Now comes the grand finale, and through it I have gained a spiritual pride from Luther's translation and those who upheld it. Some upheld it more than others. A surprising name of Philippi, the Jewish convert and theologian, rises high, yes even higher than John Gerhard on this passage. But the reality is that none, excepting Luther himself, upheld it more than... the old (German) Missouri Synod and Prof. Eduard Pardieck ... and now we know this great theologian who was practically unknown until now. Franz Pieper highly valued his work and I wonder that Pieper may have shed a tear at Pardieck's passing. May God bless this work of Eduard Pardieck even now in our day!
Hebrew characters have been added back in from the original text.
Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Part 10: Pages 411-412 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1
[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck]
[Page 411] ... But he adds something more into this, which is involved in this prophecy: that therefore this clear promise has remained dark and intricate, until Mary gave birth, and the angels were witnesses of this birth, and then the shepherds and wise men after them, until this birth was preached and proclaimed in the whole world by the apostles". (St L ed. vol. 1, 236 f., paragrs. 171-172; Am. Ed. vol 1, pg 193-194). Eve has not had in view the fulfillment, also not a whole lot of later explanatory prophecies. Such things did Eve not know that Christ was to be born of a Virgin, in Bethlehem, to a time when the scepter of Judah will have departed [Gen. 49:10], no exact knowledge of the three genera of the communicatio idiomatum, and that the Formula of Concord treated this in unusual order.
The objection which has impressed the Lutheran exegetes the most is the one we have already heard, that when Eve held her son to be God, she indeed would have been driven to idolatry with him. This has caused the later exegetes to not completely hold to Luther's view, namely the reference to Cain. So says, for example, Gerhard: "She did not mean that her first-born was that promised seed, but the fact that she gave the name of her son [Cain-possession], she testified that she in faith had the man, who is of Jehovah, not that she thought that her first-born son was just this Messiah whom she now presently externally possessed in the flesh, but that she possessed him inwardly and in faith, him that was not yet born, but that he in his own time should be born and revealed. . . . I have obtained, or I possess a man who is of Jehovah Himself, to whose glory and eternal memory be, that I my son and the firstborn of the human race will name Cain, that is, my possession.” Thus indeed had Moses called his son Eliezer, not that he is God, but that the name should be a constant reminder to him of his faith in God. Luther had not much concern over this objection. He says: "Although she has but erred in this hope, so but it seems from this that Eve has been a holy woman and believed in the promise of the future salvation through the blessed seed. . . . 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.. . . . But in person she is wrong and believes Cain will be the one. . . . But she believes this on the strength of some opinion of her own, without a definite sign and without a definite Word." (St L ed., vol. 1, 296, paragrs. 18-19; Am. Ed. vol. 1, pg 242). It is indeed not told us how long Eve was caught up in the false opinion, how soon she saw her mistake or God taught her for the better.
It is as if the meaning of the word so imposes itself with power that it cannot be kept down, that one but again speaks it out in the same breath in which one attempts a way to interpret. As one of the [Page 412] many examples we could cite, we quote from Lange’s Bibelwerk: "The explanation of Luther (and many others, also Philippi): “the man, the Lord”, anticipates not only the development of the Messianic idea, but goes even beyond the Messianic idea; because the Messiah is not Jehovah as such. Yet is the explanation: “with the help of Jehovah” (with his helpful presence, Knobel) too weak. Improperly the Vulgate: per Deum, or the declaration of Clericus: 
, by Jehovah, I have acquired in fellowship, in conjunction with Jehovah a man. Always it remains striking that the name itself is missing the qualifier. One might therefore be compelled to read: a man with Jehovah, that is, stands in connection with Jehovah. But like the way of the acquisition: won with Jehovah, characterizes the name itself. The choice of the expression here refers to the God of promise. She obviously seems premature in her womanly hope of salvation already in the new-born, the promised woman's seed, Chapter 3:15, wanting to welcome it in her understanding of the Word. Also Lamech indeed expected immeasurably great things from his son Noah, although with more reason”.
, by Jehovah, I have acquired in fellowship, in conjunction with Jehovah a man. Always it remains striking that the name itself is missing the qualifier. One might therefore be compelled to read: a man with Jehovah, that is, stands in connection with Jehovah. But like the way of the acquisition: won with Jehovah, characterizes the name itself. The choice of the expression here refers to the God of promise. She obviously seems premature in her womanly hope of salvation already in the new-born, the promised woman's seed, Chapter 3:15, wanting to welcome it in her understanding of the Word. Also Lamech indeed expected immeasurably great things from his son Noah, although with more reason”.
Was a treatise on this question worth the effort? Admittedly, for us the understanding of the exclamation of Eve is not of such importance as, for example, the understanding of the Protevangelium [Gen. 3:15]. So also Philippi makes note, after he has entered his digression on the Protevangelium for Luther's translation of Genesis 4:1: "It is self-evident, that our exposition of the Protevangelium does not immediately stand or fall with the discussion on the translation and comprehension of Genesis 4:1." And yet, if it is worth the effort for us to defend our precious Luther Bible, moreover in a word at the beginning of the Bible which is so well known, is it still worth the effort that we explain it to our children as Luther did? Was it worth the trouble to prove this, that we do not do this with inner untruthfulness, but with good reason? Yes indeed! E[duard]. P[ardieck].
= = = = = = = = = End = = = = = = = = =
John Gerhard
 |
| Johann Gerhard by Granger |
I was surprised that John Gerhard did not follow Luther on his translation of Genesis 4:1b. In fact I was somewhat disappointed, but then I pulled out Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and found in the index that Pieper referred to Gerhard's work over 125 times, most all of which bolster the true Lutheran teaching. There was another issue where John Gerhard, the great 17th century Lutheran theologian, was a little weak. It had to do with how Gerhard attempted to answer the question of how the saved differ from the lost. Here Gerhard came up with the phrase intuitu fidei, or "election in view of faith". Here the opponents of the old (German) Missouri Synod attempted to use this phrase to justify their error on the doctrines of Predestination and Conversion, but Pieper explains that Gerhard eventually gave up his quest and remained with the proper doctrine, that there is no difference and left the mystery to eternity. See Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, pgs 488-489; Gerhard's Loci Theologici, §57 here, Google translation here; Brief Statement, paragraphs #12 and #36. But it took a C.F.W. Walther to see through this error, right the wrong, and teach that this phrase used by Gerhard should be abandoned because it could easily lead to error. From these instances, we see that it was Walther and Pieper who could rightly judge Gerhard, both praising him generously and pointing out areas where a return to Luther, Chemnitz, and the Formula of Concord yield the better way. For anyone who is truly interested in what John Gerhard taught, one should obtain Pieper's books and go through all his references to Gerhard. There are over 125 of these in Pieper's Christian Dogmatics – proof enough of Pieper's respect and admiration for this great Lutheran theologian. Then one will be well founded in the doctrines... then one can purchase and read the more recent English translations of Gerhard's works being promoted by today's Concordia Publishing House, by editor Benjamin T.G. Mayes, President Matthew Harrison, etc.. One should especially avoid giving credence to the editors and translators for the so-called "Repristination Press" of today: Heiser, Rydecki, and Matthew Harrison, and possibly Dinda, Hohle, etc. I have no praise for the motivations of that group as they stand in the way of true Lutheran teaching, even with their knowledge of "Lutheran Orthodoxy". "Repristination Press" wants to bypass the greatest Lutheran teachers since the Reformation Century: C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper. But it does not work.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Genesis 4:1b – Lutheran shibboleth!... from the precious Luther Bible, a Bible worth defending! Let the Internet publishers go there way, those that continue to corrupt Luther's translation. Does the King James Version's (and others) mis-translation of Genesis 4:1b make it unusable? No, for the same reason theologian Philippi gives above – as long as the Proto-Evangel of Genesis 3:15 is not given up. But now I give the most credence to Luther's translation and use the English translations that best follow it. For now, the KJV serves well enough, with my hand-written correction: "Ich habe den Mann, den HERRn", "I have the man, the Lord". Parents, "teach your children well", not from the famous pop song, but rather from God's Word: Eve believed she was celebrating the First Christmas...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Eve, the believer...
brought to you by God's Word, Martin Luther, Friedrich Adolph Philippi, and Prof. Eduard Pardieck of the old (German) Missouri Synod. Jesus said:John 5:39 – Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.The Gospel of Luke records this of our Redeemer as he walked with the two travelers on the road to Emmaus:
Luke 24:25-27 – O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.Since the days of the apostles and disciples, no one has better expounded unto us the things concerning the Christ in all the Scriptures than... Martin Luther.
==>> Dear God! We too are "fools, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken". Grant us thy grace that we may hear Thy Word, that you may open our eyes and behold our Redeemer, our Saviour, as also our first mother Eve did. In Jesus name I pray! Amen! Amen!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.