Preger, Die Gesch. d. L. v. geistl. Amt, 1857 (fine collection of words of Luther, pp. 170—192; criticism of the position of Loehe, p. 192 ff., of Kliefoth, p. 216 ff.)
"No one can forgive sin in God's name, i.e. in representation of God (in repraesentatione personae Christi, to speak with the symbols), but he who has command and authority. But God's command and authority are with his office [of ministry]." (Loehe, Church and Ministry. New Aphorisms. Erl. 1853. p. 44)
According to it [Loehe's statement], the treasure of Christ is not powerful in and of itself, but only becomes so each time that a specially authorized person presents it.
After the greater part of this paper has given an attempt to prove the dependence of the concept of ministry and its history on the history of the doctrine of justification, it will not be wrong to ask whether Löhe's and Kliefoth's doctrines on ministry are not also based on a peculiar view of justification. There can be no question of a direct denial of the Lutheran doctrine of justification in the case of these men.
Wilhelm Preger, The History of the Doctrine of Spiritual Ministry Based on the History of the Doctrine of Justification. Beck, 1857; Pieper CD3, 445 n5: “Preger, Die Gesch. D. L. v. geistl. Amt, 1857 (fine collection of words of Luther, pp. 170-192; criticism of position of Loehe, p. 192 ff., of Kliefoth, p. 216 ff.)”; CDk3, 509 n1589
————————————————————————
We now pass on to Luther's doctrine of the ministry: we shall find it developed consistently from his doctrine of justification. That there is a difference in the doctrine of the spiritual office in Luther's earlier and later writings has been asserted, but not proved. If Luther had later come to a different opinion, he would certainly not have neglected his duty to recant his earlier view in this important matter. Instead, we find in the main a complete harmony of the earlier and later statements. We therefore have no hesitation in quoting from Luther's earlier writings as required.
It is from the principle of justification by faith that the whole Lutheran doctrinal system has unfolded and taken hold of Christendom, and it is from there that we shall also have to understand Luther's views on the ministry.
Let us try to outline and summarize the main features.
1. Faith in the Word united with Christ.
"Not only does faith give so much that the soul becomes like the divine Word, full of all graces,
<page 171>
free and blessed; but it also unites the soul to Christ, as a bride to her bridegroom. From which marriage it follows that Christ and the soul become one body." 165)
"We take his form, and rely on his righteousness, life, and salvation; and so, through the communion of his goods and our misfortunes, we are one kitchen, one bread, one body, one drink, and all things are common. O this is a great sacrament, that Christ and the Church are one flesh and one bone." 166)
2. Christ works this union only through the Word.
“All the work that Christ does is put into the Word, and in the Word and through the Word he wants to give us everything, and without the Word he wants to give us nothing." 167)
“For the church springs from the Word of promise through faith, and is nourished and sustained by the same Word of promise.” 168)
3. The sacraments are what they are through the Word of God.
"The sacraments cannot be without the Word, but the Word can be without the sacraments, and if need be, one can be saved without the sacraments, but not without the Word." 169)
-----------------
165) Sermon on the Freedom of a Christian. Edition by Walch, Tom. 19, 1215, 19. cf. 1213, 14.
166) Tom. 19, 533, 23. Sermon v. d. hochw. Sacrament des hl. wahr. Corp. Christ.
167) Sermon on the day of the three kings W. Tom. 13, 313.
168) V. d. babyl. Prison of the Churches, Tom. 19, 128.
169) The Private Mass and the Consecration of the Priests a. 1533. tom. 19, 1537.
4. The Word is the visibly organized form of the divine essence and will.
"This is the chief part and the high principal holiness, whereof the people are called holy. For God's
<page 172>
Word is holy and sanctifies everything it touches, indeed it is God's holiness itself." 170)
5. In the Word the ministry of Jesus comes to its manifestation and proves to be a testimony and communication of the life of Christ.
"The Christian spiritual priesthood, in which Christ alone is blessed and alive, eternally the highest priest, therefore also his entire priesthood, and all that is in it, is eternally holy and alive. — — His law is faith, which is a living spiritual flame, so that hearts may be kindled by the Holy Spirit, born again and converted. The living word of Christ, when preached, gives the Spirit, who writes the law of God in our hearts with living fire. 171) — So the law of Christ is not doctrine but life, not word but essence, not sign but the fullness itself. But the gospel is a word, through which the same life and essence, the fulfillment comes into our hearts and minds." 172)
6. Christ alone leads the ministry and has never relinquished it.
"For we must believe and be sure that baptism is not ours but Christ's, that the gospel is not ours but Christ's, that the ministry of preaching is not ours but Christ's, that the sacrament is not ours but Christ's, that the remission or forgiveness and retention of sins is not ours but Christ's. In sum, the offices and sacraments are not ours, but Christ's." 173)
-----------------
170) Of the Conciliis and Churches a. 1539. T. 16, 2785.
171) Of the Abuse of the Mass to the August. z. Wittenb. T. 19, 1398.
172) eod. 1399.
173) The Private Mass and the Consecration of the Priests, T. 19, 1550.
<page 173>
"For our faith and sacrament must not stand on the person, whether he be pious or wicked, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or insinuated, the devil or his mother: but on Christ, on His Word, on His office, on His command and order." 174)
----------------
174) eod. 1551.
7. Christ administers his ministry according to an eternal order.
"But the papists find blind guides, looking only to their persons and works, just as if the sacrament had to become or not become because they are such persons and do such works, asking nothing about the order or institution of Christ; and yet our persons and works can do nothing about it, the order of Christ alone must do it." 175)
----------------
175) eod. S. 1554.
"It so happens in creatures that our actions and works accomplish nothing, but only God's command and order. As when we plow, sow, and plant, we do our work that is commanded us. But such our work does not bring forth a little grain, but the command and order of God, when he says to the earth: Let the earth bring forth grass, herbs and all kinds of trees etc. If only the devil or man, a mischievous or pious person, does such a work, planting, sowing or watering, the order and command of God nevertheless takes place, and the earth bears fruit. So it is with the sacraments. We do water and the word together, as he commands us, but our doing so does not make it baptism, but Christ's command and order. We do bread and wine according to his commandment to the word of Christ; but such our doing does not change it, but
<page 174>
Christ's word and order. If here the devil or his member kept the order of Christ and acted according to it, it would nevertheless be the right baptism and sacrament. For Christ does not become a liar or deceiver of his churches for the sake of devils or evil men, but baptizes them and gives them his body and blood, be it by his hand, by which he does it, as and whoever he wishes." 176)
--------------
178) eod. P. 1552 ff.
8. Church order is nothing but a serving of the church in the order of the office of Christ.
"For praise be to God, in our churches we can show a Christian a true Christian Mass according to the order and institution of Christ, also according to the true opinion of Christ and the Church. Our pastor, bishop or minister in the parish office comes before the altar, called truly and publicly, but previously ordained in baptism, anointed and born a priest of Christ, regardless of the angular chresem, who publicly and clearly begins the order of Christ in the Lord's Supper, takes the bread and wine, gives thanks, distributes and gives it in the power of the words of Christ, this is my body, this is my blood, this is what 2. The rest of us, as we are there and want to receive, and we, especially those who want to take the sacrament, kneel beside, behind and around him, man, woman, young, old, master, servant, wife, maid, parent, child, as God brings us all together there, all of us true holy co-priests, sanctified by Christ's blood, and consecrated and anointed by the Holy Spirit in baptism.
And in such our inherent, hereditary, priestly honor and adornment we are there, having (as
<page 175>
Revelation. 4, 4) our golden crowns on our heads, harps in our hands and golden censers, and do not let our pastor speak the ordinance of Christ for himself as for his person; but he is the mouth of us all, and we all speak it with him from the heart and with uplifted faith, to the Lamb of God, who is there for and with us, and according to his ordinance feeds us with his body and blood. This is our Mass, and the true Mass, which we do not lack." 177)
-----------------
177) The Private Mass and the Consecration of the Priests, T. 19, 1560 ff. 129. 130. [AE 38, 139-214, StL 19, 1220-1285]
"Our office is not and should not be to make or to walk, but only to reach or to give. In sum, the offices and sacraments are not ours, but Christ's, for he has ordained and left all these things in the Church to be practiced and used until the end of the world, and does not teach us, nor does he trust us: therefore we cannot do anything else with them, but must do according to his command and keep them. But if we change and improve it, it is nothing, and Christ is no longer there, nor his order." 178)
----------------
178) eod. 1547 ff.
9. The ministry of Jesus was before the church came into being and called the church into existence.
"For the gospel was there before and must be there before: our Lord Christ made it, brought it and left it behind, and first pressed it into the hearts of the apostles, and has always pressed it into the hearts of Christians through the apostles' descendants, and has also painted it outwardly in letters and pictures." 179)
----------------
179) T. 19, P. 1548.
"For the church springs from the word of
<page 176>
promise through faith and is nourished and sustained by the same word of promise, that is, it is established by the promise of God and not the promise through it. For the Word of God is incomparably above the church. Over which word of God the church, as a creature, has no power to establish, order, or do anything; but it is to be established, ordered, and made. For who can give birth to his father or mother? Who has made his beginner beforehand?" 180)
10. Through the union of men with the visible ministry of Jesus, the church has come into being and has become both visible and invisible. Visible, because outwardly it came under the ministry of Jesus, invisible, because inwardly it experienced the power of Jesus' ministry.
"Communion is twofold, just as there are two things in the sacrament, namely the sign and the meaning. The first communion is inward, spiritual, inward in the heart; that is, if any one by right faith, hope, and charity is incorporated into the communion of Christ and of all saints, which is signified and given in the sacrament."
"The other communion is outwardly bodily and visible; that is, when someone is admitted to partake of the holy sacrament and receives and partakes of it together with others." 181)
------------------
180) T. 19, p. 128, from the Bab. Vessel of the churches.
181) Sermon on the Ban, T. 19, 1100, 1101.
"The church is a spiritual assembly which hears this Shepherd and believes in him and is governed by him through the Holy Spirit, and is only recognized outwardly by the fact that it has his word, i.e. the preaching
<pages 177>
of the gospel and his sacraments, but inwardly it is known to him alone." 182)
"Christ's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, which is ruled by the scepter alone, as Ps. 110:2 says, that is, by the word of the gospel. This gospel, where it is preached purely and loudly, no matter where it is preached, is Christ's kingdom. And this mark of the church or kingdom of Christ cannot deceive. For where the Word is, there is the Holy Spirit, either with the hearer or with the teacher." 182 b)
11. Where there is faith in the Word, there is fellowship with the ministry of Jesus. For the ministry of Jesus is the self-communication of Jesus in the Word. To be conformed to the Word through faith is to become a servant of the ministry of Jesus.
"Therefore everyone who wants to be a Christian should be certain and consider within himself that we are all priests at the same time, that is, that we have equal authority over the Word of God and every sacrament." 183)
"But where I am not deceived, when this sacrament and this fiction fall again, the papacy will hardly remain with its characters, and the joyful freedom will come to us again, in which we will all recognize ourselves equally with all rights, and only after the tyrannical yoke has been removed will we understand that everyone who is a Christian has Christ. But he who has Christ also has all that is Christ's and can do all things." 184)
-------------------
182) T. 11, 1124 Church Postil, on Ev. Joh. 10. 182 b) T. 6, 44.
183) V. the Babyl. Prison, T. 19, 139.
184) eod. S. 141.
"Just as Christ has the first birth with its honor and dignity, so he shares it with all his
<Page 178>
Christians, that through faith they must all be kings and priests with Christ." 185)
"We do not want to be and be called made, but born priests, and have our priesthood hereditary by our birth from father and mother. For our father is the true priest and high priest, as is written in the 110th Psalm: God has sworn that he will not repent: You are a priest forever, after the manner of Melchizedek. The same priest or bishop now has a bride, a priestess or bishop, as it is written in John 3:29: He who has the bride is the bridegroom. 186) We want this hereditary and hereditary priesthood of ours to be taken, unhindered and undarkened, but rather brought forth, proclaimed and praised with all honor, so that it may shine and shine like the dear sun, and thrust the devil together with his larvae and abominations into the eyes, so that his angular consecration and Chresem may shine and stink against it, stink worse than the devil's filth. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has diligently prevented the name Sacerdos, priest or priest, from being given to any apostle or any other office, but is the name of the baptized or Christians alone, as an inherited, hereditary name from baptism." 187)
-------------------
185) Sermon on the Freedom of a Christian, T. 19, p. 1218.
186) Von der Winkelmesse und Pfaffenweihe, a. 1533. t. 19, 1534. 1535.
187) eod. 1535. 1536.
12. The faithful are comrades of the ministry of Jesus, that is, they have power of the keys, of baptism, of the Lord's Supper, of the Word of God.
"The keys find of the churches, that is, of the people of Christ, the people of God, or of the holy Christian
<page 179>
people, as far as the whole world is, or where Christians are. — Just as baptism, sacrament, God's word are not of the pope, but of the people of Christ, and are also called claves ecclesiae." 188)
"But we all, as many of our Christians are, have this power of the keys in common, which I have so often proved and shown in my booklet against the pope. For here are the words of Matthew 18:15, which he spoke not only to the apostles, but to all the brethren: But if your brother sins against you, 2 and afterward 17:18: If he does not hear you, 2 Here let me not be troubled by the larvae with their larval spittle, who make such a distinction in this saying: It is a different thing about the right and authority of the keys, than about the use of the keys; for they do this out of their own presumption, without all Scripture." 189)
-------------------
188) V. d. Conciliis u. Kirchen a. 1539. T. 16, 2791.
189) An den Nath u. die Gemeinde der Stadt Prag a. 1523. T. 10, 1844 f.
"O that this saying (Matt. 18) were not in the Gospel, it would be before the Pope. For here Christ gives the keys to the whole church, and not St. Peter. And to this also belongs the same saying in Matthew 16:18-19, where he gave the keys to St. Peter instead of the whole church. For in this 18th chapter the Lord Himself glosses to whom He gave the keys in St. Peter's person in the previous 16th chapter. They are given to all Christians, not to St. Peter himself. And the above-mentioned saying in John 20:22-23 should also apply to this: Take the Holy Spirit, whom you will forgive. 2 Three sayings of the same opinion, so that Christ has taken the Christian
<page 180>
order to punish sin, so that there is no need or need for the Pope's presence." 190)
-----------------
190) Booklet on confession. To Fr. v. Sic. T. 19, 1069.
13. Not a special ministerial spirit, but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, as he indwells the whole believing church, and as such is proper to the faithful, gives power and authority to forgive sin.
“Christ, before giving the command to forgive and bind sins, breathed into them and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit, for whom your sins are forgiven, they are forgiven. John 20: Here it is decided that no one can forgive sin unless he has the Holy Spirit. But again, if I should not have forgiveness of my sins before the confessor has the Holy Spirit, and no one can be sure of the other whether he has the same, if I could be sure of my absolution and have a clear conscience? It would be as before. Answer, I have put this on, that one may have a right reason for this thing. There is no doubt that no one binds or forgives sin but he alone who has the Holy Spirit so surely that you and I know it, as these words of Christ here convince. But this is no one but the Christian church, the assembly of all believers in Christ; it alone has these keys, and you should not doubt it. So if a stone or wood could absolve me in the name of the Christian churches, I would accept it. Again, if the pope, in the name of his power, placed me in the highest choir of angels, I would plug both ears and hold him up to the greatest blasphemer. He is a
<page 181>
servant of the keys, like all other priests; but they alone are of the churches. Therefore our faith is so ordered that the article: Forgiveness of sin, must stand after the article: A holy Christian church; and before the: I believe in the Holy Spirit. That it may be known that without the Holy Spirit there is no holy church, and without a holy church there is no forgiveness of sins." 191)
14. Public testimony is necessary.
"This is thus proved: Because it is necessary that, since the church or a spiritual thing cannot grow, be preserved, live, work, overcome, abide, and do all that belongs to the church, where it is not built on the foundation, that is, where it does not obtain Christ, who reigns in it through faith, the Spirit, and other gifts of his Spirit: such preaching is in the church as rests on him alone and no other." 192)
------------------
191) eod. 1051-1053.
192) To Herz. Albr. z. Preuß. v. Pabst u. f. Violence. T. 19, 911.
15. Therefore God wills that such public testimony be given.
"Paul says to his disciple Titus 1:57: For this reason I have left you in Crete, that you may complete what I have left, and appoint elders in every city, as I have instructed you, if any man is blameless, a husband of a woman who has believing children, who cannot be accused of unchastity. For a bishop is to be blameless, as an officer of God. 2. Whoever believes that the Spirit of Christ speaks and orders here in Paul will recognize that this is a divine
<pages 182>
appointment and order, that in every city there should be many bishops or at least one." 193)
16. The task of Christianity is to place individuals in the public service of the testimony of Christ; the testimony is not strengthened by the person or vocation, but carries the power in itself.
"But because the ministry, word, sacrament, order is Christ's, and not Judas nor the devil's, we let Judam and the devil be Judas and the devil, and yet receive through them the goods of Christ. For when Judas went to the devil, he did not take his apostleship with him, but left it behind and received Matthias in his place. The offices and sacraments remain in the church forever, the persons change daily. Appoint and place only three who can perform them, and they will certainly go and happen. The horse is bridled and saddled; put a naked boy on it who can ride, and the horse will go just as well as if the emperor or pope rode it." 194)
17. The Lord raises up people for such public service in the ministry of Jesus.
"In the Church it is not the succession of bishops that makes a bishop, but the Lord alone is our bishop. The raised up bishop, where, which and when he wills, as we see - - in ourselves, in whom the succession is not held, of which the papists boast." 195)
--------------
193) On the Abuse of the Mass, to the Aug. z. Wittenberg, T. 19, 1334.
194) The Private Mass and the Consecration of the Priests, T. 19, 1551 to 1552.
195) Luther's Chronica of 1541, T. XIV. 1178.
18. Now when such people appear in the office of Jesus, they do not publicly administer a specially
<page 183>
ordained priesthood, but their own priesthood, inherited through baptism, as it is in all Christians.
"For Christ alone, and none other of all Christians, is mediator and teacher. 1 Tim. 2, 5-7. And are themselves added by God, and so can themselves mediate and teach those who are not yet priests, that is, Christians. So it follows that the priesthood in the New Testament is in all Christians at the same time, in the Spirit alone, without any person or vesture." 196)
"And if the papal ordination wanted to do right, it should do nothing else than call such born clergymen to the pastoral office, and not make new, holier and better clergymen than baptized Christians." 197)
"For none of us is born an apostle, preacher, teacher or pastor at baptism, but we are all born priests and pastors; after that, such born pastors are taken and called or appointed to such offices, which are to perform this ministry for the sake of us all." 198)
-------------------
196) On the Abuse of the Mass, T. 19, 1312.
197) Of the Private mass and the consecration of priests, T. 19, 1536.
198) eod.
19. From this follows the relationship to the congregation. The appointed ministers publicly perform what each one has for himself, instead of and for the others.
"Do you ask what difference there is between priests and laymen in Christendom, if they are all priests? Answer, the word priest, priestly, clerical and the like has been wronged, because they have been drawn from the common heap to the small heap, which is now called the clerical state. The
<page 184>
Scriptures make no distinction, except that they call the scholars or learned men ministros, servos, oeconomos, that is, ministers, servants, laborers, who are to preach Christ, faith, and Christian liberty to others. For although we are all priests in the same way, we cannot all serve or work and preach." 199)
----------
199) On the Freedom of a Christian Man, T. 19, 1219. 1220.
"Behold, just as they have invented their own priesthood and sacrifice, unknown and strange to true Christians, so they have invented and introduced a new unchristian ministry to preach. And that it may become known and evident to everyone, I will prove from the first with irrefutable Scripture that the one, true, genuine ministry of preaching, like the priesthood and sacrifice, is common to all Christians. Paul says in 2 Cor. 3:6 that he has made us skillful ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the Spirit. St. Paul spoke these words to all Christians to make them all servants of the Spirit. A minister of the Spirit preaches grace, the forgiveness of sin, just as a minister of the letter preaches the words of the law. This belongs to Mosi, that to Christ. And Peter speaks to all Christians, that you may proclaim the power of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. 1 Peter 2:9 For since all Christians have been called out of darkness, it is the duty of each one to proclaim the power of him who called him. We allow that you should not preach much at the same time, although you have all authority to do so. For while Paul was speaking, Barnabas held his peace, Acts 14:2; should not Barnabas therefore have had
<page 185>
power to preach? For all things should be done honestly and according to order, 1 Cor. 14:40. But this does not mean that the fellowship of the ministry has ceased, indeed it is confirmed by it. For if all men would not preach, and one alone had authority to speak, what need would there be of keeping order and commanding? And precisely because they all have authority and power to preach, it is necessary to keep order. Out you wicked man; all Christians have a good right to read and preach from the Holy Scriptures if you should burst." 200)
20. The sacraments are instituted either for reception into the church, like baptism, or for communal enjoyment, like Holy Communion; they should therefore only be administered publicly before the congregation, or where this is not possible, the public minister who represents the public community should administer them. This is the only reason why not every Christian may administer the sacrament in his own home if there is a Christian congregation.
"Therefore nothing is said: The sacrament is made by Word, therefore I may make it in the house. For it is not God's order and command, but he wills that the sacrament be administered by public ministry; for the sacrament is instituted for public confession, as Christ says: Do this in remembrance of me, i.e. as St. Paul says: Proclaim and confess the death of Christ." 201)
-----------
200) On the Abuse of the Mass, to the Aug. at Wittenb., T. 19, 1326 to 1328.
201) cf. Von der Hauscommunion, T. 10, 2738. 2739.
21. Everyone should preach in public and
<page 186>
administer the sacrament, if it is done with the permission of the congregation.
"Therefore let us consider Paul: for in that place with great thunderbolts he strikes down the lies of the pope, to preach of the supremacy and authority. Thus Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:27-30: "If anyone speaks with tongues, let two or three at the most do it, and one after another interpret it. If anyone is not an interpreter, let him keep silence in the church before the people, and pray before God with himself. But two prophets or three shall speak, and the others shall judge. But if it is revealed to one of those who are listening, let the first one keep silent. May you all prophesy, so that all may learn and all may be admonished, says Paul. What will you great men and the great men of the pope say against this? Paul says that they may all prophesy, and one by one in order. So that the sizer and listener, when something is revealed to him, may come forward, and the first to preach should be silent and refuse him; and all who preach or read should let the listeners judge and be subject to them."
202)
-----------
202) Vom Mißbrauch der Messe an die Aug. z. Wittenb., T. 19, 1327.
22. It does not yet follow from this that the congregation may also authorize a woman to teach etc.
"But if the papists reproach us with Paul's saying, 1 Cor. 14, 34-35: Women should keep silence in the church, it follows that preaching cannot be common to all Christians, namely, to women. To this I reply that the mute, and those who are otherwise incapacitated or unskilled, should not be allowed to preach. For although everyone has the power to preach,
<pages 187>
no one should be required to do so, nor should anyone prevent himself from doing so, unless he has been sent to do so before others etc. So Paul forbids women to preach in the church where there are men, that honor and discipline may be observed, whereas it is more fitting and proper for a man to speak, and he is also better qualified for it." 203)
23. The public ministry has no other power than that which the preaching of the Word of God entails.
"The sacrament of ordination can be nothing other than a use to elect preachers in the church. — — Then they are also called shepherds, that they may weyden, that is, teach." 204)
"The ministry of the Word of God makes a priest and a bishop." 205)
"As if they were forced to confess that all of us, as much as we have been baptized, are likewise priests, as we are in truth; and if they were commanded to preach alone, but with our permission, they would know at the same time that they had no right or authority to command us, for as much as we ourselves of our own good will allow them. It is written in 1 Peter 2:9: "You are the chosen generation, the royal priesthood and the priestly kingdom; therefore we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But those whom we call priests are chosen servants of ours, who are to do all things in our name. And the priesthood is nothing other than a service." 206)
---------------------
203) eod. S. 1329.
204) V. d. babyl. Gef., T. 19, 135.
205) eod. 138.
206) eod. 134. 135.
<page 188>
Appendix.
On the office of the keys and confession.
24. The keys require no works, but pure faith, and are nothing else than a divine promise and a divine promise.
"The keys of Christ do not require works, but faith. For the binding key is nothing else, nor can it be anything else, but a divine imprecation to threaten hell for the hardened sinner. And the loosening key is nothing else, nor can it be anything else, but a divine promise, so that it promises the kingdom of heaven to the humble sinner. Now everyone knows this well, that divine promises and prophecies cannot be fulfilled by any works, but must be grasped by faith alone without any works. For the prophecies and promises do not say what we should do to God, but show us what God wants us to do, thus teaching us God's work and not our own." 207)
---------
207) Of the keys a. 1530. t. 19, 1127.
"Therefore think that the keys or forgiveness of sins does not stand on our repentance or worthiness as they teach and practice; for that is all Pelagian, Turkish, pagan, Jewish, Anabaptist, fanatical, and end-Christian: But again, that our repentance, work, heart, and whatsoever we are, should build upon the slips, and confidently rely upon it with all our reasoning, as upon God's word, and in case of loss of body
<page 189>
and soul, doubt not what the slips say and give you, let it be as certain as if God himself spoke it: as he certainly speaks it himself; for it is his command and word, and not a man's word or command. But if you doubt, you punish God with lies, pervert his order, and build his keys on your repentance and worthiness. You should repent (this is true), but to be sure of the forgiveness of sins and to confirm the key is to abandon the faith and deny Christ. He does not want to forgive and give you sin for your sake, but for his own sake, out of pure grace, through the key." 208)
--------------
208) eod. p. 1172.
25. The keys are therefore in line with the gospel, they are the promising word of the forgiveness of sins, and really offer grace to every man, whoever he may be.
"If you do not seek forgiveness in words, you will look to heaven for grace in vain, or (as they say) for inward forgiveness. But if thou sayest, as the riotous spirits and sophists do, that many of the keys bind and loose, yet do not turn to them, and remain unbound and unloosed, there must be something else than the word and the keys: the Spirit, Spirit, Spirit must do it. But do you think that he who does not believe the binding key is not bound? He shall know in his time that because of his unbelief the binding was not in vain, nor did it fail. So also he who does not believe that he is loosed and his sins forgiven, shall know in time how certainly his sins
<page 190>
have been forgiven, and that he did not want to believe it. St. Paul says, Rom. 3, 3: God will not fail because of our unbelief. So we do not now speak of who believes the keys or not, knowing almost certainly that few believe; but we speak of what the keys do and give. He who does not accept it certainly has nothing; therefore the key is not missing. Many do not believe the gospel, but the gospel is missing and therefore does not lie. A king gives you a lock: if you do not accept it, the king has not lied or been false, but you have deceived yourself and it is your fault; the king has certainly given it." 209)
26. Therefore every Christian has power of the keys, as he has power to preach the word of God, and is able to exercise it to the individual brother secretly, or with the whole church publicly. (see p. 178, 12.)
"The third liberty: if you do not wish to confess to a clergyman or monk, then take before you a man, be he layman or priest, to whom you are well disposed, and do nothing else than to seek faithful counsel and consolation for your souls, waiting to hear what God wants to tell you through him. And as he tells you in God's name, follow, and let it be an absolution for you: and stay on it, seek no other absolution." 210)
---------
209) eod. p. 1175. 1176.
210) On Confession, to Fr. v. Sidingen, T. 19, 1083.
"Do you think that if I have Christ's word and absolution here, I should let myself be challenged as to whether the pope does not absolve me, who has no title of Scripture for his secret confession,
<page 191>
and I have such a strong saying of Christ (Matth. 18, 15: fündiget dein Bruder etc.) before me; indeed it will follow here that the secret confession, punishment and correction of sins is taken from the priests and given to everyone in the whole community. For Christ does not say to Peter or to anyone alone, but to everyone in general: "Go and punish your brother. Therefore, every Christian is a confessor of secret confession, which the pope has taken to himself, just as he has taken to himself the slaves of bitterness and everything else, the great robber." 211)
"Yes, I say further and warn that no one should ever confess secretly to a priest as a priest, but as a common brother and Christian." 212)
---------------
211) eod. p. 1084, 1085. 212) eod. p. 1086.
27. The form in which the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed, whether it be annunciatory or exhibitive, is irrelevant; if it is only done in the name of the Lord, it is certain.
In the absence of another passage, we give here one that can be applied by analogy to the form of absolution:
"I even gladly follow this opinion; because it comforts very richly, and helps to strengthen faith powerfully, to know that one is baptized, not by a man, but by the Trinity itself, through a man who performs it with us in the same name. This puts an end to the unnecessary bickering over the form of baptism (which is what they call the words themselves). The Greeks say: Let a servant of Christ be baptized. The Latins: I baptize. Item, others, who speak with real earnestness and zeal,
<pages 192>
and condemn, if it were thus said: I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ. Which form the apostles baptized in, as we read in the histories of the apostles; and would that henceforth no manner or form should be used but this: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen. But they quarrel before the long while. For they prove nothing, and bring forth only their dreams; baptism may take place in this or that way. Only that it is not administered in the name of a man, but in the name of the Lord, will certainly save them." 213)
XI.
Official [Gesetzliche] Views of the Ministry within the Lutheran Church.
1. Löhe.
"No one can forgive sin in God's name, i.e. in representation of God (in repraesentatione personae Christi, to speak with the symbols), but he who has command and authority. But God's command and authority are with his office [or ministry]." 214)
-------------
213) Of the Babyl. Captivity, T. 19, 73.
214) Church and ministry. New aphorisms. Erl. 1853. p. 44.
We ask whether sin is only ever forgiven when the incumbent pronounces it, whether forgiveness of sin is bound to the ministerial activity of the pastors? Surely it is acquired for eternal times, and pronounced in the Word of God for
<page 193>
all the world. Now it is necessary that the word of joy be held out to all the world, and that it be grasped by it in faith. What else can a man do but this, that he take the word of joy upon his lips? And he who believes the word is free from sin, and he who does not believe the word retains it.
But here is another teaching. According to it, Christ has entrusted his treasure to a number of specially called persons. According to it, the treasure of Christ is not powerful in and of itself, but only becomes so each time that a specially authorized person presents it.
It is a futile attempt when Löhe tries to conceal the wounding point of his teaching by saying: 215) Nor is there any question that the power of the Word or the sacrament must first come through the ministers, or that they alone are the channels for God's water of life. God's Word is God's gracious word in every mouth, whether it belongs to father, mother or brother, and all that is claimed is that the sacred ministry preaches the word on a special commission from God and with a special promise. Thus, for example, every Christian has the right and duty to comfort repentant sinners, and the word of comfort from a brother's mouth is certainly God's Word, as it is from the mouth of the called ministers of the Word. Nevertheless, the lessers have a special commission to impart forgiveness to the repentant in the name of the Lord, and a little reflection shows how much more powerfully the absolution from the mouth of messengers commissioned by Christ himself must speak to the heart than the consolation, however faithful and rich, of a man who does not have the special commission."
-----------
215) p. 25.
We examine these words in order to see whether they are sufficient to prevent
<page 194>
the impression that Löhe got into Roman territory by means of saps like the one mentioned in the introduction.
"All that is claimed is that the sacred Ministry preaches the word on a special commission from God and with a special promise." A quite unobjectionable sentence, if it says nothing more than, for example: the apostle Paul preached the gospel on a special commission from God in the lands of the Gentile world, and with a special promise of great success. This does not exclude the possibility that other Christians, where they met with Gentiles, could also preach God's word, baptize and hold communion according to their needs, only that Paul was given the special task in life to go out publicly everywhere and preach Christ.
But that is by no means what Löhe means; ordinary Christians only have "consolations" for each other, the office bearer: "absolution, the commission to share forgiveness." The ministry therefore has a power to act with the word that those who are not in the ministry do not have. The word communicates "forgiveness" when it is spoken by the incumbent, and only "consolation" when it is handled by the layperson. The Word in and of itself only promises forgiveness of sins, and only really communicates it when the appointed minister applies it to the individual. In order to be fully effective, the Word needs the minister to intervene, and lacks this power in the mouth of a layperson.
Thus Luther did wrong when he taught the glory of justifying faith and, by virtue of it, the independent, direct communion of the individual believer with Christ; he did wrong when he destroyed the mediocre position of a priestly caste by preaching justifying faith, when he cast away everything of sacramental significance that sought to come between the Word of God and justifying faith, and
<page 195>
planted faith directly on the Word of God! But of course, he believed that a man had no power in divine matters other than the power of the Word of God, which he wields. For him, the gospel was full in every mouth, it alone proclaimed absolution and shared it, shared it everywhere it was proclaimed and believed. God's word was to him an effective gift of Jesus' heavenly ministry, not a heavenly gift that requires an earthly ministry to be fully effective. And only on this condition could he speak of a faith whose confidence could rest unshakably in the full power of the Word, whose blessing could be the direct and independent union with Christ. On the other hand, a doctrine according to which a special office is required, through which alone the Word is able to give absolution, dissolves the immediacy and independence of justifying faith, and refers the soul seeking salvation to an intermediate priestly institute, through whose intermediate action alone the source of grace of absolution can be opened up and full communion with the Savior can be effected.
The Father discovers his own flesh and blood even under a foreign garment, so it is not surprising that the representatives of the Roman Church recognized in Löhe's teaching flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone. Thus say the historical-political papers: 216)
---------------
216) Bb. 36. vol. 5. p. 410.
"Such an indirectness of the relationship between the believer and Christ is, however, the most flagrant contradiction to the main and fundamental article of justification. Löhe, who, as we shall see below, is inclined to recognize a "church order" juris divini alongside the neo-Lutheran ministry in the narrower sense, i.e. alongside the means of grace administered by specially appointed bearers as the "source and gathering points of the visible and
<page 196>
invisible church": Löhe also feels the contradiction quite well himself. He says that the doctrine of sola fides will be held against him, that he will be accused of "nova lex, neutestamentliches Ceremonialgeset, Sola-fides angetastet!". But Löhe is mistaken in thinking he can talk himself out of it: "if these decrees of the apostles oppose sola fides, since they merely serve, then in the end one could no longer be surprised if the means of grace were regarded as usurpers in the field of grace because of great mistrust in everything that cannot be literally translated into sola fides."
So much for the enemies who see Löhe's course turning towards them with joy and expectation. By confidently taking the expected objections out of his opponents' mouths and turning them into cries of fear and warning from short-sighted zealots, Löhe should not prevent us from examining his doctrine of sola fides. For the more justified the urge for order and regulation of the ecclesiastical polity is in the confusion of the present, and the more powerfully it breaks forth here and there, the more the apostolic doctrine of justification, with which our Church stands or falls, should and must constantly stand by its side, so that it does not, by dispensing with the regulator, drag the Church into false legal paths which, if not to Roman ecclesiasticism itself, must at least lead to a distortion of it.
In the face of such an examination from the principle of the Protestant doctrine of justification, Löhe will certainly not be astonished at the monstrous fact that the means of grace are regarded as usurpers in the field of grace because of great mistrust in everything that cannot be literally overlooked in sola fide. For he would have a poor grasp of the Lutheran concept of faith who did not know that faith would disintegrate into itself if it had to be based on invisible
<pages 197>
grace alone, and not on the visible, immutably established word of Scripture and on the visible signs of the sacraments connected with God's word. But for this very reason, because it rests with all its roots in the visible pledges of the invisible goods of grace, it will never again tolerate this foundation being made insecure by the doctrine that those pledges of divine grace only have their full effect when a special office administers them, because it would follow that they do not in themselves, or not through the Word to which they are connected, sufficiently find, but only receive their full life through an external office.
Löhe says: 217)
-----------
217) P. 38. 218) V. Mißbrauch d. Messe an die Aug. z. Wittenb. Walch T. 19, p. 1329 - 1331.
"If it were right to identify the spiritual ministry with the spiritual priesthood, then women should also be able to have the ministry, because they too have indisputably received the spiritual priesthood in their baptism, and we would, to speak with the Fathers, be on the side of the Anabaptists, Quakers, etc. We know, however, that a saying of the apostles according to church order, which is still valid today, forbids women even to speak in the congregation. 1 Cor. 14, 34. 35."
Luther has already rejected this objection: 218)
-----------
218) V. Abuse of the Mass to the Aug. z. Wittenb. Walch T. 19, p. 1329 - 1331.
"But when the papists reproach us with the saying of Paul 1 Cor. 14, 34. 35: The women should keep silence in the church. It is not fitting for a woman to preach. It is not permitted to a woman to preach, but she is to be submissive and obedient; from this it follows that preaching cannot be common to all Christians, that is, not to women. To this I reply that the mute, and those who are otherwise incapacitated or unskilled, should not be allowed to preach. For although everyone has the authority to preach,
<page 198>
no one should be required to do so unless he is sent before others to do so, and the others should give way to him and give him place, so that proper honor, discipline, and order may be maintained. - So Paul forbids women to preach in the church, since there are men who are qualified to speak, so that honor and discipline may be maintained; whereas it is more fitting and proper for a man to speak, and he is also more qualified to do so. - That is why order, discipline and honor require that women remain silent when men speak. But if no man preaches, it would be necessary for women to preach. Therefore we firmly decide, based on the Holy Scriptures, that there is nothing more than a certain office of preaching God's word, common to all Christians."
Löhe was probably expecting objections of this kind, and sought to dispose of them in advance: "Or should they have the ministry without exercising it, without the possibility of being able to obtain it by any means of order? There would be an office without the right to exercise it, a dead office, a dead right." Yes, a dead office, a dead right, if one, like Löhe, knows only one dianovía naivñs diadýuns, the administration of the means of grace of the specially called servants, and lets this be distinguished in essence from the lay witness. But a living ministry, a living right, if Christ is regarded as the sole holder of the office of the new covenant, and dianovía naivūs diadýuns is seen everywhere where faith makes itself the bearer of Christ's testimony. There the pastor exercises nothing other than his spiritual priesthood, and nothing other than father or mother, friend or brother.
But does not the spiritual priesthood of the faithful rest on faith, and the office of the minister of grace, as Löhe teaches, on authority and commission? Yes, certainly, he who publicly administers the means of grace administers them in consequence of his calling, in consequence of a commission, but he has been called, authorized,
<page 199>
not to give him the right of administration first, but because he already had it, or because it was anticipated that he had it, in consequence of his Christian faith. One who does not have faith cannot be called, and if he is called and lacks faith, then what he submits to remains God's gift, but he is an impostor and intruder who falls prey to the judgment of the Lord. Because one has the right to be king, he is made king; he does not receive the right through his calling. Because a Christian has the right to administer the means of grace as a result of his Christian faith, the community can call him to administer them for the community; but he has his right even if he is not called, and exercises it where he may exercise it without first being called by others.
Löhe says: 219) "On the same passage which establishes the spiritual priesthood, the kingship of Christians is founded in agreement and harmony with Revelation 5:10. They find a βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, βασιλεῖς nai ispris. Now if the office of the New Testament follows from the spiritual priesthood, why should not a temporal kingship also flow from the spiritual kingship?" Indeed, not because the spiritual kingdom is spiritual and the temporal kingdom is temporal. But the spiritual priesthood is also spiritual, the office of the New Testament is temporal, Löhe says. He places the office of the New Testament and the temporal kingship under one generic term: they are both two of the many temporal professions which spiritual priests throughout the world offer daily to the Lord in sacrifice". 220)
----------
219) p. 38 and 39.
220) G. 39.
What is meant when Löhe says that the ministry of preaching and shepherding is one of the many temporal vocations?
<Page 200>
Because he parallels it with the temporal kingdom, its temporality will probably relate to the general Christian priesthood in the same way as the temporality of the earthly kingdom relates to the spirituality of the spiritual kingdom.
The spirituality of the spiritual kingdom now consists in the fact that the reborn spiritual life exercises dominion with heavenly powers of grace over the spirit of darkness, sin and death, that in possession of heavenly goods it is able to administer them for a life in need of them; the temporality of earthly kingship consists in the fact that a specially called human life exercises dominion over the conditions that belong to the circle of natural life by means of God-given natural powers and authorities.
Temporal, i.e. temporary, is the special vocation of the earthly kingdom; temporal, i.e. temporary, are the means by which it rules; temporal, i.e. temporary, are the conditions over which it rules.
And now, according to Löhe, is the office of the means of grace also to be subject to such temporality? The circumstances in which the office of the means of grace is placed are those of the creature in need of heavenly nourishment. Is this need temporal, i.e. temporary? No. Not as certainly as there will be a continual feeding in eternity. The means by which the ministry feeds the needy creature are the Word of God and the Sacrament. Are they temporal, i.e. temporary? No. Certainly not, just as the Lord said that heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. The special appointment that has taken place for the administration of the means of grace, is it temporal, i.e. temporary? No. Certainly not, just as the proclamation of God's great deeds in heaven will never cease. Only that which was caused by persistent sin, forgiveness, consolation in distress of soul, consolation in distress of body,
<page 201>
warning, punishment, chastisement, will disappear, disappear for ever. But the nature of the ministry of the means of grace will blossom in everlasting clarity.
And Löhe places this clarity of the office of the means of grace on a line with the many temporal professions, on a line with temporal kingship, with regard to its transience? "As all temporal professions cease, so also the royal profession and that of the spiritual office." 221)
Löhe says: 222) "He endowed the ministry with the means of grace, not only the mandatum, but also the ministerium praedicandi et sacramenta porrigendi, δίς διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος (2 Cor. 3, 8) μηδ δίε διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης (2 Cor. 3, 6), an office and ministers which, according to the teaching of St. Paul, 2 Cor. 3, far surpass those of the Old Testament in dignity, glory and blessing;" and yet Löhe calls this office below one of the many temporal occupations that will cease?
------------
221) P. 39.
222) P. 22.
Thus 2 Cor. 3, cited by Löhe himself, may judge Löhe's statement concerning the temporality of the office of the means of grace. 2 Cor. 3 expressly teaches that the ministry, which far surpasses that of the Old Testament in dignity, glory and blessing, will not cease, but will remain. 2 Cor. 3, 9-11: For if the ministry that preaches condemnation has clarity, the ministry that preaches righteousness has exuberant clarity. For even that part which was glorified is not to be regarded as clarity in contrast to this exuberant clarity. For if that which had clarity ceases, that which remains will have clarity. Εἰ γὰρ τὸ καταργούμενον διὰ δόξης, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ μένον ἐν δόξῃ.
It is therefore wrong for Löhe to place the office of the New Testament and the earthly kingship under the one
<pages 202>
concept of temporality, and to fix between such temporality of the office and that spirituality of the general spiritual priesthood and kingship a gulf as deep as that which exists between the spiritual kingship and the earthly kingship. And thus Löhe has no right to present the matter as if the identity of the spiritual priesthood with the office of the minister of grace also implies an identity of the spiritual and the earthly kingdom. This is an unsuccessful attempt to reduce the opposing doctrine of the identity of the spiritual priesthood with the office of the minister of grace to absurdity, just as unsuccessful as the other one concerning the preaching of women.
By the way, we take Löhe's Sah: "On the same passage which establishes the spiritual priesthood, in agreement and in harmony with Rev. 5, 10 the kingship of Christians is founded," we take up this statement and ask Löhe the counter-question, why Christians are called εἰπ βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς ? Why is the priesthood of Christians called a royal one? Probably because it possesses a royal power in spiritual things. And in what else should this royal power consist, if not in the possession and exercise of the royal spirit, which has also passed from Jesus the Son of Man to them through faith? And in what does this royal spirit rest, in what does it manifest itself? Is it not the world-conquering testimony of Jesus? And the spirit of Jesus' world-conquering testimony, is it not the spirit of Jesus' ministry? If the spirit of the ministry of Jesus is suitable for Christians, then the identity of the spiritual ministry and the general priesthood follows precisely from this concept of a ßaoiλειον ἱεράτευμα.
Or do we not have the right to interpret the concept of royal priesthood in this way? After all, the apostle Paul himself teaches us this interpretation in Gal. 4! As long as the heir is a child, there is no difference between him and a servant,
<page 203>
even if he is lord of all; but he is among the guardians and caretakers until the appointed time of the father. So also we, when we were children, were captive under the outward sayings. But when the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son, born of a woman and given under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. Because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying out, 'Abba, dear Father. So then there is no longer a servant, but only children. But if they are children, they are also heirs of God through Christ."
Here the apostle speaks of underage and mature children. In the old covenant, the church of God is like a child under age; the inheritance is appointed to it, but since it is not yet ripe for it, it is governed like a servant by the guardians and caretakers, i.e. the priests and prophets, through outward ordinances until it has matured. In the person of Christ, Israel, the one Son of God, and the Gentile world, the other Son of God, have now come of age. The man Jesus is now Lord of the heavenly goods, and all those who have become one with him in faith are mature children, lords and heirs with him. Every believer is now Lord of heavenly goods in Christ, so that in him he truly has power over them. The man Jesus now has authority over heavenly goods in such a way that he can administer them just as the guardians and caretakers once administered them for the minor child. Indeed, they were only stewards, not at the same time masters of the goods; they themselves were limited by the outward statutes according to which they had to administer them for the time being. But Christ is now Lord of these statutes as well, is the free Lord of the goods Himself, and now administers them for whom He will. He now administers them through his testimony; this is now his lordship; if the believer is now
<pagee 204>
one with Christ, he is like Christ a mature child, in Christ lord of the heavenly goods, and can now also administer them in Christ, for himself and to anyone who seems to need them. If Christ administers them in and through his word, the Christian administers them in the same way. Christ administers the heavenly goods in Word and Sacrament, and if Christians are mature with Christ, heirs and lords, then in Christ the administration of the heavenly goods is given to all believers through Word and Sacrament. For the sake of their unity with Christ, they are no longer under special guardians and caretakers who administer them for them.
Löhe thinks he has gained something when he states again and again that the ministry is a special vocation within the spiritual priesthood. From this, he believes, follows the non-identity of the two. We believe he is taking too much at one go. Yes, there is a special vocation within the spiritual priesthood for those who are appointed to bear regular public witness to the Word within the congregation. And we also believe that all the passages that deal with the spiritual ministry, insofar as this is part of the public ministry of the congregation, describe the ministry as a special vocation within the spiritual priesthood. But what is actually gained by this remark? He who is called to the public ministry of witness does indeed receive this public ministry as a special vocation of life; but does it follow that the cause itself, for which he serves, has been given over for the exclusive administration of those specially called?
The temporal, non-essential is only in the ministry of the means of grace. The temporal passes away, the essential remains. To the temporal belong the external relationships under which it is exercised; in eternity only one essential relationship remains, that is the relationship of the creature to
<page 205>
its Creator, as it has become through Jesus Christ. In this relationship remains eternally the foundation, i.e. grace, which lasts from eternity to eternity, and the means by which it exists, i.e. the Word, which does not pass away; and the active realization and practice of the means of grace, which consists in the taking hold of and proclamation of the Word. Thus one must distinguish between the essential and the non-essential, the eternal and the temporal in the office of the means of grace. And if one holds fast to the essentials and is careful not to make the non-essentials the main thing, then it follows that the pastor does nothing else in his place by exercising the ministry of the means of grace than what the layman does when he takes hold of the word of the Lord in faith to bless himself or others with it. The essence of the office of the means of grace and the essence of the office of the general Christian priesthood coincide.
From this point of view, since a distinction is made between the temporal and the eternal in the office of the minister of grace, it is now necessary to examine Löhe's statement: 223) But it is just as true that there is not a single passage in Holy Scripture which identifies this undeniable priesthood of all Christians with the special vocation of the spiritual office. Nor is there one from which the identity of the two can be logically deduced. One will not be saying too much if one states: "such a conclusion would be xxxx xxxxxx." But probably too much. Little enough would be gained if it were true what Cyprian, whom Löhe cites, 224) assures us:
--------------
223). 38. 224) S. 42.
"There is no example in the whole New Testament that anyone made himself a teacher, but that everyone had to be called, like Aaron, Ebr. 5:4." Even if no teacher were mentioned in Holy Scripture who was not specially called, how could the non-identity of the spiritual office with the general Christian priesthood be inferred from the
<page 206>
special calling? It goes without saying that a special calling belongs to a public ministry in a Christian congregation. It follows that no one may teach publicly in the congregation who is not permitted to do so by the congregation or who is not specially called by the congregation. It is like a public school, where no one is allowed to teach unless he is specially called to do so. But does it follow from this that only the teachers at public schools have the right to teach in the mother tongue, or does the public calling mean that they alone are able to do so effectively? Certainly not. Whoever is proficient in this or that language has a right to teach it to whomever he wishes, except that he may not teach it in a public institution unless he is called to do so. But none of the teachers at public institutions would be appointed to public teaching if he did not first have the power to teach the language he is to teach. He has received the right to teach by the fact that he has learned. He who has acquired a language is master of it and can teach it to whom he wants and when he wants.
Just as it cannot be inferred from the special calling of teachers to public teaching institutions that others do not also have authority to teach, so it cannot be inferred from the calling of public preachers that others do not also have authority to preach.
Löhe seeks to justify the appeal to Act. 8, 4 in favor of the identity of the spiritual office with the office of the general Christian priesthood, Löhe seeks to bring that free preaching love of the scattered lay preachers into some connection with the office of the apostles. 225)
----------------
225) p. 43.
"Even missionary
<pages 207>
love itself is not without the ministry. For who will believe that those scattered people, who came to life through the apostles' ministry and were led and guided by them for a long time, acted in complete external or even internal separation from the apostles? Without any doubt, in the depths of their souls they maintained the connection with the ministry of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem."
That the scattered brethren were properly called to preach, as Hollaz claims, Löhe does not dare to repeat; but he has no doubt that in the depths of their souls they maintained the connection with the ministry of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem; this probably means that they regarded themselves exceptionally as vicars of the ministry of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem.
I do not think so. I have no doubt that the scattered Christians did not think that we preach in the name and place of the apostles and presbyters of Jerusalem, but that we preach in the name and place of Jesus Christ; I think that the scattered brethren thought that because we have the same spirit of faith as the apostles and presbyters of Jerusalem, so we also believe, therefore so we also speak; I believe that they already knew something of the doctrine: you are the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, the people of the possession, that you should proclaim the virtues of him who called you from darkness to his marvelous light; I believe that the ministry of Jesus Christ, when the scattered brethren preached, was not far off in Jerusalem, but lived on the tongues of the preachers.
Nor is it written that the lay preachers at Antioch immediately caused a mission to be sent to Jerusalem to obtain ordained presbyters; they really do not seem to have been concerned about this; rather, it came to the ears of the church at Jerusalem in some other way, and thereupon the church
<page 208>
sent Barnabas to visit the church. Now it is not written that he immediately ordained presbyters, ordered meetings, baptized, broke bread; he will have found all this already; he just joined in as an assistant. Why is so little emphasis placed on this in the New Testament if it is so important that a legally appointed ministry be established everywhere? Why do the pastors of the individual churches appear so little in the apostolic letters? Paul usually speaks to the churches as if there were no presbyter at all. Finally, why is free, preaching love Act. 8:4 not at all as something extraordinary, but as something self-evident?
Father and mother 2c. also have a dianovía, only not the special diaxovia naivñs diadens," says Löhe. 226) "He endowed with the means of grace, and for them the ministry, not only the mandatum, but also the ministerium praedicandi et sacramenta porrigendi, δίς διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος (2 Cor. 3, 8) and the dianóvovs nairns diadýuns (2 Cor. 3, 6), an office and ministers who, according to the teaching of St. Paul, 2 Cor. 3, far surpass those of the Old Testament in dignity, glory and blessing." 227)
---------
226) P. 41.
227) P. 22.
2 Cor. 3 the dianovia naivñs diadýung, the diακονία τοῦ πνεύματος is contrasted with the διακονία τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦ γράμματος, τῆς κατακρίσεως. Moses is the representative of the latter, the clarity of the latter, the consuming splendor of God's holiness and righteousness shone from the face of its representative, so that the sons of Israel had to turn their eyes away from him, see v. 7. The representative of the old covenant, Moses, is contrasted with Christ, representative of the new covenant. A clarity also emanates from him, but not one that frightens back, but one that transfigures the
<page 209>
old life, v. 18. The apostles together with all the believers face Christ here, Aaron and the rest of Israel face Moses there. The antitype of Moses is concealed from them all, the apostles and all believers are deprived of the δόξα Christ, ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προςόπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι etc..., says the Apostle v. 18. Whereas in the old covenant there could be no question of the sons of Israel being transformed into the dóğa that shone from Moses' face, here all believers are transfigured into the image of the dósa of Christ: xxxxx δὲ πάντες — — τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος.
Now if Christ in his dó§a is the representative of the diaκονία καινῆς διαθήκης, and if all believers are transfigured into the same dóğa by the Spirit of the Lord, they will consequently be transfigured into δίς διακονία καινῆς διαθήκης, δ. η. fie fins in Chrifto Stepräfentanten ber διακονία καινῆς διαθήκης, alle Christen, quais de návres, nicht blos die Apostel und Presbyter. -
Now it is not to be denied that there are special dianovia, as much as there are needs to be satisfied for a Christian community, and that the public administration of the means of grace is also such a dianovía, and indeed the most influential and most important, but neither it nor any other has the right to call itself exclusively dianovía nairns diαdýnŋs. This is everywhere where testimony of salvation is borne, first of all with Christ, and then with all those who, united with him in faith, bear his testimony in their hearts and on their lips. In 2 Cor. 6:3 ff. the apostle explains how dianovía was developed and displayed in him: "But let us give no offense to anyone, lest our ministry be blasphemed. But in all things let us prove ourselves the servants of God in great patience, in afflictions, in sorrows, in smitings, in prisons, in tumults, in
<page 210>
labor, in watchfulness, in fasting, in chastity, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in the Holy Ghost, in love unfeigned, in the word of truth, in the power of God, in the weapons of righteousness, in the right hand and in the left, in honor and in dishonor, in evil report and in good report; as those who deceive, yet are true; as those who are unknown, yet are known; as those who die, yet behold we live; as those who are chastened, yet are not put to death; as those who mourn, yet always rejoice; as those who are poor, yet make many rich; as those who have nothing, yet have all things. " Now if we were to think that all these are spheres and modes of ministry as they were added to the apostle's ministry, and that the ministry itself is not developed in them, then what would be the nature and development of the ministry itself? But if it consists in all these things, ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθείας (cf. Sac. 1, 18 ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας), ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ etc..., fo lft us to ask whether all this is not also to be the evidence of every one born again through faith? Does not the apostle set it before the Corinthians for this purpose? But if so, then these and the instructions of the ministry coincide, and if so, then necessarily their starting points, the διακονία naivns diaΘήκης μας δίε διακονία τῆς πίστεως.
2 Cor. 5, 18 ff. the apostle writes: ra dè návra in τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς. We have the testimony of simple, unsought interpretation for us, if we understand the same object by quas and huir. As God redeemed the apostle together with all Christians through Jesus Christ, so he also gave the apostle together with all Christians the διακονία τῆς καταλλαγῆς.
Löhe says: "Not every gift is placed in office; but there is no office without a gift; if the gift receives a calling and sphere of activity to exercise its diligence, then it enters
<page 211>
into office, then it does not lack the divine blessing, the ivéernua, as Luther translates, the power. Gift and office and power then go together in the most intimate union; they appear as one, although they are three. "228)
----------
228) p. 26.
On the other hand, we have to emphasize that where a New Testament zagroμa is found, there is also ministry, namely the ministry of Jesus Christ, whose demonstration and revelation is every xάgioμa; and where a Christian offers heart, mouth or hand to a xaqioμa, there is-διακονία, service, ministry; namely service, ministry in the heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ, whether human vocation is added or not. And where the ministry of Jesus Christ is manifested in the charisms through the dianovía of men, there is svégrnua, power, blessing. The calling is given with the charism, and exists even despite any prohibitions of men.
1 Cor. 12 is not for Löhe, but, as it seems to me, against him. V. 4-6 says: there are many xxxxxxxxx, but there is One Spirit; there are many diaxovía, but there is One Lord; there are many ¿vegyýμara, but there is One God, who works all in all. The apostle, in order to counter all self-conceit, traces the various spiritual gifts all back to One Author. Every gift, considered from the three different points of view of its origin, its source and its effect as χάρισμα, διακονία, ἐνέγρημα, is God's gift, but of course not in such a way that the gift is especially worked, the διακονία especially worked, the ¿végynμa especially worked, for with the xάgioua the other is given by itself. For vv. 7-11, where it is stated how this is given to the one and that to the other, no distinction is made between xάgioμɑ without διακονία and χάρισμα with διακονία τηὁ ἐνέργημα, but only a difference of gifts; it is self-evident to the apostle
<pages 212>
that the different offices are given at the same time as the different gifts.
Löhe means: "Only when the gift is placed in office does it not lack the divine blessing." If Löhe means by "setting into office" the special external calling, then we emphasize emphatically: the gift, where it is given to one, is a manifestation of the office of Christ, and does not receive its power through something outside of it, something added to it, as the legal calling is obviously supposed to be, but through the power inherent in the word and testimony of Jesus Christ in and of itself, from which and with which the gift is carried out.
Löhe says: 229) "There are many kinds of gifts, but not all of them are exercised in the office of the New Testament, for there are also other offices." We maintain that there are various gifts, but all of them are exercised in the ministry of the New Testament, i.e. in the ministry of Christ, because the various gifts are nothing other than the diversity of Christ's self-witness. For if the charisms are really understood to be those which the apostle mentions in 1 Cor. 12-14, we would not know which of them would have to be excluded because it would not be a testimony of the new life that has appeared in Christ. 230)
----------
229) p. 26.
230) s. p. 24 ff. of this Scripture.
But if every New Testament charism is a testimony of the new life that has appeared in Christ, then it is a manifestation of Christ's high office, his διακονία καινῆς διαθήκης.
Löhe says: "There are many offices, but not all fins provinces and parts of them lift up διακονία τῆς καταλλαγῆς or tỷs nairns diadens, of which 2 Cor. 3 is spoken, - and that because not all charisms aim at it." We emphasize again on the basis of the foregoing: there are many offices, but all are provinces and parts of the
<page 213>
high διακονία tñs narahλayñs, of which Christ is the holder and conferrer. Taken together, they are nothing other than service to the self-witness of Jesus, in whom all stand, of whom all have power, and of whom each one makes revelation in a special way, depending on the gift given to him for this.
Löhe presents the offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers as provinces of the dianovía naivūs diadnans; anyone who is not one of them has no part in the exercise and administration of this office. They are specially given by the Lord to administer the means of grace; they and only they, not the believing Christians, are the authorized administrators of the same. The avròs done is understood in this sense in the passage Eph. 4, 11: Αὐτὸς ἔδωκε τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων, εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
So the question arises: Is we talking here about a gift from the LORD in the sense of a command or a gift? Does it imply a duty for the church, which drives it to act in the same way, to act in His sense, at His command; or is it a proof of the caring, all-governing love of the Lord, on which the confidence of the church stands? Are all the provinces and parts of the dianovía nairns diαdruns exclusively mentioned in this passage or not? And does this passage say anything about the διακονία mentioned here being placed in the exclusive possession of the administration of the means of grace?
On all these questions the passage says nothing or nothing complete; it merely says that Christ, through the gift of various charisms eis eorov dianovías, took care of works of service for the edification of the body.
Only this really seems to emerge from it, that it wants to see the apostolate and the other offices rather in the sense of
<Page 214>
charismatic gifts than in the sense of legal, binding orders for the Church. And that would certainly be important enough.
Why do I believe this? Because v. 12 gives διακονία as one of the purposes for which the Lord gave apostles and prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Ἔδωκε τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους etc., — — — eis Borov dianovías. Nothing then remains but the gift ἔργον διακονίας of the apostles 2c., that: avròs done etc., in the sense of a means 3u faffen for δας ἔργον διακονίας, but if in the sense of a means for the office, then as a help from God for the direction of the office, then not as an ordered office itself, but as xaqioμa. But if one has to do this, then at least the evidential value of this passage for an office appointed directly by Christ is at an end. Thus the Lord wants people to enter his heavenly dianovía, to carry his testimony into all the world. This is a service expected by the Lord, which the church has to provide, because it has been entrusted with the pound with which it is to grow. In order that she may be able to do this properly, he allows the fullness of his charisms to be poured out on the multitude of believers, each of whom serves δεν διακονία καινῆς διαθήκης, in which all believers stand, in a special way. The general priesthood takes place with the help of the charisms through the service of the testimonies.
Löhe, in seeking to answer the question of the relation of the ministry to the church, says: 231) Christ is the great apostle of his Father. He is not only the original source and content of the ministry, but also the first holder of the ministry." We add: He is not only the first, but also the only bearer of the office, and has never given it up, nor will he give it up until the end.
-------------
231) S. 40. 41.
<page 215>
Löhe says: "In him word and office are united." We remark: Yes, but not in such a way that the Word is another, and another the ministry, but in such a way that in the Word His ministry is manifested, so that where the Word is, there is also His ministry, and where His ministry is, there is also His Word. Both are indivisible and indistinguishable in eternity.
Löhe says: "From his word and ministry the first church came into being, and from this church he himself again chose his apostles and entrusted them with the word both before and after his resurrection. To them in particular he said on the eve of the resurrection: Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν- καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέ με ὁ Πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς. Sob. 20, 21. To them in particular he speaks the great words of the mission (Matthew 28, 16)." We add: Yes, from his word and ministry the first church came into being, and from this church he himself chose the first apostles, so that in their words his self-witness would be finalized into a solid, sufficient, canonical form, which would become the common property of all believers, with which from now on all believers were to bless themselves priestly. In this respect, the great word of mission applies to them exclusively, just as the sending word applied exclusively to the prophets of the old covenant.
Löhe says: "If one takes this process together, one could perhaps solve the double question in the following way: Just as Adam was not taken from Eve, but Eve from Adam; so the Lord, the apostle of his Father, is not of the church, but zov dɛov (Luc. 3, 38), and the church is of him, that is, of the ministry. Just as Adam's children were not taken from him, like Eve, but were born from and through Eve, so the next generation of ministers is always from him, but from the church and through it."
We note: Yes, just as Eve was taken from Adam, so the church is from the Lord, that is, from the ministry. But just as Adam's children were not taken from him as Eve was, but were born from and through Eve,
<page 216>
so also the power and authority of the ministry of Jesus, the witnessing word of the Lord, did not pass directly to the individual ministers, but first to the church, and from the church and through the church to the ministers. For what is the husband's goes first to the wife, and then to the children. Thus the ministry of Christ, i.e. the testimony of Christ, is of itself the ground of life and property of the church and of each individual soul, which is a bride of the Lord.
2. Kliefoth.
According to Kliefoth, we have no right to use Luther's teachings on the general priesthood of Christians as a testimony against a ministry of the means of grace, as taught by Löhe and Kliefoth, among others.
For "the old Lutheran church related the concept of the general priesthood of all believers to the Roman church ministry, because this wanted to be a priestly ministry". On the other hand, in direct contradiction to the old Lutheran Church, since Spener the concept of the general priesthood has not been related to the Roman priesthood, but to the right Protestant office of the means of grace, and it has been said that the Protestant office of the means of grace as a function of the general priesthood, i.e. as a priestly office, belongs to all believers, and is only commanded and professionally formed by conferring it on all individuals." 232) And that is incorrect.
---------------
232) Eight Books of the Church. I, 302.
To be sure, Luther opposes the concept of the universal priesthood of all believers to the Roman concept of priesthood, but why should his testimony not also be able to serve
<pages 217>
against the concept of an office that contradicts the concept of universal priesthood just as much as the Roman concept of office?
There is no contradiction, says Kliefoth. 233) The Roman church office had wanted to be a priestly office, and therefore the old Lutheran church had rightly said that such a priestly office did not belong to the office alone, but to all believers." "On the other hand, it emphasized again and again that the preaching office was not a priestly office at all (we add, not a priestly office in the sense of the Roman Church), and therefore the general priesthood of all believers was not impaired by the binding of the administration of the means of grace to an office.
Of course, if the preaching office is not a priestly office at all, then the general priesthood of all believers has nothing to do with the preaching office.
We believe that it is part of the royal priesthood of Christians to proclaim the deeds of the one who has called them from darkness to his marvelous light. But Kliefoth teaches that proclamation, witnessing, is something quite different from preaching.
So if preaching does not belong to the general priesthood, what does it consist of?
He says: 234)
------------
233) I, 302. 234) I, P. 24.
"The priestly service, which is incumbent on believers in general, does not consist, as in the Old Testament priesthood, in bringing mediocre sin and guilt offerings for themselves and on behalf of others, but in giving back to Him all the temporal and spiritual goods and gifts given to them by their God as a single sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving covering their whole lives, in offering themselves and their whole lives in prayer and charity to their God for the service and piety of the brethren and the world through Jesus."
<page 218>
Kliefoth arrived at this concept of New Testament priesthood by analyzing moments of the Old Testament concept of priesthood and relating them to their fulfillment in Christ. He says: 235) "In order to understand the New Testament priesthood, we will have to see what it was with the Old Testament priesthood, and how it has become a different one through the fulfillment in Christ and the resulting elimination of all shadowy elements and the entry of all essential elements." And Kliefoth does not just want to raise isolated moments. "These are all just isolated moments. Rather, we will have to see how in the old covenant one became a priest, remained a priest, stood as a priest, and functioned as a priest, in order to find the individual moments of the Old Testament priesthood; and if we then further examine how these moments are determined differently and linked differently by the intervening fulfillment in Christ, we will recognize the moments of the New Testament priesthood." 236)
----------
235) I, 281. 236) I, 282.
Thus Kliefoth himself asks us to see whether 1) he has completely surveyed the moments of the Old Testament concept of priesthood, 2) whether he has placed the individual moments in the correct relationship to their fulfillment in Christ?
If he had failed on the first point, then the concept of the New Testament priesthood that he established would be deficient. An error on the second point would result in an incorrect version of the points he asserts. We first ask whether Kliefoth has fully ascertained the aspects of the Old Testament concept of priesthood?
First he shows how one became a priest and
<page 219>
remained a priest through sacrifice, how his work and service consisted in sacrificing to God for himself and others. He then explains the diversity of the Old Testament sacrifices and shows how they were true sacrifices in contrast to the pagan sacrifices, but not complete sacrifices in contrast to the sacrifice on Golgotha. From this he deduces what the Old Testament priest and his consecration were all about. As a model of the future true priest, he is to bring the exemplary atonement and guilt offering for the people. In order to be able to do this, he himself first needs to undergo atonement through the atonement and trespass offering, and then to submit himself to God through the burnt offering. And now he is not only able to offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving for himself, but also to offer sacrifices of sin, burnt offerings, praise and thanksgiving for the people. 237)
-----------
237) I, 282-285.
By listing the elements of the Old Testament concept of priest indicated here, but remaining silent about the others that can still be drawn from Scripture, Kliefoth creates the illusion for the reader that he has in Kliefoth's statements the complete material necessary to gain the New Testament concept of priest through cohesion with the priesthood of Christ. Why does Kliefoth do this?
The duties of the priests of the old covenant not mentioned by Kliefoth are as follows:
First of all, as priests they were responsible for teaching. They had to give information about the law, and to judge and arbitrate according to the law.
Thus it says in Malachi 2:7: "The priest's lips shall keep the teaching, that out of his mouth the law may be sought; for he is an angel of the LORD of hosts."
<page 220>
Thus it says in Deut. 17:11-12: "According to the law which they teach you, and according to the judgment which they give you, you shall keep it, so that you do not depart from it, to the right hand or to the left. And if anyone acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who is there in the office of the LORD your God, or the judge, he shall surely die."
Thus it is said in Leviticus 14:35 ff: "Let him who is in the house come to the priest and say: It seems to me that there is a leprous mark on my house. Then shall the priest be called to clear the house 2c."
Thus Genesis 17:8-9 says, "If a matter of judgment be too hard for thee, between blood and blood, between trade and trade, between harm and harm, and whatsoever things are grievous in thy gates, then thou shalt arise and go up to the place which the LORD thy God shall choose for thee, and come and ask the priests the Levites, and the judge that shall be at that time, and they shall pronounce judgment unto thee."
Then the priests had the office of cleansing and absolving.
For example, Lev. 13:6: "The priest shall shut him up seven days, and when he has examined him the second time on the seventh day and finds that the mark has disappeared and has not eaten away at the skin, he shall pronounce him clean 2c." cf. Lev. 14; Matth. 8, 4; Luc. 17, 14; Num. 6.
Then the priests had the office of blessing. Thus it says: Numbers 6:22-27: "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Tell Aaron and his sons, saying, 'This is what you shall say to the children of Israel when you bless them: The LORD bless you and keep you 2c. For you shall put my name upon the children of Israel, that I may bless them."
These are not all, but very essential moments
<page 221>
of the Old Testament concept of the priest, of which Kliefoth mentions nothing. There is no question that they contain the exemplary features of the evangelical ministry of grace.
First of all, it is clear from the passages cited that the priests, when they blessed, when they administered doctrine, when they judged and arbitrated according to the law, when they spoke clean and absolved, acted in God's stead and in God's name for the individual or for the people; for it is in relation to these ministries that the passages cited above speak of the priest. In the scriptural passages quoted above it is said of the priest: "he is an angel of the LORD of hosts", "he stands there in the name of the LORD your God", "he puts God's name on the children of Israel so that he may bless them."
If we include these aspects neglected by Kliefoth in the concept of the Old Testament priestly office, as is appropriate according to the unambiguous, clear passages of Scripture, it follows that it is wrong to say with Kliefoth: 238) "The priests have nothing to do but sacrifice." "In all priestly activity, believers act before and towards their God, and the priestly congregation also always maintains in its actions the direction and position of prayer and sacrifice turned towards its God, from the bottom up." 239) The concept of the Old Testament priesthood rather encompasses these two sides: First, it acts "from below upwards before and to God" through sacrifices and prayers; second, from above downwards, from God to men, teaching with the law of God, judging with the law of God, cleansing and absolving according to the law of God, blessing with the name of God, from above downwards, in God's stead and in God's name to the individual, to the people.
This second side is just as necessary as the first.
--------------
238) I, 290. 239) I, 309. 310.
<page 222>
Otherwise would not the theocracy lose its living character, always revealing itself anew in all circumstances, if it stood only at the beginnings of Israelite life, and did not continually reveal itself, teaching, judging, absolving, blessing, as in an extraordinary way through the prophets, so in an ordinary and regular way through the instrumental service of the priests?
Secondly, the question arises whether the elements of the Old Testament concept of the priest are properly related to the New Testament fulfillment in Christ?
After he has surveyed the aspects of the Old Testament concept of priesthood in the manner indicated above, he continues: "But furthermore, it becomes clear to us from this which aspects of this concept are determined differently by the fulfillment that occurs in Christ." First of all, the provisional sin and atonement sacrifice and its repetition, and then the whole vicarious and mediatorial meaning of the Old Testament priesthood, according to which the people were delivered by the sacrifices they brought. "On the other hand, the burnt offerings, as well as the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, do not end at Golgotha; On the contrary, after a true reconciliation has been established by a true priest, the true burnt offering should and must take place in the fact that man, free from the evil conscience, gives himself completely to the reconciled God, and the true sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the fact that man continues to receive the filling gifts of God through the priestly hand of Jesus, and again in Jesus' name gives his life back to God in praise. " 240)
--------------
240) I, 286.
Of course, he continues, the burnt offering and the sacrifice of thanksgiving also cessate the exemplary, the right burnt offering is henceforth repentance and faith, the right sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is the dedication of one's own life to his service. In this, of course, there is also
<page 223>
the substitution, for as many have become anointed priests through the right sin offering, they should now all come to the mercy seat with joy and receive and give back to the new community of God. "Thus we know what it means that the faithful are the priestly people, which is what the New Testament priesthood is. Even under the new covenant, sacrifice is what makes the priest, what maintains him in the priestly state, what his service and work consist of, and what gives him his position in relation to God, to others like him, and to the world. This is the basic character of the congregation of believers, that it is the one that has become through sacrifice, as well as the one that continues to sacrifice." 241)
It is wrong to say that Calvary cessates the exemplary sacrifice of atonement and sin, but not the burnt offering, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Only the exemplary aspect of these sacrifices is cessare, not the sacrifice itself.
Not only the Old Testament atonement and sin offering, but also the Old Testament burnt offering, sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving must first of all be related to the sacrifice of Christ and fulfilled in him. It is not as if Christ had brought the right atonement and sin offering and we could now bring the right burnt offering, sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving on the basis of the atonement and sin offering he brought. For this would leave Christ's priestly ministry unfinished; he would have to complete his work through us. His ministry was to fulfill the whole law, so through him the burnt offering, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving were fulfilled, just as the sin offering was fulfilled. His atoning sacrifice would not have been true if the sinless one had not been consumed as a burnt offering in devotion to the will of God, and the burnt offering would not have been true if it had not also been a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
------------
241) I, 287.
<page 224>
Thus there are not now two priesthoods, each of which has a different function, the priesthood of Christ, in which he continually mediates before God on the basis of his atoning sacrifice", and the New Testament priesthood with the burnt offering, in which "man, freed from his evil conscience, gives himself completely to the reconciled God", and with the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, "in which, after receiving the filling gifts through the priestly hand of Jesus, he gives his life in Jesus' name to God in praise; but one priesthood only, the priesthood of Christ, who brought atoning sacrifices, burnt offerings, sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving"; and the priesthood of Christians does not consist in the fact that they now bring the right burnt offerings, sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving on the basis of Christ's atoning sacrifice, but in the fact that they live by faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice, burnt offering and thanksgiving, and are transfigured into the image of these sacrifices. Thus they are not priests apart from, beside and with Christ, but only in him, who is the only true priest. In this sense, the burnt offerings, sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving cease with Golgotha just as well as the sin and sin offerings, because they, like the sin and sin offerings, no longer fall under the demands of the law, since the demanding law has already received them all through Christ.
This is therefore Kliefoth's other error, that he does not place all the elements which he has taken from the Old Testament concept of priesthood in their proper relation to their fulfillment in Christ. For Kliefoth says nothing of the fulfillment of the Old Testament burnt offering, sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving through Christ. The consequence of this is an incorrect understanding of the believers' concept of priesthood in relation to the sacrifice.
This results in two things: firstly, the New Testament concept of priest that Kliefoth sets out is not complete, and secondly, what he gives is not completely correctly defined.
Kliefoth himself shows that his
<page 225>
concept of the priest, according to which it is only the sacrifice that makes the priest, is not sufficient. For, we ask, to what does Kliefoth reckon Christ's efficacy, which he exercises through the means of grace? But evidently to the priestly office of Christ; for, indeed, he says that man receives the filling gifts of God "through the priestly hand of Jesus". How strange! Does not Kliefoth here admit that the concept of Christ's priesthood has two sides: 1) that he stands before God continually mediating on the basis of his sacrifice; 2) that he gives man the filling gifts through his priestly hand?
The filling gifts of God Kliefoth can only mean by these filling gifts primarily the gifts that we receive through the means of grace. For the New Testament gifts come to us in no other way than through the means of grace.
Thus Christ exercises priestly activity through the means of grace. But from this it necessarily follows that pastors, in administering the means of grace, are ministering in a priestly office, namely the priestly office of Christ. But what a terrible contradiction Kliefoth has got into with himself and, in his opinion, with Scripture and the Lutheran Church! For he says: "It is against Scripture and against the Lutheran Church to say that the preaching office is a priestly office." 242)
Does Kliefoth now perhaps want to say: Christ certainly exercises his priestly office through the means of grace; but it does not yet follow from this that the pastors, insofar as they administer the means of grace, are also priests? He cannot do this without overturning his own laws. For thus he says: "On the one hand, nothing is clearer than that by transmission only the same can come forth from the same.
------------
242) I, 311.
<page 226>
Now the church is nothing other than a priestly people, and has nothing other than priestly dignity and priestly functions. If, therefore, the office of preaching is conceived as an organization of the general priesthood, formed by delegation from all to individuals, then it must be said without equivocation, contrary to Scripture and contrary to the Lutheran Church, that the office of preaching is a priestly office." 243)
---------
243) I, P. 310. 311.
This canon we at once deny and say: Kliefoth must admit, if he does not wish to deny his own statement, that Christ exercises priestly efficacy in, with, and through the means of grace. Now he teaches that Christ has entrusted the means of grace to an office specially instituted by him. Now nothing is clearer than that by transmission only the same can come forth from the same. But now Christ is a priest and exercises priestly functions through the means of grace. If, therefore, the preaching office is conceived as an organization of the priesthood of Christ formed by transmission from Christ to individuals, then we must also say without equivocation that the preaching office is a priestly office.
These consequences that we draw from Kliefoth's writing against Kliefoth's writing are not as bad as Kliefoth claims. For they are not "contrary to Scripture and contrary to the Lutheran Church", as we believe we have demonstrated in our own writing. Luther and the old Lutheran Church did not claim that the office of the means of grace was not a priestly office at all, but only that they taught that the office of the means of grace was not a priestly office in the sense in which the Roman Church understood the concept of the priestly office. The concept of the Roman priestly office consists in the fact that it is an office conferred by Christ on a
<pages 227>
special caste, through whose sanction and activity that which is to be the means of grace is determined and made effective.
In contrast to this concept, it was taught on the basis of Scripture that the means of grace are determined and made effective by the One Priest Christ. No special priesthood is needed to determine and make effective what is to be the means of grace. Where the Lord's means of grace are administered according to insight, there is the right ministry of the means of grace or preaching. The right use of the means of grace makes the priest, not the priest makes the means of grace. Thus the evangelical office of the means of grace is not a Roman priestly office. The two are opposites. But this does not mean, as is self-evident, that the Protestant office of the means of grace is not a priestly office at all.
We therefore do not unilaterally place only the priestly sacrificial activity in the old covenant, but also the teaching, the judging, the cleansing and redeeming, the blessing, as moments of the Old Testament concept of priest in relation to the fulfillment in Christ, and thus gain the following concept of the priesthood of Christ: Christ is the true priest 1) because in his person he offered humanity to God as a true, sufficient sacrifice of atonement and sin, and also as a burnt offering, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, 2) because on the basis of his sacrifice once made he gives sufficient testimony of the law that no longer demands and judges, but is satisfied in his person, of humanity that has been cleansed and absolved in his person and blessed with the full fellowship of God.
Faith now unites with such a priesthood of Christ, and we can only speak of a priesthood of believers in the sense that it is understood to mean their unity with the priesthood of Christ. When faith rises up and leaves behind the old Adam with his
<pages 228>
false righteousness, when it grasps the word of salvation and brings it home to the afflicted soul, then it is rightly in the direction from above to below, in which the office of the means of grace is placed", it comes as a messenger of God, comforts his soul with the word through which he lives, does not therefore call it to be sad, but to trust in the Savior, who in the word offers himself as a helper. Thus faith is a mighty preacher in man, which fills, comforts and feeds the whole man with the Word of God; a real, true minister of the priesthood of Christ, entrusted with a priestly message by the Lord Christ Himself. And just as faith leads his soul to the Lord Christ, carries his word into its innermost life, so it also leads his soul out of itself again and towards Christ as a bride adorned with the jewel of the gospel to her bridegroom. From then on she lives before God only in and with Christ, and appears before God the Father not in her own sacrifice, but in Christ's sacrifice of atonement, burnt offering, praise and thanksgiving.
This Christian priesthood of faith is also expressed in the 42nd Psalm, where faith speaks to its despondent, restless and troubled soul as a sweet messenger of God: "Why are you troubled, my soul, and so restless within me? Wait on God, for I will yet thank him that he will help me with his face"; thus bringing comfort to the soul from God's word as a true called priest of God, who acts in God's stead and on God's account to and with his soul, and at the same time foreshadowing the other way of his priesthood by saying: I will yet thank him, by which he indicates the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for which he can and will prepare his soul through and in God.
The relationship of the general Christian priesthood to the office of the means of grace will therefore be different from that presented by Kliefoth.
Kliefoth says: "That is why the position and
<page 229>
direction of action in the office of the means of grace is quite different from that of the action of the priestly congregation. In the means of grace God acts with and on man from above downwards; and the office of the means of grace is placed in this direction of action from above downwards." 244)
First of all, we establish from the previous results that the ministry of preaching is a priestly ministry, because this ministry is first of all Christ's ministry, and Christ proves Himself to be a priest in this ministry. It is service to the priesthood of Christ. Secondly, we note that the ministry of preaching or of the means of grace is only a ministry of preaching or of the means of grace if it serves the means of grace. Thirdly, we hold that the priesthood of believers through faith is also incorporated into that side of Christ's priesthood by virtue of which he acts through the means of grace from above downwards, from God to man, for there is no Christian who has not become a Christian by being blessed with Christ's testimony through faith. Thus the matter is as follows:
1. in the general Christian priesthood and in the office of the minister of grace one and the same priesthood is active, namely the priesthood of Christ.
(2) The evangelical office of the means of grace is only the office of the means of grace insofar as it serves the priesthood of Christ, insofar as it stands before God in and with Christ, and insofar as it exercises its testimony to the old humanity in the service of Christ.
3. the general Christian priesthood is only a priesthood insofar as it serves the priesthood of Christ, insofar as it stands before God in and with Christ, and insofar as it exercises its testimony to the old humanity in the service of Christ.
----------
244) I, 309.
<page 230>
(4) The evangelical office of the means of grace and the general Christian priesthood are what they are by virtue of one and the same ministry, namely, that they stand before God in Christ, and that they exercise his testimony to the old humanity in the service of Christ.
(5) Thus it follows that the evangelical office of the minister of grace and the general Christian priesthood are identical in essence.
To be sure, Christ has called some of his believers specially and set them apart for the public ministry of the church and the world; to be sure, the church of believers acts according to the process and example of Christ when it again and again calls specially gifted ones and sets them apart for the ministry of the church and the world; but the apostles, whom the Lord has set apart, administer nothing other than their general Christian priesthood when they take hold of the Word of God presented to them by the Holy Spirit and speak it with special gifts for all places and times; and our pastors administer nothing other than their general Christian priesthood when they take hold of the Word of God fixed in the Word of Scripture and proclaim it for the service of the church and the world. It is not what they do, but the fact that they do publicly for the congregation what every Christian should do for himself, taking and applying God's Word, that distinguishes them from other believers.
Therefore we cannot accept the difference that Kliefoth sees between lay preaching and official preaching. The proclamation of the Word by the believer should bear the manner of personal testimony,245)
--------
245) I, 309.
"when he acts as a priest in the service of another, he really stands in the middle between that other and God's salvation, namely in such a way that he bears personal witness to God's salvation in his
<page 231>
personal life, word and conduct."
Does this mean that a Christian does not stand before the Christian as God's servant, as Christ's representative, when he preaches the gospel to him? What makes a Christian, be it my father, brother or friend, God's messenger and representative for me? Is it that he has God's word for me? What does this mean: "The father of the household is not supposed to act in God's name and in God's place to his household members in an absolving, blessing official capacity?" 246) What absolves me, the person who brings me the word, or the word that brings me the person? The word, to which the person can add nothing. After all, my faith should not be based on the person, but on God's word. And if I believe the word in which God announces forgiveness to me, then I have forgiveness of sins, whoever the person who proclaimed the word to me wants to be. The fact that he has brought me God's word in this or that case has made him an angel of God for me.
If we believers are priests, then, like the Old Testament priests, we are "angels of the LORD of hosts," those who stand in the office of the LORD our God." 247)
----------
246) I, 308. 247) see above p. 221 and 227.
A father of the house has been a preacher from ancient times through God Himself. For thus it is written in Deut. 6:6: "The words which I command thee this day thou shalt take to heart, and shalt teach them unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, or when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, or when thou risest up." The words which I command thee this day, thou shalt inculcate in thy children, doth he act officially in God's name and in God's
<pages 232>
stead with his children when he does so? What does it mean, then, when Kliefoth says: "The giving of the word, not as a personal testimony, but in God's place and in God's name, is due to the divine office of the means of grace"?
Kliefoth goes on to say: "But the means of grace are objective works set by God: they do not first mediate with the personality of the administrator, they do not first pass through it, therefore the person of the administrator does not come between the Lord and the recipient, but the Lord acts in them as in his works so directly with the recipient that the administrator does only instrumental service and cannot step far enough out of the center with his person." 248)
We think that when a layman tells his neighbor God's word, that is the main thing, and how he tells him, whether as a personal testimony or not, gives and takes nothing away from God's word. And it is the same with the office of the means of grace. But it is difficult to see how the office of the minister of grace, in contrast to the lay priesthood, is only an instrumental service and does not also pass through the personality of the administrator. According to Kliefoth, the pastor would then not administer the office of the means of grace when he preaches. He would only administer it as long as he reads the Tert. It would indeed be possible for the pastor, in preaching, to interpret the Word of God as objectively as possible, not allowing a hint of warmth from his personal Christian life, from his life of faith, to flow into the sermon, but even then it would not be much of a purely instrumental ministry; for every sermon is a mediation of the Word of God through subjective knowledge, through the subjective life of faith, and is good or bad according to the nature of knowledge and faith.
----------------
249) I, 309.
<page 233>
XII.
Final word.
After the greater part of this paper has given an attempt to prove the dependence of the concept of ministry and its history on the history of the doctrine of justification, it will not be wrong to ask whether Löhe's and Kliefoth's doctrines on ministry are not also based on a peculiar view of justification.
There can be no question of a direct denial of the Lutheran doctrine of justification in the case of these men. Their writings would give the lie to such an accusation in a thousand places. But it may very well be the case that, while generally holding to a basic doctrine, one makes individual provisions which, when consistently developed, contradict the main doctrine held. Thus it is possible to teach that man is justified without the works of the law through faith in the evangelical word alone, but to make this doctrine uncertain again if either the nature of faith or the nature of the evangelical word is incorrectly defined in detail. The nature of justifying faith can now be incorrectly defined to the extent that it is said to justify only when it itself comes under the category of visible things, or is directed in its goal to a visibility that is not directly related to heavenly goods. Faith appears to be included in the category of visible things when its justifying power is made dependent on the form and shape of its essence (for example, insofar as it is the principle of holy life or has come to manifestation in works), and not rather on the object to which it refers: this is the error of Cyprian, Augustine, and the Roman doctrine; faith, on the other hand, appears as directed in its aim to a
<page 234>
visibility which is not directly connected with the invisible goods, where it is taught that it justifies only where it receives the heavenly invisible goods at the same time from an official institution which is necessary for salvation because it is "directly divinely ordered"; thereby faith in the invisible goods offered in the Word of God is torn out of its immediacy and confident reliance on the Word of God and made dependent on faith in a legally ordered divine institution. This is Cyprian's, Augustine's and the Roman Church's teaching, and the consequence of Löhe's and Kliefoth's views.
On the other hand, the nature of the evangelical word can be wrongly defined if it is placed in the same category as the word of the law, namely, if it is said that it is not in itself sufficiently complete to be able to confer salvation directly on the faithful, but that in order to do so it requires a divinely ordained, mediatorial action on the part of specially called men, whereby its consolation becomes real absolution. This is the error of Cyprian, Augustine and the Roman Church, as well as the consequence of Löhe's and Kliefoth's views.
If we ask ourselves how this particular direction within the area of the Lutheran Church can be explained, the next thing to be considered is the great unrestrainedness of opinions and schools of thought, which has shaken the structure of the Christian churches for about a hundred years, as well as the great seriousness with which one is determined to counter this unrestrainedness and to protect the church against it through firmer organization and order [i.e. Romanizing].
In the second and third centuries of our era, we have a phenomenon within the Christian church that is analogous to the present. In the face of unbridled subjectivism in the areas of knowledge and
<page 235>
life, the Church sought coercive means, a discipline and order of ecclesiastical life, by which it could protect itself from danger. As justified as the struggle was, so unjustified were the paths it took. It strayed into wrong legal paths; the regula disciplinae was placed on an equal footing with the regula fidei as a means of salvation.
As thoroughly rotten and decayed as the moral state of the non-German countries is today, in which the Roman Church has been able to exert its influence almost exclusively for more than a thousand years, the firm organization of its priestly institute, the great power with which it has been able to forcibly stifle all hostile impulses in the field of religious knowledge within its sphere, has aroused the admiration of many Protestants and drawn their attention to itself.
It seems to me as if they had been inspired by the Roman Church to revise the existing ecclesiastical orders and, above all, to define the doctrine of the ministry in such a way that it would be placed beyond all similarity with the priesthood of the faithful, in a free and independent position above the congregations, to dominate them and to oppose all lay influence on the organization and shaping of church life. The idea is to save the sanctities of the Church from the negating and disintegrating tendencies of the time by placing between them and all laity a ministerial status and a church order juris divini, and by imposing on these a sacramental character which is suitable for subjecting all believing life to the established limits and rejecting a limine all life hostile to the Gospel.
We cannot describe this method of help as anything other than thoroughly contradictory to the main and fundamental article of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church on justification, and believe that the
<Page 236>
inward and outward renunciation of the masses from the sanctities of the Church is thereby promoted rather than hindered, however independent and secure the ministerial state of the Church may be thereby placed. The Roman Church is a shining example of this.
But this is far from the spirit of the Lutheran Church, just as it was far from the spirit of the apostolic age to missionize with a firmly organized and tightly closed church institute and to bind the soul above all to it. The apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers did not make themselves or an ecclesiastical institute the object of their preaching, but the gospel. In doing so, they overthrew the altars of false gods and won a congregation for the Lord. Out of the fullness of their life of faith, the churches then organized themselves, guided by the God-filled insight of the apostles. But it was an organization in which the spirit of the mechanically separating and patronizing law had given way to an independence and royalty justified by the unity of the believers with Christ. Any attempt to improve the organization of the Lutheran Church of the present day, however defective it may be, will therefore only be justified if it takes the royalty and priesthood of all believers as a prerequisite, and if it is found that the mass of Christendom is dead or indifferent or wavering, then it is certainly not the time to continue with the erection of the building itself, but everything that has breath and feels driven by the Spirit of Christ will rather have to work with all the strength that is given to evangelical preaching so that living building blocks become everywhere, from which a truly spiritual house can then be built.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.