Search This Blog


Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Luther Bible-Pt 4: Calvin's way on Gen. 4:1; Philippi-Jewish convert

     This Part 4 continues from Part 3 presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...

Friedrich Adolph Philippi
     It was with great joy that I learned more of the great Jewish convert to Lutheran orthodoxy, Friedrich Adolph Philippi.  You can even read about him in the "Jewish Encyclopedia".  I had read some things about him in Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, but now not only did I read of his wonderful defense of Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1, but in my research I discovered that some of his books were translated from German into English, and are available on Google Books for free.  I invite the reader to take at least a quick look at Philippi's writing here. (I may take some time to read more of him myself!)  Hmmm, I don't think Philippi ever chastised Luther over his writings against the Jews... like today's LC-MS does.

     In this section, I have omitted Hebrew words and replaced them with tildes (~) and dashes (-).  The reader may look these up from the original publication.
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 4: Page 340-341   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 
[page 340] ... The only difference is: We say with the Apostle: without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God is manifest in the flesh [cf. 1 Tim. 3:16]; and Eve says: God will be manifested in the flesh".  He then explains how yet to find the propositiones personales [see Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, pgs 86-87], also the first genus of communicatio idiomatum [i.e. communication of attributes, see C.D. vol. 1, pg 87], finds its expression in the words.  "From the beginning of the world after the fall was this mystery known, and in fact not unclear, but clearly just as the words and example (verba et exemplum) of Eve express the unity of the person, the difference of the natures, indeed also his Office and Work as Redeemer".  So there Luther's translation and explanation is held throughout, only with this deviation: she was not referring to Cain, held him not for this God-man, but on this occasion confesses her faith in the Savior, which she still expected.
Romanus Teller extensively expounds this view, that Eve speaks of the Messiah rather than referring to Cain, and gives the reasons for it.  In the Heiligen Schrift mit Anmerkungen engländischer Theologen [or “Holy Scriptures with Notes of English Theologians"] he says to the sentence which he discovered: "One could translate: a man, a Lord, or better: a man, who is the Lord.  So Eve believed she had born into the world the Messiah”, following: "The translation is however to be preferred under the rules of the Hebrew language as well as a thorough exegesis.  However, it follows by no means that Eve has held her first-born son for man and Messiah herself.  How she might have thought this, because, that 1) the same as the woman's seed has been announced which should be born without any help of a man; 2) the Sacrifice as type and shadow of the things to come, gave significantly enough to realize that the future of the promised Saviour could not be so close; 3) also is not to be doubted is that God would clearly explain by extraordinary revelation in the first Gospel and have made so much known as at that time it was necessary that in the person no mistake could proceed?  Meanwhile, this was their word: ‘I have the man, the Lord" a confession of their faith in the future Messiah. . . .  While the first of mankind beheld the light of this world, then remembered his mother the evangelical promise of God and known at the same time that she wanted to keep up with a firm reliance on those chosen Son of Man whom she worshiped as her Lord and God at the same time."  The Weimar Bible first cites Luther: “Ei, Gott sei gelobet, da habe ich erlangt den HErrn, den Mann, den Samen, der dem Satan, der höllischen Schlange, den Kopf zertreten soll; der wird`s tun” [i.e. Oh, God be praised, there have I obtained the Lord, the Man, the Seed that should bruise the head of Satan, the infernal serpent; he will do it.]  Then it remarks: "She would hardly (it would be because of haste, as happened subsequently of Lamech) have meant Cain himself because she knew that the Messiah should be only of the woman's seed, but she had faith the Christ and had as her possession, also comforted herself in the pangs of childbirth.  [Page 341]  One could also give it from the word Kina, which means a zeal, if one also still takes a verb after the Hebrew dialect: I carry a loving fervent desire for or against the man, the Lord, namely, that he may soon be born."
Among the moderns, Philippi [ref. Christian Cyclopedia] is one who goes for Luther's translation and also for Luther's understanding and use of this position.  In an excursus to the fourth chapter, he says in his commentary on Romans of Proto-Evangel: "This word of comfort they took from Paradise with in their misery, the Lord had given it to them as a rod and staff, as bread and water of life, that they should not perish on the way.  That was for them the Lord's law, over which they meditated day and night, and who wants to determine the limit up to which way they entered the mysterious rich sense of this wonderful mystery word?" and then continues: "Should we not perhaps over Genesis 4:1 have an explanation, should it now be ever so far that to translate ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ with Luther: "I have the Man, the Lord"?  That in the Proto-Evangel we have seen that the man the Lord, the God-man, is meant.  Eve was saying that her seed should bruise the serpent's head; so it was natural enough that she referred to this in the immediate sense and not only in the indirect sense. The miracle of the first birth of a human being must have been something overwhelming for them.  So could she also move easily in her delight over the border.  Might she be mistaken after all, nevertheless was Mary’s Magnificat, which was no illusion as that of Eve, but truly came to fulfillment.  Eve, indeed, had yet to learn that the serpent-conqueror would not be born of a sinful seed, that the natural seed of woman is merely a seed of the serpent." (Seite 176 f; see English translation in Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Volume 1, pgs 225-226).

In contrast, Calvin remarks at this place in his exposition of Genesis: "Some explain: with God, that is, with God's help or by God's grace, as if Eve leads back to God the received the blessing of children, just as Psalm 127:3 explains fruit of the womb for a gift of God.  At the same place comes out another translation: I have from God. Again Jerome translates, through God.  These three readings, I say, tend to this point, that Eve gives thanks to God for having begun to raise up a posterity through her, though she was deserving of perpetual barrenness, as well as of utter destruction. Others translate too subtle (subtilius): I have the man God, as if Eve understood that she already possessed that conqueror of the serpent, who had been divinely promised to her. Hence they celebrate the faith of Eve, because she embraced, by faith, the promise concerning the bruising of the head of the devil through her seed; only they think that she was mistaken in the person or the individual, seeing that she would restrict to Cain what had been promised concerning Christ.  To me, however, this seems to be the genuine sense, that while Eve [page 342] congratulates herself on the birth of a son, she offers him to God, as the first-fruits of his race. Therefore, I think it ought to be translated, ‘I have obtained a man from the Lord’, which approaches more nearly the Hebrew phrase".
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 5  = = = = = = = =

     The last portion shows clearly the influence of Calvin's exposition of Genesis 4:1 on not only today's English Bibles, but also German and other languages.  Now we know why it is so hard to find an authentic version of Luther's Bible online... or anywhere!
     In the next Part 5...

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Luther Bible-Pt 3: Eve confesses; corruptions of Luther from... CPH!

     This Part 3 continues from Part 2 presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...
     Pardieck gives an extensive quote from Luther's exposition of Genesis, especially on verse 4:1.  And this was translated in the CPH American Edition of Luther's Works (vol. 1, pgs 242-243).  But there were no comments in the American Edition on this notable portion of Luther's exposition – no notes, no footnotes by editor Jaroslav Pelikan or translator George Schick.  Why?  Could it be that they too are part of the reason for today's corruption of Luther?  Could it be that they too did not believe Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1, that Eve actually believed her first born son was the promised Messiah?  Could it be that even Concordia Publishing House is also part of the reason for today's corruption of Luther?  It surely is for CPH also sells volume 52 of the "American Edition" where the editor Hillerbrand and translator Kunstmann corrupt Luther's sermon words with this translation: "I have gotten a man of God", even where Luther forcefully preaches on the actual meaning of Eve's confession in Genesis 4:1... but CPH has no comment on this corruption of Luther, and continues offering these corruptions of Luther and publishing even more in their "New Series"!
(Actually I am surprised that Pelikan did not outright condemn Luther's work on this passage, as often as he tramples on my faith...)  And so for an antidote to the corruption of Luther today, I continue presenting this marvelous work of Prof. Eduard Pardieck.
===>>> In your face, today's CPH, the translation of Eve's confession is this:
"I have the Man, the Lord"!
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 3: Page 337-339   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 
So Luther speaks in his Genesis, where he surely laid the foundation by the translation: "I have the Man the Lord": "She does not call him simply a man, but a "man the Lord", as the Lord meant as He promised her: "your seed [Page 338] shall bruise the serpent's head." [Genesis 3:15] ...  And because she believes, she is so very joyful over her son and speaks so magnificently of him: ‘I have the Man the Lord overcome’, which will hold up better, because I and my husband Adam have kept us in Paradise; therefore I will not call him my son, but he is the Man God, promised and given by God. . . .  Now that Eve so depends and adheres to the divine promise and on faith of redemption that through her seed should be done, therefore she does right.  For through this faith in the future seed have all saints become justified and saved.  But in person she erred and believes Cain will be the one to make an end of the misery wherein the Devil through the Fall into sin toppled them. . . .  As if she would say: I know well myself to remember, what we have lost through sin; but now I hope and speak nothing else but that I have again come over to all honor and glory that we had lost with the help of the Man God.  Because Eve’s acceptance is all too certain, so she hurries and thinks that this first son will be the fulfillment of the promise of the Lord.  But the poor woman is mistaken, and sees that her misery is still not right, namely, that of the flesh nothing other than flesh can be born, that also sin and death cannot be conquered by flesh and blood.  Also she did not know the time and hour at which this blessed Seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, would be born of a Virgin into the world; as also the Patriarchs did not know this time and hour, though the promise had become clearer with time by revelation of the Holy Spirit". (St L ed., vol. 1, cols. 296-297, paragrs. 17-21; cf. Am. Ed. vol. 1, pgs 242-243).   In his Church Postils, Luther says in a sermon: "Therefore, when Eve gave birth to her first son Cain, Genesis 4:1, she rejoiced and thought that he would be the Seed, that God had spoken of, and she said happily: ‘I have overcome the Man God’; as if she should say: This will certainly be the man, the Seed which is to fight against the Serpent.  She would welcome Christ, but it was not yet time.  She well saw that he [Cain] was not it, and had to look forward in her faith on to another woman".  (St L Ed. XI, col. 261-262, paragr. 71; Am. Ed. vol 52, pg 127; Lenker ed., vol 1, pg 285, paragr. 71; Sermon on “The Gospel for the Sunday after Christmas, Luke 2:33-40”).
Luther's translation in his Bible and his explanation is then received among Lutherans. Calov can say in his commentary on the book of Genesis: it was the opinion of nostratium plerorumque omnium.  So translates and explains Brenz, Chytraeus, Weller, Osiander [?], Aegidius Hunnius, Gerhard, Calov, Dannhauer; and for the most extensive treatment on the question is that of Sebastian Schmidt in his Disputatio de fide Matris Evae, which drew much attention from contemporary and subsequent exegetes. The oldest Lutheran theologians go completely with Luther, even in the application of the words, that Eve related the words to Cain, whom was held for herself as the promised Redeemer. So says [Johannes] Brenz: "She called him Cain, meaning a good possession, a [Page 339] good purchase or wealth or treasure, as it says: Kanithi, which means that I own, have acquired the man, the Lord. The poor woman namely held that she had born the man, the Virgin's son, who was promised from above, and from which she had recognized through the Holy Spirit that he is not only man, but also the true Lord, our God".  So even Selnecker. Likewise Weller noticed on this point: "Therein is to remember in the first place our first parents’ exceedingly great joy and jubilation, as they had Cain born to them as their first son.  For Eve, the mother thought not otherwise, than that she would have born and overcome by the same Seed, so should the serpent’s head be bruised.  So that is why she says: "I have the Man, the Lord."  There is therefore no doubt that our first parents will have held comfort for themselves from her firstborn son Cain, and they have provided all the best to him.  Therefore they much preferred him [Cain] than his brother Abel who was born after him".

To the grammatical understanding of the words, and that they were speaking of the Messiah and expressed the divinity and humanity, they all hold firmly on it.  But then the exegetes have let the objection of the Calvinists impress them: Eve then would have committed idolatry with Cain, if she had thought of him as God.  They said then that Eve did not relate the words to Cain, but with the birth of her first child she remembers that great seed of the woman; the birth of a child was her guarantee that God will not give the human race over to death and destruction, and so the promised One will also then be born; to that they hold themselves in their pain, in debt of sin and in the misery of the vale of tears.  So also, Sebastian Schmidt in his Disputatio.  He takes this sense from the words: she says: I have the man Jehovah. If she says Jehovah, that is clear.  No trope can be in the name. God gives no other name, that designates only the one true God. She holds therefore the Messiah, that comforts her, for true God. She calls him Man; and what that is, she knows. And that she testifies both in one sentence by the same person.  She thus expresses the unity of the God-man person.  "She says: I have the man, the Lord, not a man and the Lord, as if she were talking about two different things; also not: with Jehovah or through Jehovah or like him, that can could refer it to two persons, but only: the Man Jehovah, the Man that is Jehovah.  There it is impossible to think more than one person. What regards the natures is so clear, that through "Man" and "Jehovah" two natures are named.... Nor also can these two natures be other than the divine and the human. What more do we believe in the New Testament or can we believe of [page 340] the person and the natures of the Messiah?  
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 4  = = = = = = = =

In researching further the available English translations, I found that the 1976 edition of Beck's Bible, The Holy Bible: An American Translation (or AAT), did offer a translation much closer to Luther's:
"I have gotten a man, the LORD"
and for this reason, I have consulted Beck's translation on several occasions.  William F. Beck was a professor at Concordia Seminary and his translation was published by Herman Otten of Christian News.  There was some question about Beck's teaching of Justification, but I have not pursued this very far.  I seem to recall that he did not highlight the teaching of Walther and Pieper.  His translation is still available here.

In the next Part 4...

Monday, July 21, 2014

Luther's German Bible: Ich habe den Mann, den HERRn (Part 2)

This Part 2 continues from Part 1, my introductory blog post showing that almost all online versions of Luther's German Bible are faulty and even the English Bible translations do not follow Luther's translation, including the KJV.
Prof. Eduard Pardieck

To bolster the striking account of Luther's actual translation of Eve's pronouncement in Genesis 4:1, Prof. Eduard Pardieck wrote an extended essay in Lehre und Wehre in 1914, volume 60.  Prof. Pardieck is largely unknown among historians of Lutheranism in America, but I highly regard him, especially for this wonderful essay.  Here is a picture of him in the announcement of his passing in Der Lutheraner, 1926, page 107:   =====>>>>>
The dear professor was originally from Brownstown, Indiana, my home state.

A download copy of the 1-page DL article that Prof. Ludwig Fuerbringer wrote about him is ==>> here.  Franz Pieper's stirring eulogy for him in LuW, volume 72, pgs 121-122 is also available here (downloadable PDF scan).

So what did Prof. Pardieck have to write?  Here is the heading for his essay:=====>>>>>
His essay ran from August to September, 1914 – pages 337-347 and 406-412.  Although there is a listing in Google Books, there is no full view there.  But it can be found in HathiTrust beginning here.
A German text file is available from me here. (This will be gradually corrected of its errors over time. Current corrections dated July 21, 2014)

Here is my (BTL) translation of this wonderful article.  Underlining follows author's emphasis, but highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 2: Page 337   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 

It is well known that in our German Luther Bible, Genesis 4:1 [1 Moses 4,1] is rendered: "Ich habe den Mann, den HErrn" [I have the Man, the Lord].  The notion is that Eve pronounces then the thought that with this call of joy over the birth of her firstborn, that it was already equal to the promised seed of the woman, the serpent-treader who redeems them and should make up for the misery of the Fall of Man.  Thus, Eve showed that she had understood correctly the promise of Genesis 3:15, that the promised helper really should be a seed of the woman, a true man. That's why she called him a man; He is man of her flesh and blood.  And at the same time that she had recognized and accepted that in the Promise the great work should be accomplished, she also recognized that he must be even more than man, that He must be a divine person; that is why she called Him .  Thus she confesses one person as God and man at the same time, as the  And because it applied to their redemption, the given promise was her only comfort and footing in her grief of sin, because her whole thinking and longing stood in the fulfillment of the promise, so then she welcomed the thought of the Messiah with a shout of joy: I have attained him, He has been brought, I have Him now and am happy to possess Him; and that is why she called his name Cain.  Her faith and understanding had been right, only in the person and time had she erred.  The person was wrong, as she would soon experience to her great heart break.  And the time was far from fulfilled that God should send forth his son, born of a woman.  Because there was still a long, anxious wait and a chorus of ardent cries that yet [He should] come which there should come, that the Help of Israel would still come out of Zion.
= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 3  = = = = = = = =

Dear God, I can't stop working on this wonderful essay!  Where are today's true Lutherans that they should defend Luther's true Bible?  Ah, but at least the old (German) Missouri Synod had a faithful servant who expounded the heart of THE Reformer.  How wonderful it is to read of Eve's confession of faith in the promised Messiah.  In the next Part 3...

Saturday, July 19, 2014

(Not) Luther's German Bible 1545: How to find real Luther Bible (Genesis 4:1) (Part 1)

Sometimes one wants to find Luther's Bible online for reference so that one can check what Luther actually translated for a given Bible passage.  But it seems there is a great deception going on across the Internet, most of which is caused by the Reformed and erring "Lutheran" or "Protestant" theologians and teachers.  If you do a Google search for Luther's German Bible, or even Luther's German Bible 1545, you will invariably get a large selection of "Luther's German Bible" that are actually not fully authentic.  The authentic version is printed in my 1899 CPH German Bible and I consider it to be the authority.  This is also how the British and Foreign Bible Society had it printed in the same year 1899 – see here in HathiTrust copy.

Here is the usual translation you will find in most Internet sources for "Luther's German Bible", whether is indicated as "1545" or not. These are right justified for ease of text comparison:
Now here is the authentic German text of Luther's last edit of Genesis 4:1 (or 1 Mose 4:1):
Und Adam erkannte sein Weib Heva, und sie ward schwanger, und gebat den Kain, und sprach: Ich habe den Mann, den HERRn.
But what does the authentic translation of Luther mean?
I have the man, the Lord.
Oh, that sounds quite different to our English ears when we read our English translations.  So how do our English Bibles translate this verse?  Here are 2 of several – you can check your own translation if it is not one of these two:
  • KJV: I have gotten a man from the LORD
  • NIV: With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.
We see from the former examples of the more popular online sources that almost all online sources for Luther's German Bible are faulty.  An explanation will be given later but there are a few exceptions to this rule:
  1. (and here) offers a 1545 version but unfortunately only offers a very archaic spelling of the German words and so makes it much more difficult to follow or translate.
  2. offers a "modernized" spelling of what appears to be the authenitic 1545 Luther Bible.  As far as I can tell, it seems to largely match my 1899 CPH printing of Luther's Bible, the source I use for authenticity.  This website acknowledges that the text came from another source which says it is from "German Luther Übersetzung von 1545 (moderne Rechtschreibung)"  [Translation of 1545 (modern spelling)].  I have bookmarked this website for now as my online source for Luther's Bible.
So how do I know what the authentic Luther Bible is?  Again, it is by Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1, and these errors of today's altered Luther Bible were publicized in the pages of Lehre und Wehre of the old (German) Missouri Synod.  The first instance I discovered was from the year 1890, volume 36, pages 293-295 in the "Vermischtes" section.  The author of this short news article was not named and so it could have been F. Pieper, George Stoeckhardt, A.F. Hoppe, etc., but I suspect it was Pieper himself.  In this 3 page article, it is reported that a new German Bible translation was underway and lists 11 scholars in Germany and other European countries actively working on it.  The article explains that it is based on the disastrous JEPD theory, and then begins to give some examples of where it differs (page 294):
In our Lutheran Bible translation we read in Genesis 4:1 that Eve, after she had given birth to Cain, said: "I have the man, the Lord."  Here Eve expresses her burning desire for the Saviour of sinners, who had been promised her by God after the Fall, in the words directed to the serpent, the Devil: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. The same shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." [Gen. 3:15]  Eve could not wait until her Saviour was born, and thought her firstborn son had been the Saviour. --. But how does the choir of the aforementioned teachers and professors of the Church translate these words of Eve?  Listen to this: "I have received a man with the help of Jehovah [or Yahweh]." Through this translation is the joyful desire of Eve for the Saviour eliminated from the Bible.
In addition to the writings from the old (German) Missouri Synod, one also can find some useful information in a book written by J. M. Reu of the old Iowa Synod (later ALC) in 1934 entitled Luther's German Bible; An Historical Presentation  that gave some scholarly history of Luther's translations of the Bible.  Since it is in the English language, it offers a bonus for today's English speaking world.  But more importantly, it does not gloss over some later developments where Luther made final edits to his translation of the Bible.  On page 249, Prof. Reu gives these details:
...there was a special printing of the edition of 1544-1545 with its own title page... we learn that this new edition contains two Old Testament passages (Genesis 4:1 and II Samuel 7:19) and four New Testament passages (Eph. 3:15; 3:19; 6:13; 6:15) that have been revised. In Genesis 4:1, Ich kriege den Mann des HERRN is changed into, Ich habe den Mann, den HERRN. Rörer remarks that this change was of special concern to Luther, and that for this reason he had added an explanatory gloss. The new translation is already found as an entry in Luther's copy, and the gloss in Rörer's handwriting says: Ei, Gott sei gelobt; da habe ich den HERRN, den Mann, den Samen, der dem Satan oder Schlangen den Kopf zertreten soll; der wirds tun.[i.e. "Oh, God be praised; there have I the Lord, the Man, the seed that should crush the head of Satan, the Serpent; there will it be done."]
There was even more information published in Lehre und Wehre on this subject of Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1 – it was in 1914, volume 60, by a lesser known colleague of Franz Pieper, Prof. Eduard Pardieck.  If I get the time, I will pursue it further in Part 2.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

LDJ Essay - Full text with linked Endnotes

I am below publishing the entire LDJ essay in an embedded window so that it is no longer piecemeal as in the previous series of blog posts.  I have added more hyperlinks to this full version:
1) Major headings cross hyperlinked
2) Sub-headings (e.g. § 1) – added hyperlinks at beginning of document
3) Links to original "Parts" (e.g. Part 22) from the former series of blog posts
 to the major headings and this way of publishing will make reading the entire essay much easier – cross-hyperlinks to the Endnotes and major section headings will be much easier to navigate.  The disadvantage of viewing the essay apart from the previous series of blog posts is that Bible verses are not automatically linked to Logos RefTagger KJV.  Also, all hyperlinks need to be right-clicked and "opened in a new window", at least in my Chrome browser.

If the reader prefers, a direct link to this document in Google Docs is==>> here <<==.  This enables smoother back-and-forth operation of internal hyperlinks to the Endnotes, headings, sub-headings and original "Parts" from blog series.

As before, the underlining follows Walther's emphasis in original.  Hypertext links have been copiously added for reference to original sources and on several subjects.  Highlighting is mine and has not been removed.

Monday, July 14, 2014

LDJ–Pt 33—Concluding remarks: no serious witness; mere use w/o faith?; Spirit or philosophy?; Law and Gospel; Luther

     This continues and concludes from the previous Part 32 the series on C.F.W. Walther's seminal essay in 1859 (see Part 1 for Table of Contents).  This essay left me in tears many times as I again read it.  The dear Walther poured out his heart to his dear Missouri Synod.  There are many highlights in the last Part 32:
1) No serious witness   -----------------
Walther warns his Synod about the other American Lutherans:
Many of their members [General Synod, or today's ELCA] indeed would still yet be pure Lutherans: but that is just the most dreadful abomination, when these now raise no serious witness in their Synod out of wretched fear of man.
Would not Walther today include the "Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod"?  Would he not warn its members who do not raise a serious witness against the false teachers in its midst by calling this lack of evangelical discipline a "most dreadful abomination" and a "wretched fear of man"?... Yes? ... ... No?  Then read Walther again and consider how your Prof. Jeffrey Kloha calls your Bible a "plastic text" and your "conservative" Pastor Martin Noland defends it; your Valparaiso Prof. Matthew Becker merrily spews false doctrine to your young people saying "I had my doubts about Pieper's view of the Bible, the world, and theology already in seminary".

2) Mere use of Sacrament?   (Imagine that!)   -----------------
Prof. David Scaer extols Berthold von Schenk (in his Book Review in CTQ 70:3/4, July/October 2006) for recommending (actually demanding) having Holy Communion at every worship service, and adds the comment "Imagine that!".  But C.F.W. Walther speaks this way on the subject:
... if a mere use of the sacraments has a salutary effect in man, then faith, which is conditional throughout Scripture for the salutary effect of the sacraments, is nothing. Whoever teaches that, certainly is no Lutheran.
Surely Prof. Scaer does not intend to say Communion has a salutary effect without faith... or does he?  Is Prof. Scaer a true Lutheran?  Hmmm, good question.

3)  Testimony of the Holy Spirit, or Philosophy?   -----------------
And this statement by Walther made me laugh: we in fact have a spiritual kingdom through faith, that we already so possess forgiveness of sins, righteousness, peace, the seal of the Holy Spirit, sonship of God, and all spiritual goods that we know nothing more to wish for.
How Walther's statement smashes the crass use of philosophy by Pastor Martin Noland to solve the problem of rationalism, as Noland criticizes Franz Pieper's doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. (see Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pages 110-129, esp. pgs 116 & 120)   How the modern scholar theologians are hardened instead of saying like the apostle Paul (and Luther):
...for when I am weak, then am I strong. (2 Cor. 12:10)
4) Mere reading of Scripture can bring to faith   -----------------
...the truth ... that faith alone brings salvation, that indeed the mere reading of Scripture can bring one to faith and therefore can lead to salvation, without regard to which church fellowship a person belongs to, or if he is a member of any church body
Dear God! I am not proud of the fact that I am not a member of any congregation!  Would to God there was a congregation (with a Lutheran pastor) that stood firmly without reserve on the pure Gospel!  ... and defended it against all attacks.

5) Law and Gospel   -----------------
"In his pursuits to try to awaken that lost awareness, the pastor must first make it his main task to learn to rightly divide Law and Gospel.....Law and Gospel must go necessarily hand in hand."
Walther is known generally as "Mr. Law and Gospel", derived from his well-known book The Proper Distinction Between Law And Gospel, or now abbreviated Law and Gospel.  The reader will see in the above quote the prelude to Walther's later lecture series.  But although the above phrase seems simple enough, yet its application is the difference between Heaven and Hell itself.  Indeed, Walther gives a shorthand version of his later popular lecture series:
[we should] so preach the Law over against secure and obvious worldlings as if there were no Gospel, that it clearly announces only the anger of God over sin and brings them no consolation, nothing but the judgment of the curse and damnation.  But as soon as they realize that God is serious with His Law, then they hear the Gospel, which gives no other counsel than: “Believe on the Lord Christ!” and not to first do this or that in order to be called a child of God. 
6) Back To Luther   -----------------
Whoever therefore would learn how to preach, preach according to Luther, on whom God poured out the highest gifts than on anyone since the prophets and apostles, and he has equipped His instrument to bring the world the pure Gospel again and to fatally chop the root of the 1,000-year-old oak of the papacy.
Wasn't Walther's essay really bringing the Reformation century back to us?... to the Reformer who was given the "highest gifts than on anyone since the prophets and apostles"?

7) All Sins   -----------------
And finally to end this series, I must let the dear Walther speak with this final quote:
... the certainty of the forgiveness of all sins, and this alone, makes the love of Christ burst forth in us and henceforth makes it impossible for us to live in the works of the flesh and without truly good works.
Dear God!  Dr. Walther, no leading teacher of the Lutheran Church has so sweetly and comfortingly preached the dear Gospel since the Reformation century, than you.

I will end this series as I began it with the prayer:
May Walther's essay be to the reader's "mental health" and spiritual well-being...  for all time and eternity.  May it be so, God Grant It... for Jesus sake.  Amen!  Amen!