Scripture Principle 4: Luther a “modern theologian”?; Pieper's defense; Tholuck's error

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. —

In the book Nineteenth-Century Lutheran Theologians (2016, V&R), several German Lutheran theologians that Walther names in his essay are reviewed... and largely praised.  But C.F.W. Walther is also reviewed by the Oberursel German Lutheran Prof. Dr. Christoph Barnbrock, including a very brief comment on Inspiration, a sentence beginning with the following phrase:

     “Although Walther adhered to the teaching of verbal inspiration…”

Although? With this statement Dr. Barnbrock then goes on to cloud Walther's position on Verbal Inspiration, attempting to quote Walther against himself, and sadly leaves one to wonder that Dr. Barnbrock does not hold to Verbal Inspiration, a position so characteristic of “German theology” of the past two centuries.  At least Dr. Barnbrock does not deny Walther's support of “Verbal Inspiration”, something that “moderate” LC-MS theologians attempted to do.  But may the reader of this essay of Walther judge for themselves whether Dr. Barnbrock did justice to Walther on this teaching... or not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions.
(continued from Part 3)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, January 1886, p. 8-11: "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

Among the reasons given for the opinion that Luther is the predecessor of modern-believing theologians in their view of the inspiration of Scripture, only the two cited by Professors Luthardt and Cremer deserve consideration. First of all, that Luther, in his Preface to [Wencelius] Link’s “Annott. on the Five Books of Moses” from 1543 (see Walch XIV, 170-174;. [StL 14, 148 ff; not in Am. Ed.)] writes that “the prophets beginning at Moses, and to the last prophets, at first have studied … whether the same good, faithful teachers and researchers use in Scripture sometimes hay, straw, and stubble, and not only build with silver, gold, and precious stones, nevertheless reason remains, and the other is consumed by fire”; on the other hand, that Luther speaks  “of insufficient evidence of the apostle Paul Gal. 4:21. ff. (‘Too weak to stick’)”

As for the first reason, which both Luthardt and Cremer cite, it would, however, be much more striking if Luther meant what the gentlemen find in his words. (page 9)  But apparently they have not compared Luther's words at all. Because both do not accurately reflect the same and leave such that Luther wrote instead of "Wood" the word "Stubble” (apparently substituted from 1 Cor. 3:12), and instead of “precious stone” the words “precious stones” (!). It is therefore very probable that both of them repeated this from Dr. [August] Tholuck who quoted inaccurately in the first edition of Herzog's Encyclopaedia.

Evidence of how void this reason is for Luther's rationalistic view of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is needed no more from our side after our dear colleague, Professor Pieper, has shown the invalidity to be indisputably obvious in the November issue of  the previous year. [1885 LuW vol. 31, pp. 329-333 (German text): “Zu Luthers Lehre von der Inspiration”, “On Luther’s Doctrine of Inspiration”]  However, it may be permitted from the over-flow for us to remember to consider that Luther and all orthodox theologians have drawn from the Scriptures themselves the conviction in the first place, that at times the prophets are mentioned who were only in the schools of the prophets, and were only temporarily seized by the spirit of the prophets on certain special occasions (1 Samuel 10:10-12), but also that the inspiration of the Old Testament prophets in the narrower sense was by no means, as that of the holy Apostles, a habitation peculiar to them, but a gift bestowed on them only for specific times and purposes.  Therefore them as well as other indirectly enlightened pious ones, besides their office, besides “their good thoughts sometimes also with hay, straw, wood”. So Luther writes for example: “The prophets had their organization or their ordinary places, having come together there, which learned from the prophets; not as if all had the spirit of God, but that they heard the prophets and adhered to them.” (On Zephaniah 1:1 VI, 3220, § 2 [St. L. not found; not in Am. Ed.)   The same writes further: “The theologians have a common saying: Spiritus Sanctus non semper tangit corda prophetarum , that is, the Holy Spirit does not touch the hearts of the prophets at all times. The enlightenments of the prophets do not last always, and, without ceasing. Just as Isaiah had revelations not always and one after one another of great things, but only at particular times, the same points to the example of the prophet Elijah, as he says of the Sunamite 2 Kings 4:27: ‘Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her: and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me.’ There he confesses that God does not always stir the hearts of the prophets. It is also true that the Spirit came when they played either on the lyre or the psaltery and sang a number of psalms and sacred songs.” (Gen. 44:18. II, 2417 f. [StL II, 1645 § 60-61; LW 7, p 370]. 1 )

———————                                .

1 ) Quenstedt therefore writes, referring to the above statement of Luther: “But the prophets did not, as often as they wanted and at all times, either know hidden things  (page 10) or foresee the future, but only as far as God wanted them to reveal.. For the prophetic spirit was not always with the prophets, since the prophetic gift was not given in the manner of a habitus (an inherent skill), but only in the manner of an influence or illumination and special illumination to the prophets for acts intended by God.  Therefore, a new revelation was always needed if they wanted to administer their office; they also did not always understand everything at one and the same time and became undecided (haerebant) if the divine πνοή or inspiration was not at hand (praesto)” (Antiquitates biblicae et ecclesiast. Witteberg. , 1699, p. 3)  

Calov also judges differently. He writes: “The privilege of the Apostles to the Prophets is partly evident from the gift of tongues with which they were not equipped; partly from the kind of breath, because in the apostles the Holy Spirit continually dwelt and guided them into all truth, in the Prophets only at a certain time; in these [Apostles] he was by virtue of an immanent habit, these [Prophets] became he in part in the manner of a temporary act, Num. 11:25, 2 Kings 3:15-18; partly from the object on which they worked, because the prophets were sent to certain people or to certain persons, the apostles into all the world.” (Ad 1 Cor. 12, 28., Bibl. illustrat. ad l. c.)

(page 10)  

This dissolves even the last semblance of authority, when the modern Lutheran theologians want to prove from Luther's “Preface to Links Annott. on the Five Books of Moses”, that Luther taught that the writings of the Prophets of the Old Covenant included “hay, straw, and stubble, not just silver, gold, and precious stones.”  Not only is there not the slightest trace in the preface that Luther speaks of the origin of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament; it is also bright and clear that Luther speaks of the prophets outside of their prophetic office as “faithful teachers and researchers of the Scriptures”, therefore he immediately before all proper Scripture researchers and readers said in general: “Now such researching and reading can not happen, [but] one must be there with the pen, and record what he is particularly fond of reading and studying, that he could remember and keep it,” and then goes on: “And undoubtedly the prophets studied Moses in this way, and the last prophets in the first ones, and wrote their good thoughts, prompted by the Holy Spirit, in a book.” On the one hand, professors Luthardt and Cremer are to be excused as they do not seem to have read the passage in their context, but have copied Tholuck in good faith;

on the other hand, it is irresponsible that in such an important matter they should look to a man like Tholuck who says of Christ himself, “that what is necessary for interpretation, which is to be learned by heart, may have been known and accessible to him (Christ) according to the stage of his education and the means of his education, of his dealings.” (!!), from which Tholuck draws the conclusion: “That one does not find in the present discourses of the Redeemer any hermeneutic (page 11) formal error, the impossibility will not be asserted from the outset, just as little as that of a grammatical language error or a chronological error.” (Tholuck, Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament. Gotha 1861. pp. 59 f. [1849 3rd ed. p. 59]) —  

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 5    = = = = = = = = = = =

      It may be remembered that Adolph Hoenecke, the father of the Wisconsin Synod, while praising Tholuck for some of his teaching, had the highest praise for Walther as a "Scripture Theologian".  All the talk of a "Luther Renaissance" in Germany and generally in Europe during this time and in the 20th Century was largely a sham, for Germany/Europe never returned to Luther's Reformation on this doctrine.  No, Luther's Reformation burst forth again in America, led by the writer of the above essay.  There is no Lutheran theologian closer to Martin Luther on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture than... C.F.W Walther – not Martin Chemnitz, not John Gerhard, not Quenstedt, not Calov, not even... Franz Pieper, his perfect follower who is so vilified and caricatured by modern theologians such as Prof. Matthew Becker and David Scaer... and those of today's LC-MS. But Walther here specifically praises his "dear colleague" (and very young) Pieper, a signal to his Synod that here was a worthy candidate to succeed him.  About a year later, God gave the Missouri Synod their Elisha...

      Although this translation work took considerable time, yet it was truly a labor of love to hear the master theologian of the 19th century explain and defend... the Holy Bible.  And how wonderful to learn of who were its true defenders through the centuries, including the 20th Century. — In the next Part 5, Walther continues to defend against the specific myths of Luther that Germany promoted.