges-tures while dancing to a tale of Grecian lust” (). Basil the Great(c. –) tells youth of the edifying use of instruments amongthe ancients and warns against contemporary [sic] music:

The passions born of illiberality and baseness of spirit arenaturally occasioned by this sort of [contemporary] music.But we must pursue the other kind, which is better and leadsto the better . . . . Such is the difference in filling one’s earswith wholesome or wicked tunes! And since the latter typenow prevails, you must have less to do with it than with anyutterly depraved thing ().

Two quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (c. –) are worththe price of the book. First, he compares Christian celebrations topagan parties: “Let us take up hymns rather than tympana,psalmody rather than shameful dances and songs, a well renderedapplause of thanksgiving rather than theatrical applause, medita-tion rather than debauchery” (). Moreover, he comments on theChristian wedding and the need to exclude frivolous entertain-ment and music: “Among good things, one is the presence ofChrist at weddings (for where Christ is, there is good order).”Therefore, if Christ is present in the liturgy, Gregory concludesthat 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 bride-to-be why I would rather they did not play a CD of Enya for pre-service wedding music in our sanctuary.)

If the reader’s appetite is not yet whetted, here is one more snip-pet from Hilary of Poitiers (c.–) on singing the Psalms inChrist:

There should be no doubt that the things mentioned in thepsalms must be understood in accordance with the teachingof the Gospel, such that regardless of the person in which theprophetic spirit has spoken, it should nonetheless be referredin its entirety to the recognition of the coining of the LordJesus Christ, his incarnation, passion, and kingdom, and tothe glory and excellence of our own resurrection ().

Every author is introduced with a concise summary of his lifeand significance. Each selection is prefaced by one or two sen-

tences to give the context of the reading. A bibliography and indexhelp the reader navigate the tightly written and presented materi-al. To be sure, this is no light reading. While under two hundredpages, the quotations are brief and rich, as opposed to Strunk’sSource Readings, which are more lengthy but read quite easily. Thescope is narrow, the material is challenging, and even the type isquite small. To answer the obvious question, yes, many readingsare included that are not in found in standard sets of the churchfathers, including some never before available in English.

Purchase and digest Music in Early Christian Literature. It willbe infinitely valuable to anyone looking for catholic support forthe oft-heard dictum, “Tune follows text as style follows sub-stance.”

Brian J. Hamer

The Bestman, the Bride, and the Wedding. By Michael L. McCoy.Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, .

h At first glance a reader might think that this is a practicalbook offering advice to those about to be wed. But upon furtherreading and exploration, the reader will find a very nice “treatise”on St. Paul’s letter to the Christians at Ephesus :– (especiallyverse ). Those who grew up reading C. S. Lewis’s Chronicles ofNarnia, or who read them to their children, will enjoy the samestyle of writing in Pastor McCoy’s excellent novel.

The scriptural allusions are fantastic as the history of the fami-ly of God is traced from the creation to that final wedding banquetaround the throne of the bridegroom, the Lamb of God who takesaway the sin of the world. While this work is very captivating andhard to put down, it is at the same time a book that offers a goodmeasure of practical advice. It offers encouragement and comfortto the faithful pastor. It offers a great sense of admonition to thepastor who might think a little too highly of himself and hisaccomplishments (crediting himself with the greatness of thechurch and its growth). It offers encouragement and comfort tothe body of Christ, the church.

To the faithful pastor it offers encouragement and comfort forthe long haul. The faithful Bestmen (pastors) are the ones whotruly enjoy joining the Bride (the church) in the Great Dance(divine service). It is the faithful Bestman who has no problembearing the Chain Stole (the marks of the church: word and sacra-ment) or the Black Wool Robe (a symbol of the office using woolso that the Bestman won’t get too comfortable in his office). It isthe faithful Bestman who is able to keep the Bride out of the reachof Thanatos and his net (using the Chain Stole), yet has no fear ofthe time when he himself must be gathered into the net. It is thefaithful Bestman who is given the privilege of escorting the Brideto the Great Wedding.

To the pastor who thinks too highly of himself and his ownworks there is great admonition. It is the unfaithful Bestman whoforgets the blessings or the necessity of the Great Dance. It is theunfaithful Bestman who sees no need for the Chain Stole andBlack Robe and gets a little too comfortable in his office and thusloses sight of what marks the church. It is the unfaithful Bestmanwho always seems to be seeking to justify his “ministry” by sur-

rounding himself with yes-men. It is the unfaithful Bestman whodoes not want to deal with Thanatos. It is the unfaithful Bestmanwho thinks that without him the Bride would be lost and the wed-ding would never take place.

To the body of Christ, the church, the bride, there is much com-fort and encouragement to be found in the three-hundred-pluspages of this work. Despite the variety of Bestmen (both faithfuland unfaithful) by which the Bride must be escorted, a remnant isalways maintained. It is that remnant that truly values theBestman, despite the one filling the office. Knowing that the onefilling the office does not the office make, the bride and her chil-dren find comfort in knowing that the Great Dance is stillefficacious. There is comfort in knowing that there will be a faith-ful Bestman to escort her to Wedding Hall for the marriage feastof the Lamb in his kingdom, which has no end.

The Bestman, the Bride and the Wedding is a book that everyoneshould read, but especially pastors. Pastors should read it forencouragement either to remain faithful or to regain that faithful-ness to the word of God and our Confessions.

Michael R. ScudderAdmissions Counselor

Concordia Theological SeminaryFt. Wayne, Indiana

A Little One amidst the Shadows. By Michael L. McCoy.Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, .

h The second volume in The Chronicles of Peniel is as intrigu-ing, attention-getting, and attention-holding as the first, TheBestman, The Bride, and The Wedding. The scriptural allusions areevery bit as inspiring. They only serve to emphasize the point thatPastor McCoy seeks to get across to his audience.

In this volume the reader, be he pastor or layman, will findboth admonition and encouragement. There is admonition: eventhis reviewer, a called and ordained servant of the word with sixyears of parish experience, was almost sucked into believing thevarious characters that the author uses to show how crafty andwily the old evil foe really is. Thanks be to God that, beingsteeped in the word of life, one is able to hear that little voice thatkeeps telling one, “There is something here that is not quite whatit seems to be. That is not quite right.” The depictions of Satandisguised as an angel of light are captivating.

There is encouragement in that the reader, being steeped in theword of life, will readily see that a thorough knowledge of thisword will enable one to recognize even the slightest variationfrom the truth. Pastor McCoy makes this point himself in theAfterword as he describes how the book came to reality in thelives of people to whom he was giving pastoral care in the daysjust prior to the submitting of the final manuscript. It is encour-aging to be so familiar with the real thing (the word of life) thatyou immediately recognize the imitation (the devil and hiswicked angels). It is the same style of training used for banktellers as they learn to recognize counterfeit money.

This volume is much easier to get into after first having readvolume one. While it is not absolutely necessary to do so, it willbe helpful to be familiar with the author’s style of writing. Againthis book should be a part of a church’s library as well as the pas-tor’s as they seek to be encouraged and equipped to serve theword become flesh.

Michael R. Scudder

A CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS

The editors of L hereby request manuscripts, book reviews, and forum material for thefollowing issues and themes:

ISSUE THEME DEADLINE

Reformation Wittenberg and Rome April ,

Epiphany A Symposium on Prayer Fellowship July ,

Eastertide Lutheran Education October ,

Holy Trinity Vocation Sanctification January ,

Send all submissions to the appropriate editors and addresses as listed on the inside back cover. Pleaseinclude IBM or Macintosh diskette with manuscript whenever possible. (Specify word processing pro-gram and version used.) Submit all articles to the Coordinating Editor: Erling T. Teigen • Pearl St. •Mankato, MN • • or .@compuserve.com • All submissions must be accompanied by anabstract of the article, words or less. Please write for style sheet.

O T

In , during the sessions of the imperial diet at Augsburg, Lutherwas kept at the Coburg castle, where he could both be kept safe andstill close enough for consultation. While there, Luther busied himself with translating. On the day of his arrival, he wrote toMelanchthon: “Out of this Sinai we shall make a Zion and buildthree tabernacles: One to the Psalter, one to the Prophets, and oneto Aesop.” Luther wrote an open letter on translating and instructedWenceslaus 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” whenthe word was not originally there. Here we see Luther’s keenintent on translating in service to the proclamation of graciousjustification in Christ. This excerpt is found in AE : –.Luther’s defense is not a good example of temperance, but nodoubt 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 topoint out the reasons and considerations back of all my words,I should need a year to write on it. I have learned by experi-ence what an art and what a task translating is. Therefore Iwill tolerate no papal ass or mule to be my judge or critic, forthey have never tried it. He who desires none of my translatingmay let it alone. If anyone dislikes it or criticizes it without myknowledge and consent, the devil repay him! If it is to be criti-cized, I shall do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leavemy translation in peace. Let each of them make for himselfone that suits—what do I care?

This I can testify with a good conscience—I’ve given it myutmost in care and effort, and I never had any ulteriormotives. I have neither taken nor sought a single penny for it,nor made one by it. Neither have I sought my own honor byit; God, my Lord, knows this. Rather, I have done it as a ser-vice to the dear Christians and to the honor of One who sit-teth above, who blesses me so much every hour of my life thatI had translated a thousand times as much or as diligently, Ishould 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, Godwilling, all of it shall also serve to his honor, joyfully and sin-cerely. Scribblers and papal asses may blaspheme me, but realChristians—and Christ, their Lord—bless me! And I am morethan plentifully repaid, if even a single Christian acknowledgesme as an honest workman. I care nothing for the papal asses;they are not worthy of acknowledging my work, and it wouldgrieve me to the bottom of my heart if they blessed me. Theirblasphemy is my highest praise and honor. I shall be a doctoranyway, yes even a distinguished doctor; and that name theyshall not take from me till the Last Day, this I know for cer-tain. . . .

Ah, translating is not every man’s skill as the mad saintsimagine. It requires a right, devout, honest sincere, God-fear-ing, Christian, trained, informed, and experienced heart.Therefore I hold that no false Christian or factious spirit canbe a decent translator. That becomes obvious in the transla-tion of the Prophets made at Worms. It has been carefullydone 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 craftsmanshipthere. So much for translating and the nature of the languages!

Now, I was not relying on and following the nature of thelanguages alone, however, when, in Romans [:] I insertedthe word solum (alone). Actually the text itself and the mean-ing of St. Paul urgently require and demand it. For in that verypassage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doc-trine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ withoutany works of the law. And Paul cuts away all works so com-pletely, as even to say that the words of the law—though it isGod’s law and word —do not help us for justification [Rom:]. He cites Abraham as an example and says that he was

A L F may be reprinted freely for study and dialogue in congregations and conferences with the understandingthat appropriate bibliographical references be made. Initialed pieces arewritten by contributing editors whose names are noted on our mast-head. Brief articles may be submitted for consideration by sending themto Rev. Joel A. Brondos, S. Hanna St., Fort Wayne, IN -.

When possible, please provide your work on a .-inchWindows/ compatible diskette. Because of the large number ofunsolicited materials received, we regret that we cannot publish themall or notify authors in advance of their publication. Since L is “a free conference in print,” readers should understand that viewsexpressed here are the sole responsibility of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the positions of the editors.

L ForumS S C

justified so entirely without works that even the highestwork—which, moreover, had been newly commanded by God,over and above all other works and ordinances, namely cir-cumcision —did not help him for justification; rather he wasjustified without circumcision and without any works, byfaith, as he says in chapter , “If Abraham was justified byworks, he may boast, but not before God.” But when all worksare so completely cut away—and that must mean that faithalone justifies—whoever would speak plainly and clearly aboutthis cutting away of works will have to say, “Faith alonejustifies us, and not works.” The matter itself, as well as thenature of the language, demands it.

T, U, LLuther did not mind his reputation for hardheadedness in mat-ters of the faith (fides quae). In all other matters, one needs love,but in regarding matters of doctrine, we should not be humble orrelenting. Here are two excerpts: the first is found in Day By DayWe Magnify Thee, daily devotional readings in Luther, page ,translated from WA , . The second is from the AmericanEdition 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 cangrasp it (therefore it necessitates such a great and hard fight).It must not be treated lightly, as the world maintains andmany people who do not understand, saying we should notfight so hard about an article and thus trample on Christianlove; rather, although we err on one small point, if we agreeon everything else, we should give in and overlook thedifference in order to preserve brotherly and Christian unityand fellowship.

No, my dear man, do not recommend to me peace andunity when thereby God’s Word is lost, for then eternal lifeand everything else would be lost. In this matter there can beno yielding nor giving way, no, not for love of you or anyother person, but everything must yield to the Word, whetherit be friend or foe.

The Word was given unto us for eternal life and not to fur-ther outward peace and unity. The Word and doctrine willcreate Christian unity or fellowship. Where they reign all elsewill follow. Where they are not, no concord will ever abide.Therefore, do not talk to me about love and friendship, if thatmeans breaking with the Word, or the faith, for the Gospeldoes not say love brings eternal life, God’s grace, and all heav-enly treasures, but the Word.

II.On no account should we humble ourselves here; for theywant 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; butwe 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 thispoint! Rather, let everyone be proud and unremitting here,unless he wants to deny Christ. With the help of God, there-fore, I will be more hardheaded than anyone else. I want to bestubborn and to be known as someone who is stubborn. HereI bear the inscription “I yield to no one.” And I am overjoyedif here I am called rebellious and unyielding. Here I admitopenly that I am and will be unmovable and that I will notyield 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 playedwith.” So far as his faith is concerned, therefore, a Christian isas proud and firm as he can be; and he must not relax or yieldthe 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, itshould not stand for anything or yield to anyone. But so far aslove is concerned, a Christian should yield and stand for every-thing; for here he is only a human being.

U CC. F. W. Walther, Explanation of Thesis , D, “Adiaphora,” inThe True Visible Church, theses delivered at St. Paul’s LutheranChurch in Indianapolis, Indiana, beginning August , , atthe sixteenth Central District Convention. Translated by FredKramer, printed in C. F. W. Walther, Essays for the Church(CPH, ), : –.

We know and firmly hold that the character, the soul ofLutheranism, is not found in outward observances but in thepure doctrine. If a congregation had the most beautiful cere-monies in the very best order, but did not have the pure doc-trine, it would be anything but Lutheran. We have from thebeginning spoken earnestly of good ceremonies, not as thoughthe important thing were outward forms, but rather to makeuse of our liberty in these things. For true Lutherans knowthat although one does not have to have these things (becausethere is no divine command to have them), one may neverthe-less have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beauti-ful and are not forbidden in the Word of God.

Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished “outwardornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar orna-ments,” [Ap ] but has left them free. The sects proceededdifferently because they did not know how to distinguishbetween what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in theWord of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadtand of his adherents and followers in Germany and in

reminded by the solemnity of the divine service that one is inthe 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 perceptionor feeling or taste among all believing Christians—neither dareanyone demand that all be minded as he. Nevertheless, itremains true that the Lutheran liturgy distinguishes Lutheranworship from the worship of other churches to such an extentthat the houses of worship of the latter look like lecture hallsin which the hearers are merely addressed or instructed, whileour churches are in truth houses of prayer in which Christiansserve the great God publicly before the world.

Uniformity of ceremonies (perhaps according to the SaxonChurch order published by the Synod, which is the simplestamong the many Lutheran church orders) would be highlydesirable because of its usefulness. A poor slave of the popefinds 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 with-out a true understanding of the doctrine often has to look forhis church for a long time, and many have already been lost toour church because of this search. How different it would be ifthe entire Lutheran church had a uniform form of worship!This would, of course, first of all yield only an external advan-tage, however, one which is by no means unimportant. Hasnot many a Lutheran already kept his distance from the sectsbecause he saw at the Lord’s Supper they broke the breadinstead of distributing wafers?

The objection: “What would be the use of uniformity ofceremonies?” was answered with the counter question, “Whatis the use of a flag on the battlefield?” Even though a soldiercannot defeat the enemy with it, he nevertheless sees by theflag where he belongs. We ought not to refuse to walk in thefootsteps of our fathers. They were so far removed from beingashamed of the good ceremonies that they publicly confess inthe passage quoted: “It is not true that we do away with allsuch external ornaments.”

Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies andchurch ornaments in order to prove by our actions that wehave a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and knowhow to conduct ourselves in things which are neither com-manded nor forbidden by God.

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by ourchurch customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly whensomeone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience onaccount of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poorconsciences by imposing human ordinances on them with thecommand: “You must keep such and such a thing!”; the sectsenslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin whatGod has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our LutheranChristians are still without a true understanding of their liber-ty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies.

It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians findthe difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicismin outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when aperson sacrifices the good ancient church customs to pleasethe deluded American denominations just so they won’taccuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraidof a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamedin the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice thatthey can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?

It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail inour Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced inmany congregations. The prejudice especially against theresponsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of coursestill very great with many people —this does not, however, alterthe fact that it is very foolish. The pious church fatherAugustine 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 congregationwant to retain their prejudices? How foolish that would be! Forfirst of all it is clear from the words of St. Paul ( Cor. :)that the congregations of his time had a similar custom. It hasbeen the custom in the Lutheran Church for years. It cre-ates a solemn impression on the Christian mind when one is

F B OLuther’s Prayers, edited by Herbert F. Brokering (St. Louis:Augsburg Publishing House, ) and originally translated byCharles E. Kistler, contains many examples of how the HolyScriptures and daily struggles shaped Luther’s prayer life. Theseprayers are collected with several themes in mind: TheCatechism, Home and Family, Word and Sacraments, and theChurch. It might serve well as a confirmation gift. The followingexcerpt is a portion of Luther’s A Simple Way to Pray, written atthe request of Master Peter the Barber. The translation found inthis edition (pages –) is actually Helmut T. Lehman’s trans-lation from volume of Luther’s Works, published by FortressPress.

You should also know that I do not want you to recite all thesewords in your prayer. That would make it nothing but idlechatter and prattle. Rather do I want your heart to be stirredand guided concerning the thoughts which ought to be com-prehended in the Lord’s Prayer. These thoughts may beexpressed, if your heart is rightly warmed and inclined towardprayer, in many different ways and with more words or fewer.

I do not bind myself to such words or syllables, but say myprayers in one fashion today, in another tomorrow, dependingupon my mood and feeling. I stay however, as nearly as I can,with the same general thoughts and ideas. It may happenoccasionally that I may get lost among so many ideas in onepetition that I forego the other six.

If such an abundance of good thoughts comes to us weought to disregard the other petitions, make room for suchthoughts, listen in silence, and under no circumstancesobstruct them. The Holy Spirit himself preaches here, and oneword of his sermon is far better than a thousand of ourprayers. Many times I have learned more from one prayer thanI might have learned from much reading and speculation.

It is of great importance that the heart be made ready andeager for prayer. As Sirach says, “Prepare your heart forprayer, and do not tempt God” [Sirach :]. What else is itbut tempting God when your mouth babbles and the mindwanders to other thoughts? Like the cleric who prayed, “Deusin adjutorium meum intende.” [Make haste, O God, to deliverme; 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 etfilio et spiritui sancto. [Glory be to the Father and to the Sonand 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 haveprayed 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 begin-ning or the middle.

Though not all of them blurt out the words as did the abovementioned cleric and mix business and prayer, they do it bythe thoughts in their hearts. They jump from one thing toanother in their thoughts and when it is all over they do notknow what they have done or what they talked about. Theystart with Laudate and right away they are in a fool’s paradise.

It seems to me that if we could see what arises as prayerfrom a cold and unattentive heart we would conclude that wehad never seen a more ridiculous kind of buffoonery. But,praise God, it is now clear to me that those who forget whatthey have said have not prayed well. In a good prayer one fullyremembers every word and thought from the beginning to theend of the prayer.

So, a good and attentive barber keeps his thoughts, atten-tion, and eyes on the razor and hair and does not forget howfar he has gotten with his shaving or cutting. If he wants toengage in too much conversation or let his mind wander orlook 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 noth-ing and does nothing right.” How much more does prayer callfor concentration and singleness of heart if it is to be a goodprayer!

This in short is the way I use the Lord’s Prayer when I prayit. To this day I suckle at the Lord’s Prayer like a child, and asan old man eat and drink from it and never get my fill. It isthe very best prayer, even better than the Psalter, which is sovery dear to me. It is surely evident that a real master com-posed and taught it. What a great pity that the prayer of such a master is prattled and chattered so irreverently all over theworld! How many pray the Lord’s Prayer several thousandtimes in the course of a year, and if they were to keep on doingso for a thousand years they would not have tasted nor prayedone iota, one dot, of it! In a word, the Lord’s Prayer is thegreatest martyr on earth (as are the name and word of God).Everybody tortures and abuses it; few take comfort and joy inits proper use.

T C S

This letter appeared in the Lutheran Witness, circa . TheELS and WELS have published new hymnals, and the LCMS isplanning to have its new hymnal ready in . Does it take ageneration for a hymnal like TLH to overcome initial criticismsand become endeared to the hearts of pastors and people? Therewere numerous protests in the s about The LutheranHymnal (TLH), but today we hear no such complaints aboutTLH—though the same kinds of concerns were raised withLutheran 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 usnowhere. It seems to me that at least five pronounced varia-tions are possible in following the new hymnal. With hundredsof pronounced individualists among the clergy and thousandsof them among the laity (with the usual percentage of maver-icks among both), must we not expect every variation to befound somewhere? And since the hymnal encourages (theword is used advisedly) variations, is that not an open invita-tion to go a step further? and then another step? (Let’s notengage in any logomachy over that expression “open invita-tion,” since I have in mind the practical result rather than theintention of the committee.) I hope my forebodings willprove to have been needless, but is not the set-up perfect foranything but uniformity?

Especially are these forebodings buttressed by a perusal ofthe rubrics concerning the hymns. We were told time and timeagain that one of the glories of our Church is the congrega-tional singing of hymns. Yet following the new hymnal, wemay use two or four songs. In the hymnal the rubrics read“shall” for three hymns, plus a doxology, which was at leastoptional. Some of us still used four hymns and a doxology.Now we are getting down to two “shall” hymns, plus twooptional and not even the mention of a doxology to be sungby the congregation. How are we going to keep alive the

knowledge of our hymns if there is to be no opportunity tosing them? Shall we more and more confine ourselves to thesinging of the liturgy and let the hymns fall into desuetude?Some of us are going to keep the doxologies, just as we aregoing to continue the use of “Gott sei gelobet” as the doxologyafter the Communion service despite the attempt of the com-mittee at first to eliminate that. We do not want to be stub-born, but we will keep everything that is a help to our faithand because of such holy associations is precious to us. So we will have the variation of two, three or four hymns—allaccording to the new hymnal. How are we to achieve unifor-mity? Some will have no doxologies, and some of us will keepthem even though the set-up in the new hymnal seems to dis-courage their use.

So we shall expect this letter, or one of similar import, to beprinted in the Lutheran Witness as a contribution to the discus-sion of the plea “to follow the service exactly as it is written.” Wehave tried to understand exactly what is written, and we are con-fused no end. We want to be in on the uniformity. We can’tfigure it out. We want four hymns and the doxology; we mayprefer to omit the Gloria in Excelsis; we like the triple Hallelujah(second version); our neighboring congregation feels best withtwo hymns, the single Hallelujah, the Gloria in Excelsis andbeing seated during the Epistle-lesson, while we still think thatone ought to stand when the Lord’s Word is being read. We bothare following the new hymnal order of the morning service andarrive at such diverging customs. Which one of us cannot under-stand what uniformity really is?

Since we want to conform and the neighboring congregationalways wants to be a little “different,” we will naturally expectyou to label them as the non-conformists and prove it to themfrom the new hymnal. We are unable to do so, for when weconfront them with the hymnal, they can prove their case:They are following exactly what is written —and so are we. Yetthe services are so different from each other in many details.

A C R W

Carl Halter and Carl Schalk edited A Handbook of ChurchMusic (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, ). Historicalperspectives that pastors might well like to address with organistsor worship committees are found in this book. The followingselection is from pages –.

By the closing decades of the th century it was apparent thata new movement was making a slow but steady impact on theworship and hymnody of Lutherans in America. That move-ment was a confessional revival, a reawakening of interest inand commitment to the historic creeds and confessions of theLutheran church and, together with that commitment, areawakening of interest in the traditional worship forms andpractices of the Reformation. The confessional revival wasprovoked, in part, by a climate of theological laxness, a condi-tion 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 ser-vices to more ordered worship was clearly evident among manymid-century immigrant groups that brought with them a com-mitted confessionalism from the continent and fromScandinavia, the confessional revival was a force that was feltamong all Lutherans, including those with deep roots on theAmerican continent. It was significant that the leaders of theconfessional revival in America—e.g., Charles Porterfield Krauth,Matthias Loy, and C. F. W. Walther—were among those who invarious ways also contributed to the revival of worship.

In part the confessional revival among Lutherans inAmerica was a reaction against the “new measures” of revival-ism, an approach that continued to find a good deal of sup-port among some Lutherans. But even such a prominentLutheran clergyman as William A. Passavant, who had beenbrought up in a period of revivalism and was active in a vari-ety of educational, missionary, social, and philanthropicendeavors, gradually abandoned it. Opposition to revivalism,as well as to the more liberal brand of “AmericanLutheranism” promoted by S. S. Schmucker from Gettysburg,was strengthened by the Lutheran immigrants from theGerman and Scandinavian countries, as well as by the arrivalfrom Europe of new books and periodicals. Antiquariancopies of liturgical orders from the th and th centurieswere 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 aChristian: A Personal Confession (Milwaukee: NorthwesternPublishing House, ) pages –.

There are hundreds of clubs and societies in the world devotedto certain aspects of human life, organizations that bringtogether different groups of people in order to make possible a furthering of their particular interests. Must all of these toomake the bringing into being of a better world an essential partof their program? The suggestion is preposterous. Everybodyknows that involvement in one or more of these clubs devotedto special interests does not prevent its members from workingfor world betterment at the same time. There is no contradic-tion between the specific organization and its special aim, onthe one hand, and the necessary aim of world betterment on theother. Why, all of a sudden, the indignation when Lutherans saythat the church has been given a special commission by theLord that does not include action for world betterment, andthat the state is a different institution of God with a purposethat 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 thechurch and citizens of the state and can act in both areas of lifeand in both capacities.

We can pursue reason and common sense in this matter inanother direction: The church and church leaders have nospecial competence in matters of government and the mea-sures needed to bring about a better world. What is neededhere is a knowledge of human beings, of personal and socialethics, of economics and politics, and all the rest—not forget-ting a knowledge of what is possible as well as of what is idealand desirable. In all parts of society there are people—religiousand non-religious—who possess competence in these areas.The church, as church, has nothing to give to the solution ofthe problem of world betterment that is any more to the pointthan what any intelligent Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist whohas the facts and knows his business can give. The properordering of society belongs to the law, and in this matter wedon’t even need our Bibles and the ethics of Jesus. Heathenfolk and unbelievers also show the work of the law written in their hearts.

T

Professor emeritus Gerhard O. Forde preached this sermon onGood Friday in at Pilgrim Lutheran Church in St. Paul,Minnesota. It was part of a Tre Ore Service that included ser-mons on each of the seven words from the cross.

John :, “When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished!’ And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”

It is finished! Over. But not just ended. Completed. Perfected.What is finished? A life, for one thing. The life of one who

asked nothing of us but only gave himself to us. The life of onewho chose us in spite of the fact that we did not choose him.The life of one who did not count equality with God as some-thing to be snatched at, but became obedient unto death, evendeath on a cross; one who was despised and rejected, fromwhom we hid our faces. Now it is over. It ended the only waysuch a life could end among us—cast out, mocked, crucified.But it is not just over. It is finished, perfected, completed. Hehas reached in this awful place his goal. It is perfected justbecause he goes all the way to death. He goes the way none ofus could go. He bears our sins in his body. He shows us in hisbody what sin is, who we are, what we think about God andwhat we do to one another. Because his life is over now, we canno longer say we don’t know. We can no longer turn aside. Thetruth is out. That task is finished. As John put it elsewhere, weare convicted of sin because we did not believe in him.

It is finished! What is finished? A mission. God is finished withus. God’s way with sinners comes to its end here. God has saidhere all he has to say to us as old beings, fallen creatures. Hiswrestling with us throughout the ages, his struggle to get us to seeis over. He has tried in many and various ways through priest andprophet and king to get it said. Now he has finally done it. He hasmade his last move. He has no further plans. He has spoken to usthrough his Son, through this life that ends on the cross. Hebowed his head and gave up his spirit. And so it is over. That is allGod has to say. But again, it’s not just over. It is completed. Godgave his Son for this, as a ransom for sin. He gave him over intodeath, let him bear the iniquity of us all. It pleased God so to dobecause in the end he had one thing to say, the one thing we findso hard to believe: You are mine and I mean to have you back!And so it is finished, perfected, completed. This word from thecross is not finally a cry of defeat, but a cry of victory. There! It isdone! It ought to be clear now that God wants nothing of us butthat 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 isrobbed of its sting. God has found a way to be God even for thelikes 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 thingsstill go on pretty much as before. All that you were is ended,over—the refusal to take God at his word, the selfishness, thehatred, the prejudice, the grasping at being God, the despair atnot being good enough, the desperate protecting of self and thefear 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 finallyhad enough. But it is not just over. It is completed. That’s

because God has decided to make all things new. So hear thisword from the cross: It is finished! And that’s final! And all ittakes now, miracle of miracles, is that you just be still, listen andwait. 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 loveli-est scenes in his happy home at Wittenberg are those in which,in company with chosen friends, he sought recreation fromhis arduous labors in the holy joys of sacred song. The tributeshe paid to music are many and beautiful. He desired theyoung to be diligently exercised in vocal and instrumentalmusic, and insisted on musical attainments as an indispens-able qualification in the teacher. His influence on the musicalculture of Germany is important.

By means of suitable hymns and tunes, many of which hecomposed himself, he popularized Church music and enabledworshiping congregations to unite in the singing. In theschools that were established under the influence of Lutherand his co-adjutors, music formed a part of the regular courseof instruction. It was honored not only as a useful adjunct inpublic worship, but also as a source of beneficent influenceupon the character and life. The following passages—a few outof many—will serve to show Luther’s regard for music:

“Satan is a great enemy to music. It is a good antidoteagainst temptation and evil thoughts. The devil does notstay 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 makesmen more gentle and tender-hearted, more modest anddiscreet.”

“I have always loved music. He that is skilled in this art ispossessed of good qualities, and can be employed in any-thing. Music must of necessity be retained in the schools. A school-master must be able to sing, otherwise I will hearnothing of him.”

“Music is a delightful, noble gift of God, and nearly relat-ed to theology. I would not give what little skill I possessin music for something great. The young are to be con-tinually exercised in this art; it makes good and skillfulpeople of them.”

“With those that despise music, as all fanatics are wont todo, I am not pleased; for music is a gift bestowed by God

and not by man. So it also banishes Satan, and renders menjoyful; it causes men to forget all wrath, uncharity, pride,and other vices. Next to theology, I esteem and honormusic. And we see how David and all the saints clothedtheir pious thoughts in verses, rhymes, and songs; becausein times of peace music rules.”

Luther encouraged gymnastic exercises, which he regardedsalutary both for the body and the soul: “ It was well consid-ered and arranged by the ancients,” he says, “that the peopleshould practice gymnastics, in order that they might not fallinto reveling, unchastity, gluttony, intemperance and gaming.Therefore these two exercises and pastimes please me best,namely, music and gymnastics, of which the first drives awayall care and melancholy from the heart, and the latter pro-duces elasticity of the body and preserves the health. But agreat reason for their practice is that people may not fall intogluttony, licentiousness, and gambling, as is the case, alas! atcourts and in cities. Thus it goes when such honorable andmanly bodily exercises are neglected.”

S. P’ C The Confession of St. Peter has traditionally been commemorat-ed 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. Jesusexorcized him. “Get behind me Satan.” Our Lord certainlydoes 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. Hehadn’t cooked it up. It was given him from the highest possi-ble source. Jesus says so. “Flesh and blood has not revealedthis to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Can’t get a moresolid confession than that, so solid that Jesus says that is whathe will build his church on—playing with Peter’s name.

Peter confessed what was given him to confess. What wentwrong was by his subordinating that to the way he figuredthings out and how they ought to go. He subordinated “theChrist, the Son of the living God” to his definition of theChrist and so then also of the living God: to how he workedthese 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 predic-tion of the passion. That destroys “the Christ, the Son of theliving God” as confessed by Peter. Peter’s confession, givenhim to confess, he denied. He would not let Jesus do his beingthe Christ his way, but would lay on Jesus the sort of Christ hewanted him to be.

Now the Gospels make it clear that Peter was a pretty emo-tional chap, great on gut reactions, and by his emotions heusually got things wrong. He certainly loved Jesus, and so wasit love for Jesus that prompted him to protest against Jesus’

having such a hard time ahead? The demands of such a lovecan get things terribly wrong, Law wrong. Not love, but faith.Faith has nothing to point to of itself, not even how much loveit’s got going. Faith has nothing to say about itself, but onlywhat it is given, given as the Lord gives his gifts with his words(externum verbum, AC ), words which are his to do and togive what they say. Peter would not let Jesus be such a Christ,such a Son of the living God; he attempted to take control ofthe words given him to confess; he would stop Jesus doingthem 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 Fatherwho is in heaven.” Suffering Servant/Son is taken up by Satanin the temptations, in ways that offer alternative ways for hisdoing his names: non-Calvary, theology-of-glory ways. Satanspeaks again at Calvary: “If you are the Son of God, comedown from the cross.” Peter speaks for Satan even with a heartfull of love. “This shall never happen to you.”

You can confess saying all the right words, with a heart fullof love for an alternative Christ, and be the mouthpiece ofSatan. The seminary attempts to fill you up with all the rightwords, and you are daily tempted to take them over, and runthem the way you figure they ought to run. They aren’t yourwords to run as you may wish to make them run. They are hiswords and he runs them as the Christ, the Son of the livingGod, who goes to Calvary, identified as the Suffering Servantwho “makes himself a sacrifice for sin.” Yours too, all of them,even your satanic attempts to commandeer him. That too, thatespecially, he would bring you to repentance of.

Jesus turned and looked at Peter, and Peter went out andwept bitterly. Feed my lambs. Pastor my sheep. Feed my sheep.

You cannot be a bigger sinner than Peter with his satanicChristology. Ohne Kreuz keine Christologie (Martin Mahler).Nevertheless, Jesus did not give up on Peter.

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, thathe might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you thatyour faith may not fail; and when you have turned again,strengthen your brethren.

Have you ever thought of Jesus praying for you like that? Youmight ask him.

The good news is not in some Peter, mighty hero of thefaith, prince of the church, Number One Pope. That’s lawstuff. Rather, Peter, greatest possible sinner who had such aSavior, who was yet the biggest sinner of us all, for he had thelot, 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 fromJesus spoken to Peter. How’s about taxes? What do you think?We are sons who are free, but we’ll pay it anyhow, and Jesusarranged for the shekel for the tax “for me and you.” Groundlevel stuff, and with a chuckle. That’s where it’s at for the twoof them together. There is something special with Jesus andPeter, and with you too. He doesn’t do quotes by numbers.You sinner, repentant, forgiven, for Christ’s sake, for Calvary’ssake, here, today. How about those vocabs? What do you say?

SUPPORT STAFF

Dean Bell, Advertising, L Tape ReviewsHendrum, MN revbell@means.net

Robert Franck, L DigestPastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Duluth, MN revfranck@aol.com

Mark Loest, Cover Designmloest@chi.lcms.org

Patricia Ludwig, Layout and DesignNovosibirsk, Russialector@mail.nsk.ru

David Magruder, L DigestPastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Duluth, MN

Denise Melius, Advertising, L Books &Tapes, Subscriptions, Northville, SDlogia2@hvc.net

James Wilson, Cartoonist, Deer Lodge, MThayakawa@in-tch.com

Sarah Rausch, Proofreader, Aberdeen, SDserausch@dtgnet.com

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Ulrich AsendorfPastor, Hannover, Germany

Burnell F. Eckardt Jr.Pastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, IL

Charles EvansonProfessor, Seminary for Evangelical TheologyKlaipeda, Lithuania

Ronald FeuerhahnProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO

Lowell GreenProfessor, State Univer. of New York at Buffalo, NY

Paul GrimeExecutive Director, LCMS Commission on Worship, St. Louis, MO

Kenneth HagenProfessor Emeritus, Marquette University Lake Mills, Wisconsin

Matthew HarrisonPastor, Zion Lutheran Church, Fort Wayne, IN

Steven HeinHeadmaster, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran High School, Colorado Springs, CO

Horace HummelProfessor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary St. Louis, MO

Arthur JustProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN

John KleinigProfessor, Luther Seminary, North Adelaide SouthAustralia, Australia

Arnold J. KoelpinProfessor, Martin Luther College, New Ulm, MN

Peter K. LangePastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Topeka, KS

Paul LehningerProfessor, Wisconsin Lutheran College, Milwaukee, WI

Alan LudwigProfessor, Lutheran Theological SeminaryNovosibirsk, Russia

Cameron MacKenzieProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN

Gottfried MartensPastor, St. Mary’s Lutheran Church, Berlin,Germany

Kurt MarquartProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN

Scott MurrayPastor, Memorial Luth. Church, Houston, TX

Norman E. NagelProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO

Oliver OlsonProfessor Emeritus, Marquette UniversityMinneapolis, Minnesota

Wilhelm PetersenPresident Emeritus, Bethany Lutheran Seminary, Mankato, MN

Andrew PfeifferProfessor, Luther Seminary, Adelaide, Australia

Roger D. PittelkoProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN

Hans-Lutz PoetschPastor Emeritus, Lutheran Hour, Berlin, Germany

Daniel PreusDirector, Concordia Historical Institute St. Louis, MO

Clarence PriebbenowPastor, Trinity Lutheran ChurchOakey Queensland, Australia

Richard ReschKantor and Professor of Church MusicConcordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN

David P. ScaerProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN

Robert SchaibleyPastor, Shepherd of the Springs Lutheran ChurchColorado Springs, CO

Jobst SchöneBishop Emeritus, Selbständige EvangelischeLutherische Kirche, Germany

Bruce SchuchardProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO

Harold SenkbeilPastor, Elm Grove Lutheran Church, Elm Grove, WI

Carl P. E. SpringerProfessor, Illinois State University, Normal, IL

John StephensonProfessor, Concordia Seminary, St. CatharinesOntario, Canada

David Jay WebberRector, Saint Sophia Lutheran TheologicalSeminaryTernopil', Ukraine

Jon D. ViekerAssistant Director, LCMS Commission on WorshipSt. Louis, MO

William WeinrichProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN

George F. WollenburgPresident, Montana District LCMS, Billings, MT

STAFF

Michael J. Albrecht, Editorial AssociatePastor, St. James Lutheran Church West St. Paul,MN sjlcwspmja@aol.com

Joel A. Brondos, L Forum and Correspondence EditorPastor, Zion Luth. Church, Fort Wayne, INstimme@aol.com

Charles Cortright, Editorial AssociatePastor, St. Paul’s First Lutheran Church, NorthHollywood, CA cortricl@yahoo.com

Tom Rank, Editorial AssociatePastor, Scarville and Center Lutheran Churches,Scarville, IA thomrank@netins.net

Erling Teigen, Editorial CoordinatorProfessor, Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato, MN 74022.2447@compuserve.com

Robert Zagore, Editorial AssociatePastor, St. Paul Lutheran Church, Niles, MI pastorzagore@juno.com

Gerald Krispin, Editorial AssociateProfessor, Concordia College, Edmonton Alberta, Canada gkrispin@planet.eon.net

Alan Ludwig, Copy EditorProfessor, Lutheran Theological Seminary,Novosibirsk, Russia lector@mail.nsk.ru

Martin Noland, Editorial AssociatePastor, Christ Lutheran Church, Oak Park, IL75113.2703@compuserve.com

John T. Pless, Book Review EditorProfessor, Concordia Theological SeminaryFort Wayne, IN PLESSJT@mail.ctsfw.edu