BWC2b: Trinity; Creation

      This continues from Part BWC2a in a series (Table of Contents in Part BWC1) presenting Walther's edition of Baier's Compendium of Positive Theology. — These quotes continue with the particulars of the incomprehensible, but Scriptural, mystery of the Trinity. — Creation is wonderfully treated in v. 2, examining every detail of the wording of the creation account. Also, on pp. 86-87, there is refutation of the Copernican Theory. — From pages 71–98:

Notable Quotes: (Italics follow the original. All quotes not from Baier are from Walther's additions.); Trinity, Creation.

71: Quenstedt: "According to the holy Fathers, the particle ἐξ [from] is attributed to the Father, διά [through] to the Son, and εἰς [in] to the Holy Spirit."

72: Quenstedt: "Although the Son is from the Father, He is nevertheless God with the Father"

73: Quenstedt: "Of certain Calvinists, who attribute to the Father a certain preeminence and superiority over the Son even with respect to deity"

74: Quenstedt: "The rule of Augustine is well known: 'The works of God ad extra are indivisible,' that is, common to all three persons."

76: Luther: "…the Symbol [Creed] of the holy Athanasius is founded, which is so framed that I do not know whether anything more important and glorious was ever written in the Church" [Defense of Trinity]

Creation:

77: Reusch: "But heaven, as heaven, and distinct from the total bodies of the world, such as planets, comets, and fixed stars or suns, consists of aether, which fills those vast spaces"

78: Luther: "Therefore, as for this opinion of Augustine, we hold that Moses spoke properly, not allegorically or figuratively" [As Luther would hold with Joshua on Joshua 10:13.]

80: Quenstedt: "The creation of the world from nothing in time cannot be known by natural light or… by philosophical arguments, but is known only from divine revelation, and is therefore an article of pure faith."

82: Quenstedt: "To define precisely where it [heaven] is, however, is rash."

83: Antithesis: J. H. Kurtz: "We already have, in pre-human times, an earth, and no less a history, which unfolded on and in it.…such sober and level-headed men as…Rudelbach, Guericke…have spoken in its favor." [Rudelbach and Guericke were thought of as orthodox!]

86: Walther quotes Hollaz, Calov, Rollius, and Hafenreffer against Copernicanism, i.e. Walther clearly held with the bare words of Holy Scripture on Joshua 10:13: "And the sun stood still…"

86: Antithesis: Deyling: "These forms of expression [e.g. Joshua 10:13] are what experts in the art are accustomed to call optical, and they distinguish them from physical truth."

88: Augustine: "Created animals that are harmful would have harmed no man, if he had not sinned."

88: Luther: God "did not say, as He did of other creatures, 'Let the earth bring forth man'; but, 'Let us make man'"

89: Luther: "For will you not judge it absurd that a man, who is to live forever, is born from a single drop of seed in his father's loins? There is almost more absurdity in this than in what Moses says, about the clay formed by the fingers of God."

91: "…the effect produced [of God's inbreathing, Gen. 2:7] was a spirit, distinct from the body and all matter.

93: Quenstedt: Eve "did not exist by immediate creation, but by propagation and transmission."

95: Luther: "…it does not say that Christ made the world through the Father, but that the Father made it through Him [the Son], so that the Father remains the first person and that from Him [the Father], yet through the Son, all things come"

97: Twesten: "Ex nihilo means: not from something, not from prior matter; it does not designate matter, but excludes it."

98: Philippi: "The concept of creation arose only on the ground of positive divine revelation, and where it is found outside this sphere (as in Mohammedanism, Rationalism), it is demonstrably borrowed from there."

98: Antithesis: Delitzsch: "The world, far from having been nothing before its creation, had an ideal existence in God, and its creation was the transfer from this ideal existence into a real one."

100: "so by the power of the divine blessing man is generated from man with regard to the soul just as much as the body by the universal concurrence of God alone"

101: Quenstedt: "If it is assumed that the soul is created immediately by God, either original sin must be plainly denied, or God cannot be freed from injustice, both of which are absurd"

In the next Part BWC2c, Angels.

Walther vs. Delitzsch on "human side of Bible" (LuW 1880)

      Six years before C. F. W. Walther wrote a passionate defense of the Inspiration of Scripture in the "Foreword" to the 1886 Lehre und Wehre, he wrote a short blurb about a famous German theologian on this same subject.  In Franz Pieper's Dogmatik, Pieper stated of Dr. Franz Delitzsch that "he deserted the inspiration of Scripture". — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 26 (1880), p. 18-19 [EN]: 

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

Biblical Criticism. Dr. [Franz] Delitzsch writes in a preface to the work of [Pastor Adolph] Saphir, pastor of the Presbyterian Trinity Church in London, Christ and the Scriptures (Leipzig 1879): 

“The impiety with which some theologians treat the Holy Scriptures and thus undermine the foundation of our Evangelical people, born of the spirit of the Reformation, is becoming ever more immoderate and exasperating. We do not deny the right of criticism, but we reject the profanity of its approach, which tears down without building, and from which vanishes its awe-inspiring divine side over the human side of the biblical books. There was a time when people talked about dead orthodoxy. In our time there are all the more dead critics, from whose books we can see vain decay. They have not penetrated the experiential path of repentance to the life of faith and are therefore not able to judge spiritual things spiritually. Of course, the Holy Scriptures are also an object of scholarly research, but they want to be more than that, and whoever does not accept them for anything else, they become a stench of death to death. It is not merely a monument to the history of religion, but the document of God's ways to the salvation of mankind, the document of the way of salvation that leads to the saved community of God, the document of God's will that leaves no questioner in the lurch. Only those who have begun to feel the need for the forgiveness of sins will learn to appreciate the value of the Holy Scriptures, if they continue to submit themselves to the course and guidance of grace on the basis of this basic prerequisite of spiritual experience. The present book of Saphir is a precious guide to the lifting of the hidden treasure.” — 

Would not Dr. Delitzsch himself like to emphasize the so-called "human side of the biblical books" so that the word of the Apostle "vanishes" through his treatment of the same [“human side”]?: πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ etc. (2 Tim. 3:16) [LED “all scripture, inspired of God”] W. [Walther]

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

While Delitzsch's Preface may sound pious enough, yet his "divine-human" Scripture, just like today's LC-MS "divine-human" Scripture, is exposed by Walther for what it is. Walther is saying in his short comment that to speak of the “so-called ‘human side of the biblical books’” is to essentially erase, or "vanish" the “divine side”, to negate 2 Tim. 3:16, which in Greek says "All Scripture is God-breathed". 

      I took a little time to read from the book by Pastor Adolph Saphir who was a converted Jew, and found that it ostensibly seems to uphold the divinity of Scripture. He reminds me of Alfred Edersheim, another converted Jew who became an author about the same time. But we see how Walther focuses on the Preface and sees through Delitzsch's seeming regard for Holy Scripture. Walther focuses on the contradiction that exposes Delitzsch's, and today's LC-MS's, actual weak position towards the Holy Scriptures. I take this opportunity to repeat Walther's final warning written in 1886:

“Beware, beware, I say, of this 'divine-human' Scripture. It is a devil's mask, for at last it manufactures such a Bible according to which I certainly would not care to be a Bible Christian; namely, that henceforth the Bible should be no more than any good book, a book which I would have to read with constant scrutiny in order not to be led into error. For if I believe that the Bible also contains errors, it is to me no longer a touchstone, but itself stands in need of one. In a word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks with this 'divine­-human' Scripture.”

Delitzsch 1: A Tale of 2 Men, 2 Countries; missing pages in Dogmatik; “an evil in the Church?”

      Continuing my project of presenting the full text of Franz Pieper's original Christliche Dogmatik.... (all pages cross referenced to English edition pages, and bookmarked; all Hebrew text added)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      As I was cross-referencing the German edition to the English edition of Pieper's Dogmatik, I discovered another series of significant omissions made by the English translators/editors.  These omissions exceed those missing on Usury and Life Insurance.  So I decided to study the omitted material in the German edition and oh! I became more and more puzzled, even irritated, on why these sections were omitted for they give tremendous Church History... they explain further why the Church is in such a dilapidated condition... today, here and now.  But they also show to the Church of today the way out of its sorry condition.

Franz Delitzsch
(Germany)

      Pieper took great pains to give an objective presentation for his Dogmatik theology so that everyone could see which way is the right way for the Church.  And he felt compelled to defend the "Missouri Synod" for it had become the object of attacks as "an evil in the Church" by Germany's theologians in general.  But one famous German theologian stood out as a witness against this charge, at least in his early life: Franz Delitzsch.  So Pieper gave several pages of quotes and information on Delitzsch in support of the “evil” of... that “Missouri Synod”.  

C.F.W. Walther
(America)

      And in the midst of Delitzsch's memories, one man in particular stands out...

      Now I begin a series of blog posts bringing Pieper's full uncut account of Church History covered in his Dogmatik pages 195 to 205… of Germany and on Franz Delitzsch [English edition pages 167-171].  All text in green shading was omitted in the English edition – several pages of material – so this is the first time it is being presented in English.

Translation by BackToLuther; all underlined words were emphasized in the original German; red text and/or red bold text are my emphasis; many items hyperlinked for reference, hyperlinked page numbers in square brackets [ ]; all unshaded text was included in the English edition but I re-translated it to avoid copyright complaints by CPH.

——————————  Part 1  ———————————

[195 >]

It would not appear quite fitting that the church situation in our American Lutheran Church should be described in detail in a dogmatic writing. It must, however, first be borne in mind that our Church in modern and most recent  [196] theological literature — and especially also in dogmatic works — is considered more or less in detail.  This, as we have seen, is done in an accusing and condemning manner, as if with our adherence to the Scripture principle we spread dead orthodoxy, and so we are to be seen as an evil in the Christian Church. …

… [197 middle] At the present time [~ 1924], the separation of church and state has been officially declared in also Germany. This has raised the question of how the Church of Germany had to re-establish itself in the changing circumstances in order to secure her life. The episcopal constitution has been thought of, and some have already been introduced. There is no objection to the episcopal constitution in itself; but without a return to the Word of the Apostles and Prophets as God's infallible Word, the basis  on which the Christian Church is built is lacking, and even the “bishops” are only a piece of decoration that obscures the sad state of affairs in the church.  At present Lutheran countries and Lutheran regions are complaining that not only the great Roman sect, but also the different Reformed sects devote themselves especially to propaganda.  Without a return to Scripture, the Church of Germany is not only powerless against the propaganda of Rome, but is also unable to cope with the propaganda of such Reformed sects, which, in addition to errors, still admit Scripture as the Word of God and also teach the satisfactio vicaria.  By surrendering the Scripture as the Word of God and by the associated surrendering of the satisfactio Christi vicaria the modern theologians of Germany have delivered the weapons of the Christian Church to its enemies and are eo ipso just as powerless against Rome and the sects as political Germany [1924, post WW I] is  a pawn of the arbitrariness of its enemies after delivery of its weapons.  The theology of Germany must return to the theology which it rejects in the theology of the “strictly confessional American Lutheran Church” as Repristination Theology. Moreover, we should recall in this connection that this [198  >] theology comes from Germany, from Germany's best period in the previous century.  

4th Coalition against
Napoleon's French Empire

After the struggles for freedom against the French world domination, a considerable religious awakening went through Germany.  It proceeded primarily from lay circles, but also extended to a part of the student youth. The majority of the fathers of the Missouri Synod belonged to the group of believing students at the University of Leipzig, which is described as follows: “They gathered together on certain days every week for common prayer, for the common reading of the Holy Scriptures, for the purpose of edification and mutual exchange over the One, as was necessary.” 615)  Franz Delitzsch († 1890) [ADB article] also belonged to this student circle.

- - - - - - - - -  continued in next Part 2  - - - - - - - - - -

Pieper gives not only true Church History, but the background of World History for Germany as its faith was floundering.  And there will be more mentions of World History in this continuing series.  But more importantly we see a ray of light beginning to break forth in the gloom of political darkness… in what were termed “lay circles”.
      That's right, if you follow this blog you are following “dead orthodoxy” promoting “an evil in the Christian Church”!  Not just Franz Pieper, but also Franz Delitzsch has a defense for you… (Would some accuser now call me “Franzie baby”...   please?)
   - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents   - - - - - - - -
Part 1 - this introductory blog; “an evil in the Church?”
Part 2 - “no other than the Lutheran faith”; “behind 300 years in matters of faith”
Part 3 - Holy Scriptures & Luther; LC-MS & Luther
Part 4 - Lutheran Confessions; old dogmaticians
Part 5 - “You, my Walther…”; Missouri Synod fathers
Part 6 - German layman, beautiful hymns; “Lutheran Judaism”; “lay circles” - Fundamentalists
Part 7 - later (grieving) Delitzsch; von Hofmann & von Frank
Part 8a - whither is Lutheranism bound?; Missouri's church literature
Part 8b - great chasm — supermen to stragglers

Luther Bible-Pt 9: World vs. Lutherans; What Eve knew?

     This Part 9 continues from Part 8 (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...
     We have reached the end of the technical discussion of Hebrew grammar, and now Pardieck is beginning his final defense.  I have been eager to hear his final comments about the actual words of Genesis 4:1b and their meaning.  –  Sometimes I have to double check... it almost seems to me that this essay was written by Franz Pieper himself, but no, it is rather the little known Prof. Eduard Pardieck.

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

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

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 9: Pages 409-410   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1

[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 

[page 409]

All these efforts and conjectures and uncertainty and despair stand in opposition to the Lutheran translation with its simplicity with the commonly accepted predicate: "linguistically possible."  "But according to the sense inadvisable", we hear Keil say, and the same sound comes from all opposing citations.  Also the dogmatic and so-called salvation-revelation historical concerns are those that would make this translation, where the words as they stand even at a first look make a strong impression, as Delitzsch says, unacceptable.  We examine the principal concerns briefly below.

     Lange’s Bibelwerk says: "The explanation of Luther (and also Philippi): “the man, the Lord” anticipates not only the development of the Messianic idea, but also goes beyond the Messianic idea; because the Messiah is not Jehovah absolutely”. [see page 255 here]  About Lange’s "the Messiah is not Jehovah absolutely" we do not have much to say.  If He is not absolutely Jehovah, then he is not Jehovah; and if he is not Jehovah, he is not God; for there is none other God but one.  It is quite enough to oppose this objection with the apostles words: "Christ, who came from the fathers according to the flesh, is God over all, blessed forever. Amen”. (Romans 9:5).  "This" (his son Jesus Christ) "is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20).  And of a development of the Messianic idea, one can but speak of it only to the extent that God has revealed more and more of it over the course of time.  And most of it was already covered and seed-like in the Protevangelium.  Of course, if one is told in Genesis 3:15 nothing more than that people and snakes should hate each other for all time, then it is still a complete end to a "messianic idea".  Luther finds that in this passage very much is said.  He says: All of the following prophets have interpreted this word, learned and absorbed.  Indeed, he says, "but I would wish that I could treat this text according to its dignity; for it contains and summarizes in itself everything that all Scripture has that is excellent and special”. (St. L. Ed. vol. 1, col. 224, paragr. 137; Am. Ed. vol. 1, pg 183).  Also Delitzsch says, "It is the whole redemption decree, as this word of promise is its demolition, if one just considers that the serpent is meant as seducer, and that therefore the curse that she strikes at focuses back to the author of reconciliation. . . .  The whole history of salvation and order of salvation is wrapped up in this Protevangelium.  Like a Sphinx stores the sacred history at the entrance. . . .  It has just there solved, through whom and to what aim had to be fulfilled”. (Messianische Weissagungen, [page 410] pages 26, 27).  And in his commentary on Genesis: "This first promise is not merely the most common and most indefinite, it is viewed as conditional, historically, the most all-encompassing and deepest.  It dominates the whole subsequent development of proclamation of salvation.  Hic incipit Liber Bellorum Domini, [“Here begins the Book of the Wars of the Lord”] calls Rupertus Tuitiensis [Rupert of Deutz].  Hic sol consolationis oritur [“Here comes the sun for comfort”] calls out Luther.  It was not until the work of redemption itself and in particular the Temptation and Passion which brought to light the content of this pronouncement of God; the New Testament only is the key to this hieroglyph; only the Gospel is the interpretation of the Protevangelium.  ‘General, vague, dark, like the primitive’, says Drechsler, ‘to which it belongs, an awe-inspiring Sphinx in front of the ruins of a mysterious temple, it is wonderful and holy at the threshold of paradise forlorn; thence comes from the great historical process in which the promise of God's grace, always certain and specific, is limited through Shem on a specific realm of people, with Abraham to a special people in Judah to a single stem, in David to a single family.’  But it was the son of Mary, who for us all endured the heel bite of the serpent to crush its ​​head for all of us, only he, himself, has solved the puzzle of this Spinx, that was too difficult for all the saints and prophets, in that he has fulfilled it." [Die Genesis, pages 131-132]  We say with Philippi: "Who wants to determine the limit up to which way they (the first humans) entered into the meaning of the mysterious word puzzle?"

This means that the next two objections are actually already eliminated.  The one is our perception of her exclamation that with Eve there is too much presumed knowledge, the other too little.  Too much.  It is said that Eve could not know that the Messiah would be God.  Luther replied: This could have been taken by them only too well from the work which the Promised One should do.  If a mere man could and should do it, then Adam would have had the idea come to him why he could not then do it himself.  Too little.  Eve should have known that the Messiah descended only from a woman, and would not have a human father.  Gerhard responds: "That the Messiah should be the seed of the woman, she had heard; but that he should be a virgin’s son, she did not know at that time or not at least think of it."  Luther says: "Therefore Eve hoped, since she had given birth to her first son, that she would now have the serpent crusher.  And if she well was lacking in this hope, she knew that seed once had to be born from her gender, and that it also would happen in its own time.  So this promise, where the people were concerned, had been at the same time very clear and also dark.  But Isaiah 7:14 has explained this saying and brought further light to it, as he says, a Virgin should conceive.  For it was in those days certain that that seed should not be born of the union of  [Page 411] a man and woman.  

= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 10 = = = = = = = =

We hear again from the well-known Lutheran theologian John Gerhard, affirming the Biblical doctrine of the "Protevangelium" from Genesis 3:15.  But this is not the last time Pardieck quotes Gerhard – there is a surprising comment to come from John Gerhard in the next part.  This part ends in the middle of a quote from Luther which will be completed in the concluding Part 10.

Luther Bible-Pt 6: Grammar of Gen. 4:1b; Keil-Delitzsch; "letters people"; Jews reject true grammar, maybe also the LC-MS?

     This Part 6 continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...
     We meet with the technical terminology of grammar in this section.  I recall learning about grammar many decades ago, and have long forgotten the meaning of "accusative", "transitive" and "particle", although I remember a few things about "prepositions" and "adverbs".  But on this question of the meaning of Genesis 4:1b, the old (German) Missouri Synod showed that it was the defender of the true Lutheran Church, for it claimed to be the master of the Hebrew grammar, and grammar in general.  But they did this only by faith... the same as Martin Luther.  Since Luther said "The grammar is Empress", it almost makes me want to pick up a book on "Grammar" and restudy this important science of language.
     Keil and Delitzsch, who were German Lutheran theologians, are well known names among today's theologians as authorities in the Biblical languages.  And the English Reformed publishers have had their German writings translated and published.  But we see in Prof. Pardieck's analysis that both Keil and Delitzsch certainly stumbled or fell at times in their scholarship on the Hebrew meaning of Genesis 4:1b.  With Hunnius, the "Missourians" would call Eve our "holy mother" in the true faith, faith in the "man-Jehovah" whom we now call in the New Testament time... Jesus Christ.

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

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

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   Part 6: Page 343-344   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1

[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 

How does it stand now with the establishment of the Lutheran translation?  There it should be said: it has the grammar for itself.  This is actually generally conceded that this is the only translation that may be allowed when seen against the grammar.  Keil says in his commentary: "The with Luther: to believe ‘a man the Lord’ as closer determining apposition to , would be quite allowed grammatically, however it is in the sense inadvisable".  About the "in the sense inadvisable" we shall hear more later.  Here we only register the concession: "allowed grammatically". Similarly Delitzsch: "Is here the accusative sign or the preposition?  The words seem to mean: I have acquired or brought forth a man, the Jehovah; because frequently is found after an initial accusative a second, closer to determining with : [Genesis] 6:10; 26:34; Isaiah 7.17, while as adverbial phrase meaning 'with Yahweh" does not occur otherwise, but instead (because , 49:25, is questionable) , 1 Samuel 14:25".  And now comes the usual dogmatic and "historical revelation" doubts.  In his "Messianic Prophecies" he even says: "The impression that in , [Genesis] 4:1 b, qualifier of the object (like 6:10, 26:34) is so strong, that the Jerusalemite Targum translates: I have acquired a man, the angel Yahweh. But this interpretation already lapses because the angel of Yahweh occurs only after the patriarchal period enters into history and consciousness." (page 30, “Anm. 1”).  In the dispute with the Lutherans, the grammar was granted more or less unopposed.  They well said mockingly: they are letters people, they would have nothing but grammatical reasons for themselves.  Sebastian Schmidt testified on this against Rivetus: "We wonder indeed that such a learned man can argue so foolishly.  Are not then the grammatical reasons, in laying out the Scriptures, among the strongest and first?  Must one then not observe the meaning and usage of the individual words according to [Page 344] their character?  Can then not already one argument from grammar suffice?"  These are not just frivolous ideas of our own, but we have reason in the grammar, which even the Jews could take if they did not in a vicious way simply not want to; because the Jews also argue with the grammar".  Now, there is a stronger argument in the exegesis of course not from grammar, that is the word meaning and the usus loquendi.  The sense thus obtained must remain as the right one, as long as the Scripture itself does not protest against it, or, as Luther expresses it, it is against an article of faith.  With earnestness Luther and other theologians have made such sayings: The grammar is Empress. The church is grammatical.  Because God has revealed his will to us in human language, and it concerns the understanding of the word, our theology is for the most part philology.  God's Word is not theologically understood if it has not been previously understood grammatically.  Whoever has the grammar in its full sense for himself and no other clear Scripture against him, has the right understanding of a passage on his side.

The individual arguments in support of the Lutheran translation is summarized by Gerhard in seven points, which are then often cited and approved by the following exegetes.  We state them briefly in turn and make a few brief observations. Gerhard says "Their accuracy is evident (1) from the original meaning of the word .  The particle is in its proper and usual meaning of the sign of the accusative when it is constructed with active or transitive verbs.  This from this meaning one is not to depart unless there is an obvious coercion."  Pfeiffer gives the rule quite in general and positively thus: " is, when an active verb precedes it by which it is governed, always nota accusativi.  Of this there is no exception (non datur dissimile exemplum)".  Calov gives the same rule thus: "Wherever the particles are found in front of a noun which is governed by an active transitive verb, then is it the rule (ordinarie) the sign of the accusative".  When one by these formulations the more precise determination of of the rule: "if is constructed with a transitive verb”, "wanted to press "if it is governed by a transitive verb", then a pretty worthless, self-evident truth would come out that would be almost tantamount to: If it is accusative, it is accusative; because if it indicates something other than the object case, it is not "governed by" and "constructed with" the transitive verb as such.  To say, however, in general: if stands for a transitive verb, then you will only be able to say, and can you say: then it is the rule nota accusativi.  In the majority of cases so far in which signs are of the accusative, even with a transitive verb where one naturally first [Page 345] has to think of the object, this assumption has always an enormous presumption of its own. –  

= = = = = = = =  cont'd in Part 7  = = = = = = = =

     This part ends with the first of seven points made by John Gerhard.  Unfortunately Pardieck does not give the specific place in Gerhard's Loci where the above may be found.  I must say it is quite difficult to translate Pardieck's material on the Hebrew grammar.  If you are like me, this may seem a little over the top in its technical terms of grammar, but Pardieck and the true Lutheran theologians are dealing with divine matters...  matters that matter... for eternity.  If you are a layman like myself and get into Strong's numbering of biblical words, I suspect there may well be some misinformation going on with word meanings.  For example one online-interlinear Hebrew Bible, BibleHub, seems to put forth the typical Reformed error which is repeated ad nauseum.
     According to my "Concordia Self-Study Bible, NIV" (CS-SB) from 1986 (Robert G Hoerber, General Editor), the following comment is made on the NIV version of Genesis 4:1b which reads "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man":

Eve acknowledged that God is the ultimate source of life (see Acts 17:25). According to Luther's translation ("I have the man, the Lord") Eve believed that her son was the fulfillment of the promise in 3:15.

Dear reader, do you believe the CPH's CS-SB editors believed Luther's translation?  Hmmm, good question... they certainly did not affirm it., but did they not also explicitly deny Luther's translation?  (John Gerhard did affirm it).  Oh, I thought this passage was a Lutheran shibboleth (?).  But isn't CPH and the LC-MS Lutheran?  Good question again...

Gerhard's next six (of seven) points on grammar will be covered in the next Part 7.