Luther on Customs (CTM 1934 English translation) – Part 3-Liturgy/Vestments

"Missourian" Paul E. Kretzmann
quotes Luther on Liturgy/Vestments

     This continues from Part 2 and Part 1 in a series concerning Liturgy and Vestments in the Lutheran Church. — After Lochner and Walther, we now turn our attention to Luther in these matters.  The LCMS attempts to quote Luther in ways to justify their Romanizing stance, but in 1934, Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann published an extensive array of Luther quotes that deal directly with these matters and clarify Luther's position against those who try to Romanize him and the Formula of Concord.  The publication was in Concordia Theological Monthly, three years after Pieper's passing.  This publication was from the "Missourians" that LC-MS President Matthew Harrison explicitly chides in his recent writings (p. xxxii-xxxiii). — This essay was done in the German language, unassessable for most American Lutherans today.  So I took extensive time in getting this translated and adding many hyperlinks so that Luther can be given serious study on this. Let Luther explain what the Lutheran Confessions say about these matters.

Some excerpts: 

p. 45: "We must surrender everything that the eyes behold and that the senses suggest… until we first grasp and thoroughly ponder the words of Christ… He is more concerned about the Word than about the sign."

46: "There is nothing more holy on earth than God’s Word, for even the sacrament itself is constituted and sanctified and consecrated through God’s Word.… The Word sanctifies everything, and is above the sacrament."

47: “We have passed over the matter of vestments. But we think about these as we do about other forms. We permit them to be used in freedom, as long as people refrain from ostentation and pomp."

48: "Also all childish ceremonies, as incense, dealing in chancel caps, stationes [of the Cross?], salt and water consecration shall be abolished."

49: "For love and peace are far more important than all ceremonies."

50: "It is consequently fairer that one should agree with the churches that do not practice the elevation than, on the contrary, to agree with those that do practice it [i.e. Papists].”

The following is from CTM, vol. 5 (1934), p. 45-52, translation by BackToLuther. All underlining follows the emphasis in the original German article. Where available, quotes were taken from the American Edition (AE) with minor changes; almost half of the quotes had to be newly translated: 

(PDF download here; German text here)

I believe that Prof. Kretzmann included these quotes from Luther in the flagship publication Concordia Theological Monthly to defend against what he saw happening in the Missouri Synod even in 1934. There was interest among some pastors in the changing Missouri Synod to rely on Liturgy and Vestments, at the expense of Doctrine, for the promotion of their unionisic goals.  They were viewing the Romanizing opponent Iowa Synod more favorably. Is it any wonder that Prof. Paul E. Kretzmann had to leave the LCMS 16 years later? — It would seem almost impossible to reconcile the aims of "Gottesdienst", the band of LCMS pastors (Fathers?), with… Luther.  In the concluding Part 4, we examine in more detail the group calling itself "Gottesdienst".

Mark’s Gospel– no Long Ending? Cut from Concordia?; "Docetic" Orthodoxy?

[2025-04-13: updated several links; 2024-09-27: updated links to Triglotta;2023-08-14: updated links to bookofconcord.org; 2020-04-09: added note in red on grape juice vs. wine]
      A number of writings have appeared concerning a recently released Concordia Commentary by James Voelz and Christopher Mitchell, Mark 8:27-16:20 (CPH 2019). A negative Amazon review by Kelly D. Smith ("Good Exegesis but Author denies Scripture") provides a pertinent quote from the chief author of this Commentary, Dr. James W. Voelz of Concordia Seminary.  Mr. Smith states (emphasis mine): "Voelz, in his own words, believes, 

'Mark 16:9-20 should not be adopted as the genuine ending of the Gospel according to Mark and its exclusion from the Second Gospel should occasion no difficulties for Lutherans who have committed themselves to the confessional documents of the Book of Concord.' (page 1237)"

Mr. Smith has done a service to the Church by publishing this quote.  It opens up the question for all Lutherans as to what impact a loss of Mark 16:9-20 would mean to the Book of Concord, or the "Lutheran Confessions".  Others have written to defend against Voelz's denial of this "Long Ending" (LE), but I want to provide the reader with an online clickable index to the exact portions that would have to be omitted or changed from the Lutheran Book of Concord. I am including in the following table not only the hyperlinks to the BookOfConcord (Triglotta) references, but also the page numbers of the currently sold English printed versions of the Lutheran Book of Concord:

Verse	Description (w/ link to BookOfConcord.org)		Triglotta (w/ link)	McCain 2005-06 2005	Kolb- Wengert
Mark 16:15	CA XXVIII Ecclesiastical Power 7; (Augsburg Confession) “…the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, … Mark 16:15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature.		85	58 84	93
	FC SD V Law and Gospel 4: (Formula of Concord)“… when Christ after His resurrection commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel in all the world, Mark 16:15”		952	554 582	582
	FC SD XI Election 28: “… it is Christ's command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Mark 16:15”		1073	606 636	645
Mark 16:15 ff.	LC Preface 20” (Large Catechism) “… our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the holy body and blood of Christ, namely, the text which Matthew 28:19ff and Mark 16:15f record at the close of their Gospels when Christ said farewell to His disciples and sent them forth.”		579	339 384	359
Mark 16:16	AC IX: 1-2 Baptism: “Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation”		47	35 61 (teach  that Baptism is necessary for salvation)	42 (necessary [“to salvation” omitted.])
	AP XXIV [XII] Sacrifice of the Mass 18: (Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession) “… God here[in Baptism] offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16:16”		389	222 248	261
	SA III VIII Confession 7: (Smalcald Articles) “For even those who believe before Baptism, or become believing in Baptism, believe through the preceding outward Word, as the adults, who have come to reason, must first have heard: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, even though they are at first unbelieving”		495	280 307	322
	SC Baptism: (Small Catechism) “Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		551	339 365	359
	LC Short Preface, Baptism 21: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		579	358 365	385
	LC Baptism 4-5: “… in St. Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		733	423 449	457
	LC Baptism 23: “… this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		737	425 451	459
	LC Baptism 31: “Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		739	426 452	460
	FC SD XI Election 39: “Therefore the meaning is not at all the one referred to above, namely, that the elect are to be such as even… do not truly believe in Christ, Mark 16:16”		1075	608 638	647
Mark 16:20	FC SD VIII Person of Christ, 27: “ … not only as God, but also as man [has dominion and] rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth…  as the … apostles testify, Mark 16:20”		1025	586 616	621

      Is it not strange that the LC-MS, which promotes its sacramental theology, would also remove one of the foundational Bible verses that support it – one of the verses that constitutes what Luther calls the "outward Word"?  Hmmm... maybe the LC-MS is not so "sacramental" after all?  (The LCMS also now teaches that the use of grape juice, instead of wine, is not forbidden in the Lord's Supper, contrary to orthodox Lutheran teaching. Confessing, p. 887, fn 131; cp CTQ 1981, v. 45,1, p. 77-80, 🔗, CTM 1939, v. 10,5 p 321-330, 🔗); Pastor and People, p. 57-58) [2020-04-09: see also BJS essay by Karl Weber, "Fruit of Which Vine?".] —

Is Orthodoxy "docetic"? Not the LC-MS…
      Of greater importance in this controversy is the doctrine of Holy Scripture promoted by the teachers of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod today.  Prof. Voelz does not teach the Divinity of Holy Scripture. (see here)  He and his LC-MS officially teach that the Bible is divine and human.  He explicitly charges those who hold to the full Divinity (e.g. Luther, Walther, etc.) as "docetic" (see this blog post, What Does This Mean?, p. 242 [Internet Archive]).  This charge is meant to be comparable to the other "Docetism" heresy of early Christianity.  But that heresy was not about the Holy Scripture, it was about the Person of Christ. Voelz holds to a low view of Holy Scripture indicating his (and the LC-MS's) theology and exegesis.  It is exactly the charge by German theologians against orthodox teaching in Walther's day, against the old Synodical Conference.  So it is no wonder that he makes his assertion of "no difficulties for Lutherans" because he would have Lutherans believe and follow him, as a high scholar, rather than to "bow or kneel before… words" as Luther instructs his hearers to do.

No, neither Dr. James Voelz nor his LC-MS are worthy to be listened to in this matter.  I will listen to the Reformers, I will listen to the Lutheran Confessions.  I will only listen to those who "believe, teach, and confess" the Divinity of Holy Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura): 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
= = = = = = =  After the break below, read Paul E. Kretzmann's Commentary on this matter:  = = = = = = =

God's change of heart-1: Pieper & God vindicated by J.T. Mueller

[2025: updated several links]

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself...  2 Cor. 5:19

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

In a previous blog post about 2 years ago, I brought up a quote from Franz Pieper to refute those who would begin to call into question God's serious will that all might be saved (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, pg 346) [2025-06-20: link updated]:

2 Cor. 5:19 furnishes additional proof that by the objective reconciliation which Christ has effected a change of heart took place, not in men, but in God.

John Theodore Mueller
1885–1967
(from 1967 CTM, pg 497)

Before December 1939 (when Theo. Graebner gave birth to today's LC-MS, the Graebner Synod), but after 1931 (when Franz Pieper died), there were still voices in the old Missouri that had not bowed down to the forces against it.  One of the better examples of this came from the pen of John Theodore Mueller (JTM) in the pages of the journal Concordia Theological Monthly, December 1934.  What was it that compelled Prof. Mueller to put the pen in hand?  It was because he saw that the grace of God, the grace that Franz Pieper proclaimed and defended all his life, was being questioned.  But questioned by whom?  Read on...

     So what is the fuss all about?  In Pieper's original German language Christliche Dogmatik, Bande II, it says (pgs 409-410):

Daß es sich bei der Versöhnung der Welt, die durch Christum geschehen ist, um eine Gesinnungsänderung nicht auf seiten der Menschen, sondern auf seiten Gottes handelt, ist ja auch ausdrücklich 2 Kor. 5, 19 gesagt, wo das κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαντω näher bestimmt wird durch μη λογιζόμένος αυτόις τά παραπτώματα αυτών. (Emphasis from original)

The above original German of Pieper can be translated (largely by Google Translate) thus:

That this order is not a change of heart [or change of mind] on the part of men, but on God's part in the reconciliation of the world, which is done through Christ, is indeed expressly told in 2 Cor. 5:19 where the κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαντω is qualified by μη λογιζόμένος αυτόις τά παραπτώματα αυτών.

For those who don't have a Greek New Testament handy (like me), Pieper is identifying the exact Greek words in the original Bible language.  But it doesn't really matter as even my KJV translates this well enough.  The English translation of Engelder/Mueller/Albrecht dispensed with the original Greek text and published this translation of Pieper's German (my bolding):

2 Cor. 5:19 furnishes additional proof that by the objective recon­ciliation which Christ has effected a change of heart took place, not in men, but in God. "Reconciling the world unto Himself" is defined as "not imputing their trespasses unto them." (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 2, pg 346)

Do you get the idea?  It has to do with the question of "What Is Christianity?", namely,

God is already reconciled to the whole world!

Now is it clear?  God has spoken...  and this message was hammered home to the students of Concordia Seminary by its President Franz Pieper throughout his lifetime, until the day he died in 1931.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

God's Change of Heart in Christ's Work of Reconciliation

But who would try to distort and crush the Greatest News the world will ever receive?  Prof. Mueller will give us details of Pieper's pure proclamation and how it was being questioned and by whom... in 1934.  To the right is the heading of how it was published..  Translated, the essay title reads:

God's Change of Heart in Christ's Work of Reconciliation

I am including a link to a scanned copy PDF of this essay (since it is not publicly available) -->  here . [2018-06-03: this is available from CTS-FW here]

A German text transcription document is available -->  here .

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I do not put Prof. Mueller in my top tier of theologians from the old (German) Missouri Synod.  Mueller was among the Concordia Seminary professors who attended non-Lutheran universities for theological degrees, earning a Th.D. from Xenia Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian institution.  He also went to a Reformed book publisher (Zondervan, 1954) to present his translation of Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.  This seems strange to me as he was one of the stronger members of the faculty to attempt to maintain the pure Gospel.  But it may also explain why Mueller did not follow P.E. Kretzmann in leaving the LC-MS while Theodore Graebner was spearheading its demise.  At times Hermann Otten (of Christian News) will write about Mueller, enjoying the fact that he received support from Mueller.  But it is difficult to get much of a spiritual picture from Otten.  Nonetheless, Prof. Mueller is to be highly commended for his

1. strong stand in this current essay on God's Change of Heart
2. abbreviated 1-volume Christian Dogmatics book based on Pieper's 3-volume set (download here)
3. assistance in producing the full English translation of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics (4-vol. set)
4. translation of some of Walther's works

So now in Part 2, I begin presenting the English translation of one of the best essays every published in the LC-MS after the death of Franz Pieper – in December, 1934.  This will lead into some unexpected territory... and a discussion concerning another member of the old Synodical Conference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Table of Contents:
Part 1 - Introduction: Pieper & God vindicated by J.T. Mueller
Part 2 - Pages 897-898: Spiritual life or death (the Christian faith stands or falls)
Part 3 - Pages 899-900: criticism inside Synod?; German theology; "ponderous Pieper"?
Part 4 - Pgs 901-902: Pieper's hammer falls–"New relationship" or God's action; anthropopathy; problem?
    Excursus: Luther/Pieper: Unbelievers ⇒ Hell (on Jn 1:29; or, "get what he has coming to him")
Part 5 - Pgs 903-904: Pieper in Luther's steps (but not today's LC-MS)
Part 6a - Pgs 905-906: But enough, just biblical truth; Lutheran hymns tell story
Part 6b - WELS opposes? (Curia essay)
Part 6c - WELS opposes? Adolf Hoenecke? (Curia essay)
Part 6d - WELS opposes? Siegbert Becker? (Curia essay)
Part 6e - WELS opposes? John P. Meyer? ... a matter of spiritual life or death
Part 6f - WELS opposes? Not all did...
Part 6g - WELS opposes? Curia's fall... (on your deathbed)

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

     This Part 8 continues from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1) presenting my (BTL) translation of Prof. Pardieck's Lehre und Wehre article in 1914 on Luther's final translation of Genesis 4:1.  Luther's translation is virtually unknown in today's world because it has been corrupted.  Why?  Read on...
     We continue to meet with a host of lesser known theologians of the past in this portion: Amana [or Amama?], Pareus, Tiele, Hofmann, Tuch, Gunkel, Rabbi Solomon Ben Melech (or Aben Melech), Rabbi Jarchi [or Rashi], Onkelos, etc., they all had something to say on the grammar of Gen. 4:1, and most were confused on its meaning.  But as you read Pardieck's compilation, he glues it all together from the basis of the true meaning of this passage, what the words actually say.
     I beg the reader's pardon in portions of this translation for its roughness.  I am sure others could do the job much better, especially for those with Hebrew expertise.  But the content of this essay is too important to overlook...  it has to do with strengthening my faith... and nothing is more important.

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

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

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

On Luther's Translation of Genesis 4:1

[by Prof. Eduard Pardieck] 

[Page 406]  (Conclusion.)

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 408]

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

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

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

2.   and but are not quite the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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