Thunderbolt in Church History – Pieper's warning to CSL professors

There is an anecdotal account of a faculty meeting at Concordia Seminary in about the year 1930.  This report comes by way of Joel Pless, currently Associate Professor of Theology at Wisconsin Lutheran College.  He published a senior church history paper in 1986 entitled Cancer At Concordia: An examination of how the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation was introduced to the classroom teaching at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, and what were the subsequent effects. (It wish this were online here, it should be.) [Update 3/26/2013 2021-01-21: It is online now.  For another version of the anecdote, see Curtis Jahn's essay, page 3; 2018-01-16 2021-01-21: link updated]
I quote from pages 16-17:

The participation of some St. Louis faculty members in fellowship talks with the old ALC produced much consternation and dissention, both within the faculty and among some of the ministerium of the Missouri Synod. Already before these fellowship talks began in 1935, there were rumblings of dissention within the St. Louis faculty. Retired Wisconsin Synod pastor Rev. A.T. Kretzmann tells of a story during his seminary years (1929-1931) at St. Louis when his uncle, Professor Paul E. Kretzmann came home deeply disturbed one evening. When his wife asked what was wrong, Professor Kretzmann told of the events of a faculty meeting held that afternoon.  During the meeting Seminary president Franz Pieper announced after examining the faculty's printed classnotes that everyone of the professors at St. Louis was in some way deviating from the Word of God, with the exception of himself and Paul Kretzmann.  (Theodore Graebner apparently became so angry at these accusations that he stormed out of the room!) 

The source for the above story was from an interview with Rev. A.T. Kretzmann in his home on Wednesday afternoon, April 2, 1986.  Rev. Kretzmann was a nephew of Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann. Joel Pless goes on to another report concerning who were likely involved:

It is interesting to note who were some of the men on the St. Louis faculty at this time: Theodore Graebner, John Fritz, J.T. Mueller, William Arndt, Walter A. Maier, W. Gustav Polack [William G. Polack], Theodore Engelder, Theodore Laetsch.

The source for this material was from a letter of Paul E. Kretzmann to Rev. Paul Burgdorf, February 19, 1940.  A posting by President Matthew Harrison in his blog about a year ago showed also Ludwig Fuerbringer and Richard W. Heintze in this listing. Another census posting [2018-01-16: link updated] adds to this Martin S. Sommer but has many transcription errors.
Added 1/13/2013:  Here is a photograph taken in February 1927 of the faculty – from page 83 of Der Lutheraner of that year:

This "inside story" of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis shows a major milestone in all of Church History.  For it shows that Franz Pieper, the 20th Century Luther, was not unaware of the trouble brewing there.

I compare Pieper's warning to the St. Louis faculty with:

• his last words to the Missouri Synod before he died: "May the dear Missouri Synod never forget that it's chief God given calling is to carry into all the world the testimony of the Sola Gratia – salvation by grace alone!"
• his admonition to them in his last words to study the Brief Statement of 1932 (his Theses) for they "would be a good schooling for all of them."
• his warning to the Norwegian Synod saying "Nein, Nein, no, no!" to the merger of the Norwegian Synod with other American Lutheran church bodies which denied the doctrine of Election of Grace, not in view of our faith.
• Luther's warnings and worry over the signs of weakness in his associates like Melanchthon 

Some people may be surprised at Pieper's warning to the faculty of Concordia Seminary, even in 1930, the year before his death.  I am not very surprised for I have scoured the writings of his associates and found them wanting in regards to the Doctrine of Justification.

Paul E. Kretzmann

What does surprise me is that he excluded Paul Kretzmann. Why? Because I had to search long and hard as I read his publications to find the true teaching on Universal, Objective Justification.  When I finally found it, I rejoiced but thought he should have taught it more forcefully.

Theodore Engelder & J.T. Mueller

I was surprised that Pieper's warning could have also been made to the above professors.  If they were indeed warned, I believe they took it to heart and inquired of Dr. Pieper to show them their fault.

Theodore Graebner

My previous comments (here and here) concerning Professor Graebner are confirmed by this report. Here Graebner was being chastised when many considered him "conservative" and "orthodox"!  How he chafed at the collar.  But how sad Siegbert Becker was at the downfall of Graebner as he left the LCMS to join the WELS and publish beautiful defenses of UOJ (here and here) and why he had to leave the LCMS here [2019-01-23: link updated].

Pieper's warning carries through the Twentieth Century even to now.  It is as fresh now as the moment he delivered it. For a deviation from the Word of God is a very serious matter.  Dear Christians of today, this is no small warning from Franz Pieper, for all Christianity is in the balance!

Luther Bible-Pt 8: Gen. 4:1- Septuagint & Vulgate?; Kretzmann's Commentary

     This Part 8 continues from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1) 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...
     We continue to meet with a host of lesser known theologians of the past in this portion: Amana [or Amama?], Pareus, Tiele, Hofmann, Tuch, Gunkel, Rabbi Solomon Ben Melech (or Aben Melech), Rabbi Jarchi [or Rashi], Onkelos, etc., they all had something to say on the grammar of Gen. 4:1, and most were confused on its meaning.  But as you read Pardieck's compilation, he glues it all together from the basis of the true meaning of this passage, what the words actually say.
     I beg the reader's pardon in portions of this translation for its roughness.  I am sure others could do the job much better, especially for those with Hebrew expertise.  But the content of this essay is too important to overlook...  it has to do with strengthening my faith... and nothing is more important.

  Hebrew characters have been added back in from the original text.

Underlining follows author's emphasis, highlighting is mine. Hyperlinks added for reference.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 8: Pages 406-408   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1

[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 

[Page 406]  (Conclusion.)

We have heard how Calvin swallowed four translations at once.  He approves with God, from God, through God.  He for his part then draws the dative construction before: "So I believe that would translate: I have God a man acquired.  This comes thereto closer to the Hebrew manner of speech".  The Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus says: "So many heads, so many different translations.  Some argue that the particles are here signs of the genitive, others, the dative, and again others, the ablative.  With bare necessity one has left the nominative and vocative from out of the act, only to not concede the accusative.  Some give with prepositions again, with a, de, ex, coram, cum, per. Still others find a knot in the rushes and take an ellipse of or , while others want for , to read ."  He then proceeds  [Page 407] sequentially through. "Signs of the nominative can not be.  So it is only with a passive verb or an intransitive verb (although this statement is to be taken cum grano salis-with a grain of salt)".  He means the frequent occurrence that is in a passive voice, for example, Genesis 21:5; , as Isaac was born. There but the accusative is then put, as the grammarians express themselves, to a verb in the passive latent agens sake. The case has not held here of course; here stands indeed no passive verb.  The genitive can not call.  "Amana [or Amama?] confidently asks: Where have you ever heard or read that is sign of the genitive?  We concede, of course, that Luther had translated so.  But later he had, after he has better things considered, amended this translation and held firmly to it as we now find in our Bible."  "Also the opinion of Calvin, Pareus and others did not take that about the dative so enthusiastically. . . .   This is a new, distorted explanation and quite contrary to the text.  I ask you, who has untied the bear Calvin  that are signs of the dative, especially when an active verb precedes?"  "Even their opinion is not right who argue as for the altar and home for the ablative to render it by "with”.  Which is then understood in two ways:

a). that with the ablative an allied cause (causa aliqua socia) will be denoted.  So R[abbi]. Melech: I have attained with God; for he has also contributed his part by he has breathed into him the soul.  Similarly, R[abbi]. Jarchi: With God.  When he namely created me and my husband, he created alone; but in this work we have worked with him together;

b). comparate, because one wants to express the involvement of the first cause and so translate: through God's grace, with God's help".  "The adversary should specify once just one example for us where in such word combination as the particle necessarily with cum, a, de, ex, per, coram must be given by, especially in combination with the majestic name.  They will never be able to do this".  "Also is not with Tremellius and Piscator to accept an ellipse, that stands for , a Domino [from the Lord], as it should be in Genesis 44:4; Deuteronomy 34:1.  I answer:

a. by this I deny, that has held an ellipse at the passages cited”.  Gesenius refers to that in such cases simply as accusative, analogous to the Latin egredi urbem, and noticed that as well probably an accusative without stands, eg Genesis 34:24.

"b. And even if that would have to be admitted, then one must nevertheless hold that revealed and consistent designation as accusative case of an active verb and must not impose upon other places the ellipse.  Much less we admit that is called ex [with].  What should this have for its the sense?  So it only remains that is nota accusativi".

[Page 408]

The LXX [Septuagint] translates: ; the Vulgate: "per Deum"; the English Bible [King James Version], "from the Lord". The commentary of Jamieson, Lausset and Brown recorded another variant, namely a marginal reading in Queen Elizabeth's Bible: "I have gotten a man according to the Lord's word or promise" [see here for reference].

From this whole throng of exegetical councillors is the only alternative that must be taken seriously as a sign of the accusative this, that would be the preposition 'with'.   That in the meaning often happens, is indeed well enough known.  But there is to say:

1.  that the connection in the meaning "with Jehovah" admittedly never occurs.  With God is called: , , , , , – all, but never .

2.   and but are not quite the same.

Let us hear about it from Hofmann.  We cite purposely a little longer.  "When Eve brought forth her son, she cried out: .  That translation of these words, in which as apposition to be taken, even Tiele is the question contrary, where Eve had such knowledge of the divine nature of the Redeemer, and how she held such an extraordinary illumination of the Holy Spirit with such a stark error, that she held Cain to be the promised (Messiah) and so should think they are connected.  But the other translation of , "with the help of Jehovah" would be subject to linguistic difficulty, as well but never occurs in that meaning.  At the passages of Genesis 5:24; 6:9, which Tuch draws on, called not, as he says, the helping fellowship, but rather the relationship full presence as indicative. as Judges 17:11; Ezek.. 47:22 and elsewhere.  But this meaning also suffers application on our position; because that could be used not only with neutral terms, but also with active ones is proven the passage Psalms 67:2.  Accordingly, Eve considered the birth of her son for a viewing of Jehovah, an event happening in relation to Him and is right about it: it is a step forward in her relationship to Him.  But her joy would remain undisturbed only if she could say in the full sense not merely." (Weissagung und Erfüllung, page 77).  Some have completely despaired of gaining a sense to the words as they stand there and have recommended conjectures, thus and especially for .  So already Onkelos.

We hear yet a completely new thing by the Handkommentar of Dr. Hermann Gunkel: " is very difficult.  An older exegesis explained this point so that Eve here in the first joy of motherhood already believed she possessed the promised Redeemer, over whom she had spoken the correct doctrine of both natures (he is and at the same time).  LXX: and Vulgate read the traditional text.  The version: “with Jehovah”, that is, with his help, is not provable.  [page 409] The conjecture (after Onkelos) is hardly correct.  A stronger intervention seems to be necessary; perhaps , Hitp., to read ."

= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 9  = = = = = = = =

     Pardieck's essay brings up the fact that both the Septuagint (or LXX, the Greek translation of the O.T.) and the Vulgate (the old Latin translation of the Bible) did not translate the Hebrew words of Genesis 4:1 as Luther did.  For some, this presents a stumbling block to accepting Luther's work, for after all, these were long before Luther.  But the Lutherans are not about accepting what anybody else thinks, but rather what the words say.  Franz Pieper said the following in one of his "Luther Hours" lectures to the student body of Concordia Seminary:

When we therefore speak of Luther’s or Chemnitz’s or Gerhard’s exposition of Scripture, then we do so in the sense that Luther, Chemnitz and Gerhard have shown us from the Scripture itself how a text of Holy Scripture is to be understood. .... No person, no number of people, as highly regarded or learned they might also be, no synod, no entire church body can lay down a decree how a text of Holy Scripture is to be understood. But everyone has to prove to each other, when they interpret Scripture that the interpretation which they offer, is not their interpretation, but the exposition of Holy Scripture itself. (bolding is mine; 6th Lecture, on True Visible Church, ca. 1890, translation by Australian pastor)

Yes indeed, it took a Martin Luther to restore the meaning of Genesis 4:1 from the original Hebrew words themselves.  What does that say about today's modern theology that has corrupted Luther's translation?

     There was a Bible commentary written by a colleague of Franz Pieper, in English in the 1920s, that follows the Lutheran meaning, i.e. as the words read.  It was by Paul Kretzmann entitled Popular Commentary of the Bible, in 4 volumes.  It was written while Pieper was still alive, while the Missouri Synod still had a pure teacher of the Gospel as its head teacher.  I see that CPH has picked up this old title from their archives and is to be commended for publishing it again.  It is not inexpensive because of its large size, but quite voluminous.  Kretzmann chose to write his commentary in English, not German, and I suppose that is why he called it a "Popular Commentary".  I extracted Kretzmann's paragraph on Gen. 4:1 from the "Kretzmann Project" website:

The offerings of Cain and Abel. — V.1. And Adam knew Eve, his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. In the order of natural procreation, according to the blessing which the Lord had pronounced upon the man and his wife, Eve gave birth to a son, whom she named Cain (possession). The reason for giving her first-born son this name is shown in her joyful exclamation: I have gotten a man, Jehovah (which is the exact translation). The first Messianic prophecy had been given, and faith in this prophecy lived in the heart of Eve. Although she therefore made a mistake in the person when she believed this son of hers to be the promised Messiah, she showed that her desire was directed toward the man, toward the Seed of the woman, who was to crush the head of the serpent.2) Adam and Eve were the first sinners, but also the first believers, the beginning of the Church of God on earth. We walk in the footsteps of Eve’s faith.

Kretzmann's Popular Commentary is a vast improvement over the sea of Bible commentaries from the Reformed theologians and later Lutheran theologians.  Indeed, it may be the best Bible commentary written in English that is available today.  Paul Kretzmann eventually left the LC-MS... after Pieper's death.  As with Friedrich Wyneken, I would put Paul Kretzmann in the 2nd tier of theologians of the old (German) Missouri Synod, chiefly because he was not as strong in teaching and defending the doctrine of Justification as... C.F.W. Walther and Franz Pieper.
In the next Part 9...