This continues from Part 15 (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. — From matters of 'science' and chronology, Walther moves to show Luther's clear teaching shows that the only valid Old Testament interpretation is by Christ and the New Testament. It seems practically unbelievable that Christian theologians would doubt Christ's word…
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 15)
(continued from Part 15)
Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 73-75 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther
XII. The interpretation of the Old Testament given by Christ and the apostles is the authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit Himself.
“Besides making other observations on this psalm, Jerome remarks that it is a fixed custom in the Psalter that each group of ten succeeding psalms has only one author, whose name is given in the first of the group. This he probably said on the basis of a rabbinical tradition. I believe, however, that Moses wrote only this one psalm, and not the following, which have no titles. For the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly says with reference to the verse in Psalm 95:7, “To day if ye will hear his voice,” that God spoke this through David (Heb. 4:7). It is, therefore, our opinion that Jerome was influenced by a Jewish fiction.” (Lectures on Psalm 90. V, 1086 [StL 5, 736; LW 13, 79; WA 40-3 , 490])
“Again, Paul, rather than reason, says in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that the rock (Exodus 17:6) in the desert means Christ. Therefore, no one but the Holy Spirit himself, who instituted the figure and created its fulfilment, can interpret the figure, so that word and work, figure and fulfilment, and the interpretation of both are God’s own and not man’s. Consequently, our faith is founded on divine, not human, works and words. … For I think you will not deny that this passage (Ps. 110:4) is said about Christ, since St. Paul cites it in Hebrews 5[:6] and in many other places, and the Lord Christ applies it to himself in Matthew 22[:44].” (“On the Papacy in Rome, Against the Most Celebrated Romanist in Leipzig”, 1520. XVIII, 1127 [sic, 1227 § 59], 1229 § 63 [StL 18, 1029-1030 §, § 63; LW 39, 79, 81]) 1)
——————
1) Brenz writes in his exposition of Psalm 2: “When we have apostolic testimonies that are the foundation of the Church, that this Psalm is to be understood of Christ, the Son of God, we may not listen to even an angel, let alone a godless rabbi, which teaches something otherwise.” (Opp. Tom. III., fol.181) The same: “When Paul interprets this (18th) Psalm of Christ, there is no other, not even that of an angel is to be recognized.” (Ibid.) By contrast, Calvin writes: “While the prophet from the excellence of the people are (in Ps. 8), such moves (“trahit”) the apostle Heb. 2:6--9. the humiliation of Christ.…What the apostle describes by a brief distortion is not exegetic, but bends it to his purpose (ad suum institutum deflectit), which was said by David in another sense. So he lays Ephes. 4:8, the passage in Psalm 68 does not both endure the passage, but instead accommodates it on the basis of a pious deviation ("pia deflectione") on Christ's person.” (Ad Ps. 8, Vid. Opp. Tom. II, 24.)
The modern believing theologians are going, unfortunately! still much, much further. Tholuck has spoken most radically about this subject, namely: “The Messiah of the prophets and his kingdom prophesied by them is not the Jesus of the New Testament and not the church he instituted; [cp. Paul G. Bretscher, here &, here pp 30-31] yet it is for him who recognizes in the institutions of the Old Testament religion the pre-formation of the higher degree of Christianity.” (The Prophets and Their Prophecies, p.149.)
“In the first place, we should know that everything taught and written by the apostles comes from the Old Testament. For in the Old Testament all is prophesied which was to be fulfilled in Christ and to be preached, as St. Paul says in Romans 1[:2]: “God promised the gospel concerning his Son Christ through the prophets in Holy Scripture.” Thus their preaching is based on the Old Testament, and there is no word in the New Testament that does not look back into the Old Testament where it was first told. We have noted in the Epistle how the divinity of Christ is confirmed by the apostle from the Old Testament passages.1 For the New Testament is nothing but a revelation of the Old; it is as if somebody had a sealed letter and later on broke it open. In like manner the Old Testament is a last will and testament of Christ; after his death he had it unsealed and read through the gospel and preached everywhere. This is signified in Revelation 5[:1–5] where the Lamb of God alone opens the book with the seven seals which, otherwise, nobody could open up, neither in heaven, nor the earth, nor under the earth.” (Sermon on the Gospel on the third Day of Christmas, 1528. XI, 214 f. § 2 [StL 11, 154, § 2; LW 52, 41-42])
“‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ [2 Samuel 7:14] – this passage they have also made dim, as if they were merely teachers, that they should weaken the Scripture, and say that this passage has two meanings: once it is understood by Solomon, as a figure of Christ, the other time of Christ. But if it is allowed that Scripture does not exist in a simple-minded sense, so it will never do battle. May the Jews insist that this is said of Solomon, but as we confess, the apostle fells it [Hebrews 1] with good appearances in the sand and it does nothing. Therefore it is solemn to say that he says this of Christ alone.” (Sermon on the Epistle on the third day of Christ, 1522. XII, 228, § 50 [StL 12, 169, § 50; NOT in LW].)
“We let the Jews chatter, and rather stay with St. Paul's mind, who not without reason (Gal 3:16) so diligently urges the word 'seed', and thus indicates that the Scriptures Genesis 12:3 and 22:18, speak of one seed, not one of many, and says freely that such seed is Christ, and does so from the true apostolic spirit and understanding. Whether now the Jews do not like such an interpretation of the apostle, we Christians have nothing at all. St. Paul's interpretation has more power for us than all the rabbis' glosses.” (Exposition of the Epistle to the Gal., 1535. VIII, 2220, § 405 [StL 9, 396, § 405 ; LW 26, 298-299 - different text])
“And since David’s words in this passage (2 Sam. 23:17) [sic 1. Chron. 17:17] amply reflect that meaning in accord with the general usage of the (page 75) Hebrew tongue, we Christians must not seek or heed any other significance in them but regard this as the only correct one and look upon all other interpretations as worthless human imagination. The New Testament cannot err, nor can the Old Testament where it harmonizes and agrees with the New Testament.” (Excerpt from the last words of David, 1543. III, 1814 .[sic III, 2814, 32; StL 3, 1902, § 32; LW 15, 287])
“Somewhere [Sebastian] Münster quotes a rabbi who says: ‘Holy Scripture cannot be understood without what is above and what is below,’ that is, without the upper and lower [vowel] points. This is true among the Hebrews. But they do not point out who the author of this way of reading was; nor do they bring sure arguments why the points must be added in this way. In fact, they make arbitrary use of the points. . … It surely seems that at the time of Jerome points were not yet in use, but the whole Bible was read without them….. Hence I do not worry much about the above and the below [vowel points] of the rabbis. It would be better to read Scripture according to what is inside. And the New Testament gives us an inner understanding, not an upper or a lower one.” (Lectures on Genesis, 1545. II, 2703. f. § 144-145 [StL 2, 1837-1838, § 144-145; LW 8, 141-142)
= = = = = = = = = = continued in Part 17 = = = = = = = = = = =CTCR admittedly “accommodational”… for Jesus?
In 1967 the LC-MS CTCR published an essay in CTM: "The Witness of Jesus and Old Testament Authorship". Because of controversy on its assertions questioning Jesus' authority on the OT, a panel was established to investigate it. The findings in the form of questions and answers were published in the 1969 Denver Convention Workbook, "A Response to Questions on "The Witness of Jesus and Old Testament Authorship" (Archive) On page 500 is one of those Q–A exchanges (emphases mine):
10. Doesn't the document actually teach an accommodation theory (p. 12, point 2) and thereby open a "Pandora's box" whereby important teachings of Jesus can be explained away?
The CTCR used the reasoning of a "scientifically considered" point in an "accommodational" way to attempt to keep Jesus from being involved in an "error or deception". Because the "scientifically considered" point (that "sunrise" and "sunset" are misnomers) is considered to be objective truth, the CTCR admitted to holding to "science" over Holy Scripture's clear words – all for the sake of keeping Christ from errors on the authorship of the Old Testament. We see now that the worst enemies of Inspiration are the LCMS teachers. They are the target of Walther's Theses on Luther's teaching. — In the next Part 17...… Our paragraph disagrees. It reckons with the possibility that something like this may have taken place with certain Old Testament books which continued to bear their author's names. It argues, hypothetically, [?] that even if [!] it could be demonstrated that Jesus used such book titles [of the Bible], this usage would not involve Him (or anyone else) in error or deception. It would be no more erroneous than to speak of "sunrise" or "sunset," even though, scientifically considered, the sun neither rises nor sets. Such a manner of speech is "accommodational," but it is neither erroneous nor imprecise, nor does such speech in Holy Scripture lose its character as the inspired Word of God. Our church has long recognized this manner of speech in the Bible without opening a "Pandora's box." (CTCR Executive Secretary, Dr. Richard Jungkuntz)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.