“Pious agnostic” Jew, Joseph Epstein: “faith envy”; an honest Jew, like Vitaly Ginzburg

         "faith envy"          ——           "I envy believers"

     A recent issue of the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 8, 2023, p. A13) published a 762-word essay by noted Jewish author Joseph Epstein. The essay was entitled “Pious Agnosticism as a Form of Judaism” under the category “Houses of Worship”. Mr Epstein is in many ways an honest Jew, as his comments about himself reveal. He is an aging man at 86. He says he has “faith envy” when speaking about a “serious Catholic” neighbor woman. This “envy” echoes the statement by the famous aging Russian Jewish scientist Vitaly Ginzburg when he stated "I envy believers".

      Epstein considered his Catholic neighbor to be a Christian believer. Whether she was or not would depend on whether she set aside the Romanist “grace and works” doctrine, also that Mary is a “co-redemptrix” with Christ, and so she only trusted in Christ’s all-atoning sacrifice, not her own works or Mary. — 

      Epstein further reveals what a true Jew is, in his account of a Polish Jew who had “memorized vast stretches of the Talmud” (a product of the Rabbis), yet was “an atheist”. That supports the title of his short essay, as Epstein calls himself a “pious agnostic”.  — 

      He reveals what he thinks of religion, that it “has been the font of morality, instructing humanity in what is right and wrong.” That confirms once again that Judaism is a religion of the Law, and Law alone.  This reminds one of a charge by Luther against not only the Jews, but Erasmus of Rotterdam, when he said [see this blog post] that Erasmus taught religion for “the sole purpose of instructing the people in a good external conduct and life and preparing them for worthy obedience and discipline.” [StL 22, 1082, #126]

      As stated about Mr. Ginzburg, so it holds true for Mr. Epstein: 

"The saddest part is that his unbelief was absolutely unnecessary for he too had a Saviour, a Saviour for whom God so loved the world (John 3:16), a Reconciler for him also (2 Cor. 5:19), even if he would not believe.  Jesus tells us about the likes of these when he answered the Jews who would hold up their heritage of "our father Abraham" before God:

John 8:56 – Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

May Mr. Epstein see the light of Day, the Daystar in the Savior from sin — Christ Jesus — and so face eternity with joy. (Num. 24:17, 2 Peter 1:19)

Presbyterians: authority of Scripture… or not? (Slavery 4c)

      This concludes from "Slavery, Part 4b" (Table of contents in Part 1). — Walther now ends his quote from the Presbyterian pastor's impassioned address which calls on a "calm and prudent judgment" in 1845 given 21 years prior to this "General Assembly". Then he pronounces a Christian judgment on the final results. — From Lehre und Wehre vol. 12, p. 215-216: 

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

(concluding Rev. J. H. Brookes' address)

[p. 6] The Assembly simply intends to say that since Christ and his inspired Apostles did not make the keeping of slaves a bar to communion, neither have we, as a court of Christ, any authority to do so; since they did not attempt to remove it from the church by legislation, neither have we any authority to legislate on the subject.’  

   Here, Sir, we have a position carefully won and thoroughly fortified with the Word of God, and yet in the face of this well-considered testimony we are required to believe slavery is an evil thing, a guilt, a sin, and the fruitful source of rebellion, bloodshed, and all manner of crime! Mr. Moderator, I cannot and will not believe so. I do not ask anything about slavery, but I ask about the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and according to the light I have now, the act of 1864 was against these Scriptures and aimed directly at unbelief. ‘The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth [p. 7] forever,’ [1 Peter 1:24-25] unchanged and unchangeable in the midst of the most tumultuous struggles of the earth. To the divine authority of this Word we must all bow with unconditional submission, and since, according to the opinion of the advocates of the ‘Declaration and Testimony’, there was a direct conflict between the action of 1864 and the explanations of the Bible — indeed, between the hot and hasty action of 1864 and the calm and prudent judgment in 1845 — we consider that there was more than sufficient reason for a serious and vigorous protest, if we wished to save the Church from a still more serious apostasy from the faith. Why, therefore, should we [LuW p. 216] be accused of being the greatest sinners before the bar of this high court, since it is evident from the testimony cited that we could not accept both acts of the Assembly without being guilty of gross inconsistency and childish self-contradiction? Sir, tell us, which of those two acts were we bound to accept as loyal Presbyterians? The act of 1845 remains unchallenged and was in fact unchallenged until 1864, when it was quietly ignored without even the honor of being mentioned in the long written essay adopted by the Assembly.… [p. 14] Show us that we are in error, and with the greatest joy and willingness we will revoke our explanation and nullify our testimony, but injustice and unnecessary severity will not quiet the agitated elements that threaten the calm continuance of our Zion. We may fall, but others will take up our cause and carry it to victory, if not soon, certainly at the appearing of our Lord. We are waiting for our time and, standing unmoved in [p. 15] the consciousness of right, we are not here to ask for mercy, but to ask that you too may do what is right in view of the account we must all give so soon on the day of judgment.” — 

[Walther concludes:] Let this be enough. Finally, we only declare that the Assembly has stuck to its decisions once made, unconcerned about the Word of God, its own constitution and its previous official explanations, and about the highest court, thus making the break of its fellowship inevitable. In place of fidelity to the Word of God, she has just substituted her party-patriotism, as well as the humanism and philanthropism of the age.        W. [Walther]

 - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of report  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This "Slavery" series began with Rev. Dr. Adam Koontz's testimony from history, and ended with the only thing that matters — the authority of Holy Scripture. That is where C. F. W. Walther lived and breathed.

Presbyterians, slavery, and Walther (Slavery 4b)

      This continues from "Slavery, Part 4a" (Table of contents in Part 1) and is the 2nd part of a 3-part sub-series. — Walther continues his lengthy quote from Presbyterian pastor J. H. Brookes who firmly stood on the teaching of Scripture. Walther's emphasis of wording (underlined) clearly shows how he was animated by this strong testimony for Holy Scripture. — We pickup from Lehre und Wehre vol. 12, p. 214: 

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

(continuing Rev. J. H. Brookes' address)

“Mr. Moderator, it has been repeatedly asserted in this meeting that the 'Declaration and Testimony’-party” (the representatives of the Louisville petition) “are working in the interest of secession, and are trying to call the body of slavery back to life. If this is true, if this is our motive and aim, then we richly deserve the severe punishment with which the majority evidently intend to rebuke us; indeed, I readily admit that we are then quite unauthorized, incapable and unfit in every respect to sit in a court of Jesus Christ or to perform even the slightest functions of Evangelical pastors. But let me ask, are the gentlemen certain that we are responsible for the agitation of these objects in the church? Did we start the conflict which has been raging in the Assembly for two weeks and which threatens to end in complete division? Sir, we had the premise that secession was ended by war. We had the premise that slavery would be [p. 3] abolished with the war, and what proof do you have that we ever refused to rest in the strict decisions of the sword? [the government’s ban on slavery, Emancipation Proclamation] What proof is there that we are dissatisfied with the result of the terrible struggle [of Civil War], that we are determined to take up the fight again, at the risk of separating the Church? None, absolutely none! Do you desire to know who has brought out these questions from the past to agitate our people to useless quarrels? Do you desire to know who drew Secession into our midst as a bone of contention? Do you desire to discover who dealt with calling the tattered body of slavery back into existence and making it a source of endless disputation and division? Sir, I believe before God, it was this General Assembly! …  This alone, therefore, remains to be considered: 1. Was there sufficient ground for the protest which the Louisville Presbytery and others made in the ‘Declaration and Testimony’ against the proceedings of the Assembly during the last five years? 2. Did we have the right to protest (against the exclusion of the Louisville Presbytery without prior hearing)? And 3. Was the protest justified in spirit and form according to the exigency of the case and the perilous state of the church?” — 

[Walther summarizes:] The speaker first shows that when the Assembly, in the early days of the war, in contradiction of former resolutions, condemned slavery as a sin in itself, its most eminent men stood up against it, as Word of God opposers; the same men who now walk with the Assembly. He continues: 

“We have heard in the Assembly again and again that slavery is sinful, but not one word of evidence has been adduced, either here or by the Assembly in 1864, to substantiate this confident assertion. [LuW p. 215] ‘Sin is the transgression of the law of God,’ but it is a remarkable fact that a church council meeting in the name and authority of Jesus Christ adopted a lengthy written essay on slavery without, as far as I remember, once referring to the Bible. It was said to be sinful, but did not show it by calling on the law, which alone is the standard of righteousness. 

To establish an opinion concerning the sinfulness of an action or a relationship, I need a higher authority than the prejudices and passions of men, I need the authority of the holy Word of God, and no assembly has a right to bind consciences or demand obedience without this authority … [p. 6] Let us see what this Assembly said when it was completely free from the control of passion and from the printing of public opinion. I read, sir, from the Digest (of 1845): 

[p. 6] ¶ ‘The Church of Christ is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction extends over the religious faith and moral conduct of its members. It cannot make laws where Christ has given no law, nor fix conditions of membership which He has not fixed. But the question which the Assembly is called to decide is this: Does the Scripture teach that slaveholding, apart from circumstances, is a sin, so that it should be made a condition of membership in Christ's Church that one renounce this sin? 

      It is impossible to answer this question affirmatively without contradicting some of the most unequivocal explanations of the Word of God. That slavery existed in the days of Christ and His Apostles is an accepted fact. That they did not denounce the relationship itself as sinful and incompatible with Christianity; that slaveholders were admitted to membership in the churches organized by the apostles; that while they were required to treat their slaves kindly and as rational, sane, immortal beings, and, if they were Christians, as brethren in the Lord, they were not commanded to emancipate them; that slaves were required to be ‘obedient to their physical masters with fear and trembling, in simplicity of heart, as to Christ’: all these are facts which the eye of every teacher of the New Testament encounters. This Assembly, therefore, cannot accuse slaveholding as a necessarily heinous and grievous sin, calculated to bring God's curse upon the Church, without reproving the Apostles of Christ for having fostered sin, introduced such sinners into the Church, and thus brought upon them the curse of the Almighty.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part 4c  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the concluding Part 4c, Walther finishes Rev. Brookes address, then explains what supplants the "authority of the holy Word of God."

Walther attends Old Presbyterian Assembly (Slavery 4a)

           This continues from Part 3 (Table of contents in Part 1) on the Bible and slavery. In May 1866, the Old School Presbyterians held their General Assembly in St. Louis.  Presbyterianism is not normally a subject of this blog, but this meeting was different, for it had one in attendance who was the leading Lutheran in America — C. F. W. Walther.  Why would Walther attend a meeting of Presbyterians? (This was not a regular activity for him.) He gives his answer at the top of his 3-page report.  I spent considerable time polishing a translation only to find that portions had already been printed in English, from the original meeting (links provided to the original). I decided to keep my translation and provide links to both the Lehre und Wehre report and a Presbyterian pastor's printed address.  I am publishing this in 3 installments to highlight what Walther considered important, for that was my interest. Wherever Walther found a love for Holy Scripture, he rejoiced in it. For a background of the early history of the Presbyterians in America see this Wikipedia article. — In the following, underlining is Walther’s emphasis. Wording in parentheses ( ) is Walther's notations. Words originally printed in English are italicized. Square brackets [ ] are my insertions. Highlighting is mine. From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 12 (1866), pp. 213-216:

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

     The General Assembly of the Old School Presbyterians met recently alongside that of the New School here in St. Louis. Since we had heard and read so much about the dignity by which this church body [the “Old School”] distinguished itself from others of its kind in its whole appearance and in the manner of its proceedings, we could not resist the desire to see this venerable body for ourselves on the occasion that now presented itself. We went there on May 22, 1866. But how disappointed we were! When we entered the meeting, it was just this: The Presbytery of Louisville had protested against certain resolutions of the General Assembly concerning slavery and loyalty, as contrary to God's Word and to earlier resolutions of the same Assembly itself. For the sake of this protest, the delegates of this presbytery had been unheard and refused to sit in the Assembly. Against this a number of 18 members of the last named body had protested. So a Mr. Galloway, a former congressional member from Ohio, appeared and sought to justify the proceedings of the Assembly in a long address. But this was done in such a frivolous, profane manner, with such manifest miserable sophistries and jests, amid resounding laughter from the whole Venerable Body, that one thought one was in a Ward Meeting, in which stump speeches [by political candidates] were held for the imposition of a disreputable party candidate. 

There was no calling on the Word of God, even on the Constitution of the Assembly; rather the speaker derived the exercised power from a "higher law" than that of the Constitution, namely from the law of "self-respect"; interpellated with the question of a proof, the speaker invoked legal authorities and the proceedings of the present Congress! Even if the Assembly, contrary to the Word of God, establishes something, there is no other way out than to resign, because "its decisions are the highest and a binding law." Without first hearing the delegates, they were therefore to be excluded from further participation in the proceedings, solely “because of their defiant and reproachful language” against the highest court of the Presbyterian Church, which is constituted by the Head of the Church through His chosen people. It was indeed no different for us here than if we were in Costnitz [in Germany]. The address was interrupted not only by loud laughter, clapping of hands and other signs of merriment, but also by the appearance of a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church as its delegate, who gave an address which was replied to by the moderator; but we must confess that we never heard so many sine mente sonos [“sounds without a mind”]  delivered with so great pathos, as on the part of the former [Dutch Reformed pastor], and never so many vacuous compliments, as on the part of the Moderator, in a church meeting. We went away deeply saddened; we thought to ourselves, is this happening to the green wood, what will happen to the dry [when it ages]? If this is how it stands with the most serious religious fellowship in America [Old School Presbyterians], how might it stand with those fellowships whose foreign, wild fire is proverbial [e.g. the “New School”]? There is no doubt that the last years of war [Civil War], with their political fanaticism and their deluge of humanistic ideas, have wrought terrible havoc, especially in the Old School Presbyterian Church, which was formerly in better standing. — In order to get to know the spirit of those whom the General Assembly has excluded from itself, one must look at the statements [LuW p. 214] of those who in the Assembly have defended the excluded and made their cause their own. 

Among these persons is the local [St. Louis] Presbyterian pastor, Rev. J. H. Brookes, D.D., who, in a lengthy address delivered to the General Assembly on May 31, and already in printing [Google Books, full proceedings here], said, among other things: 

“Not having come here merely to have the glory of victory, but to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, and for the truth which is in Jesus, I shall proceed with firmness, and, in my conviction, with respect to the high court, in expressing the views entertained by those [Louisville Presbytery] who have been brought before your court. The insulting epithets which have been heaped upon us without measure will not be returned to their authors; but until you show us by a calling upon the Holy Scriptures and the Constitution of the Church, we shall not be able to do so. But until you can show us by an appeal to Holy Scripture and to the Constitution of the Church that we are in error, we must stand where we stand, undaunted by threat and power. May the gentlemen cease to make general accusations and prove that we are in error, or, sir, we will steadfastly hold our ground, so help us God. Amen!" [A clear reference to Martin Luther’s stand at the Diet of Worms.] (At these words there was loud applause in the galleries, which the speaker earnestly forbade, asking those concerned to consider that they were in the house of God). 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 4b   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Walther was shocked to find that even the "Old School", the "most serious religious fellowship in America", apart from the old Missouri Synod, had succumbed to an anti-Scriptural position.  But in the midst of this he highlights the protesting opposition within this fellowship, of the Louisville Presbytery, and their "Declaration and Testimony" petition. 

      This matter could be superimposed on a convention of the LC-MS, but then again, there seems no leader or teacher within the LC-MS holding to the Biblical doctrine on slavery. That is why Rev. Dr. Adam Koontz is notable today for even mentioning the word "slavery" (see Part 1). — In the next Part 4b, Walther continues his lengthy quote from the stirring address of Rev. Brookes.

Walther's letter to A. C. Preus on Slavery (Norwegian Synod) (Slavery 3)

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of contents in Part 1) on the Bible and slavery.  (Also it follows Part 4 in a 2021 series on the Letters of C. F. W. Walther) — In  the Letters series Part 2, I highlighted a snippet from Walther's 1860 lengthy letter to the first leader of the Norwegian Synod in America (now ELS), Pastor Adolph Carl Preus.  That letter is perhaps the greatest personal writing of Walther on the issue of Slavery to a fellow Lutheran church body leader in America.  The matter of Walther on Slavery is much like that of Luther and the Jews — quite agitating in the Lutheran Church, and a weapon of the world against Luther, Lutheranism, and especially Holy Scripture.  But the true Church does not listen to the world for its wisdom, it turns to the Word of God, and if Luther were alive today, he would respond to the matter of Slavery just as Walther did, Biblically.  Let the unbelievers and agitators burn as many Bibles as they want, they can never destroy the Truth. 

      This 1860 letter precedes Walther's major series of articles in Lehre und Wehre in 1863, during the Civil War, which was published in English on LutherQuest here (or here) One may also read the English version from the machine translation of Lehre und Wehre vol. 9 (January through June) on the Internet Archive. But the letter published below is a private correspondence with another synod leader, one who struggled with the slavery issue. Here we see Walther's masterful Biblical counsel to Pastor A. C. Preus, the first leader of the oldest Norwegian Synod in America. He also happens to be a forefather of the Preus family in the LCMS, including those involved with the planned Luther Classical College in Wyoming: 

To repeat the core of Walther's counsel, Pastor Preus should proceed by

“drafting such theses as were calculated to show that when you say something is not in itself a sin, you are not thereby excusing, glossing over, or even justifying the sinfulness that is bound up with it.”

As Pastor Preus struggled with this issue, so I struggled with it. But Walther carefully delineates the most vexing aspect, the institution of Slavery. Unfortunately today's LC-MS is very much like the old Norwegian Synod in that it does not teach what the Bible teaches, at least not to the public, that the institution of slavery, apart from circumstances, is not sinful as such. It teaches as Pastor A. C. Preus did in the old Norwegian Synod, and so it needs to hear Walther's counsel. It needs to turn away from the wisdom of the world and not condemn an institution that God allowed. Would to God the LC-MS leaders and teachers would learn from this letter. — In the next Part 4a, Walther's personal report on a Presbyterian controversy on slavery.

[For further information on Old Missouri and slavery, click on the "Read more…" section below]

"Slavery in itself is not a sin" (Der Lutheraner 1864): Pharisaic piety "rages, rants, raves and reviles" (Slavery 2)

       This continues from Part 1 (Table of contents in Part 1) in a series on slavery. — The subject of slavery is certainly a "hot topic" today. Our modern world plays upon our natural feelings, especially of Christians, to cause a mistrust and outright denial of Holy Scripture on a matter that is explicitly taught.  As I discovered the following writing in Der Lutheraner, I was somewhat surprised that, although it appears that the level of contention is higher today than it has ever been, the following shows that it was also very true over 150 years ago, at the time of the American Civil War.  Both Profs. C. F. W. Walther and Wilhelm Sihler had written extensively about it previously in the publications of the Old Missouri Synod.  But another professor, signed "B." and probably Prof. E. A. Brauer who served full-time from 1863-1872, came forward to defend against attacks on Missouri by the Lutheran Herald, a publication of the abolitionist Lutheran Franckean Synod of New York. Brauer's brief remarks make for one of the best short defenses against "Pharisaic piety" of abolitionism, and for the Biblical doctrine of… slavery.  From Der Lutheraner, volume 20, p. 158 (No. 20, June 15, 1864) [EN]:                                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Prof. E. A. Brauer

The “Herald”. The rage of the post-Lutherans, these people, whose characteristic consists in the fact that they do not respect the Word of God, even reject it and whistle at it, where it does not please them, where it dares to contradict the "pious" delusion of their heart, the "holy" rage of these people against the Scriptural doctrine of slavery is really extraordinary. How tremendously their deep feeling, humane, righteous Pharisee heart burns against this “abomination”! Oh, how God must rejoice over these pious, virtuous, loving people! How will He reward them for their holy, fervent love of man! Who is the hard-hearted, “slave-driving” Apostle Paul against these burning heroes of love! Yes, these self-sanctified, miserable Pharisees and shameful rebels against God's Word! — 

God teaches in His Word that slavery in itself is not a sin, that a slave owner therefore does not need to release his slaves in order to be a Christian; just as, for example, a robber chief, if he wants to be a Christian, must release his band of robbers, because robbery is sin in itself. A slave owner should only treat his bonded servants and maids in a Christian manner, just as a father treats his wife and children and a factory owner his workers. Again, a slave, if he wants to be a Christian, should not run away from his master, but rather hold him in high esteem, and if his master is a Christian, he should not despise him under the pretense that he is a brother, but rather be of service to him. That is why Paul also sends the runaway slave Onesimus back to his master, Philemon, after he had become a Christian and now had a heart that listened to God's Word and wanted to follow God's holy will. St. Paul writes to Timothy, 1 Tim. 6:1-3: 

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness.” 

Further, Ephesians 6:5-9: 

“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. (Here the master is called a freeman, because the servants of whom Paul speaks here were slaves who had no freedom). And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” —  

This doctrine of God is also the doctrine of the Missouri Synod, which Prof. Walther and Dr. Sihler have pronounced in Der Lutheraner and Lehre und Wehre. About this now the Lutheran Herald rages, rants, raves and reviles in the vilest manner. For the sake of this Scriptural doctrine, Dr. Sihler is called a “disgraceful Lutheran theologian” and Prof. Walther a “fox”. This is how these post-Lutheran Pharisees do it, this is how furious they become when the Word of God goes against the Pharisaic piety of their natural godless heart of love.       B. [E. A. Brauer]

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

      How refreshing for me were the sharp remarks of Prof. Brauer! [Note: the essay could have come from part-time professor Th. Brohm.] And the quotes from Holy Scripture were most helpful in reinforcing the Biblical teaching. While the media and erring churches, like the Franckean Synod and its offspring ELCA of today, focus on the slave owners who did not treat their slaves in a Christian manner, including the travesty of the lynching of black persons which Missouri reported and condemned, yet one historian notes that "It has been noted as an ironic fact of history that southern clergymen did more for the Christian instruction of slaves than ministers in the North did for free blacks." (p. 137 here; see also here for a contemporary accounting).  When southern people apologize for their ancestors who were sinning as slave owners as such, they are the ones who are actually sinning as slanderers. — Of course this is not a popular position in the world, and it was even a cause for friction with the conservative old Norwegian Synod. But Brauer's writing sets forth the truth of the matter: "Thy Word is Truth", John 17:17. — In Part 3, we publish an impassioned pastoral letter of Walther to the prominent leader of the Norwegian Lutheran synod.