CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 51. Number I JANUARY 1987 Contemporary Christian Music: An Evaluation ... . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . e m Preus 1 Parables of Atonement and Assurance: Matthew 13:4446 ........................... Jeffrey A. Gibbs 19 The Scriptural Principles of Fellowship.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T o t h y D. Knapp 45 Book Reviews .... ....... . .. .... .. .. . ...... . .... . ...... . ..... .. . . ..... . .... 53 Indices to Volume 50 (1986) Author Index.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 Title Index. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Scripture Index.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Subject Index. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..77 Book Reviews THE LORD'S SUPPER IN THE THEOLOGY OF MARTIN CHEMIWZ. By Bjarne W. Teigen. Brewskr, Massachusetts: Triuity Lutheran Press. 1986.226 pages. -back, $16.95. Martin Chernnitz (1522-1586) was unqestionably the ablest and most prolific theologian of the Lutheran church in the generation afta Luther, although serving, not as a professor of theology, but as a very knowledgeable pastor and supervisor of the Brunswick territorial church. One of his earkt literary productions was a Gutadten, or theological opinion, in the Hardenberg case. Chemitz showed convincingly how Albert Hardenberg of Bremen had deviated from the Augsburg Confgsion's Tenth Article on the Lord's Supper toward a Reformed view. Eventdy Chemnitz expanded this opinion into a book, Lk C h m &mini, now available in English translation as 7be Lead's Supger (transkted by JA.0. Prerrs, Concordia Publishiug House,1979). Channitz's &tical evahration of Trent's teaching and decrees, his monumental Examination of the C o d of Trent (translated by Fred Krama, Concordia Publishing House), contains a lengthy section of more than 300 pages in Part I1 on the Sacrament of the Altar. Channitz's Enchiidion, translated into English by Luther P d o t OMinishy, Word, and a n d t , Concordia Publishing House, 1981), also includes pertinent m a t d on the Sacrament. Bjarne Teigen's work is a scholarly attempt at delineating Chemnitz's thought on the Supper chiefly from the above sources, but including also references to the Fonnuk of Cbmmd, of which Chwnitz was a primary author, and to his dogmatics, Laci l71ml~ci, published afta his death. Teigen has due respect for the brilliant apology of the real preme which the "Second Martin" fashioned. In an absolutely invincible manner Chemnitz establishes the truth that in the Supper Christ gives us His true, real, substantial body and blood, in a manner tramending human capacity to explain, Christ's seal of forgiveness, His sacred pledge, His last will and testament which no man on or dare rescind or alter, as little as the win of a testator may be d u g e d willy-nilly by his heirs. Teigen also shows how C" " in Lutha- like manna attests the close link that a proper understauding of the personal union of natures in Christ has with the article on the Lord's Supper, a point so indelibly etched by the FomuL? of G m r d in Articles VII and VIII. A person's teaching on the Lord's Supper will ultimately be no sounder or truer to Scripture than his eaching on the person of Christ, and vice versa. In view of Teigen's otherwise conscientious work it is, therefore, somewhat of a puzzle and a disappointment to fmd him driving one point home again and again with almost insular zeal, namely that " M t z is not afraid to recognize that the consecration effeds the Real PreseMe and that, because of this, a m i r a a h s change haE taken phce." (p. 53) This intense focus repeats itrjelf as the main theme of Teigen's argument, so much so that it unbalanca and makes unrealiable what is othmvke a scholarly piece of work. He is intent on proving that &-Walther, Schmid, Hoenecke, Pieper, and the seventeenthcentury dogmaticians whom they followed, 54 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Hunnius, Quenstedt, Gzrhard, Hollaz, etc., were m n g in not saying that, when the minister repeats the verba, then the real presence is e f f d (184). Teigen in essencechargesthgetheologianswithdeficiency.Yettheyalltracetheempowering efficacy of the Saa;Ment to the instituting word of Chrisr at the first Supper and link together the consecration, dishibution, and reoeption to the God-intended and Godcommanded use or action of the Supper, faithful thus to the FormuLa of Con- cod, which states that "the true and ahighty words of Jesus Christ which He spake at the first instmmon were efficacious not ody at the first Supper, but they endure, are valid, operate, and are stin efficacious ... by virtue of the fm tio on"' (FC W: 75). Accordingly, from Luther forward theologians in the Lutheran church have pointed to Christ's empowaing command and promise at the first Supper, emplmkingthat everythingChristcommandedisto bedonewhenthis Sacrament is kept in His manory: reverent repetition of the words of awsecration, setting apart the simple bread and wine for this special purpose, and also dishibution of the elements for the communicants' reccpbn. Lutheran theologians have regulariy I.efrainedfromtryingtode&natethe ''m0mem"of therealpresax. They resist tyingitmexlytotheactof theministgwhorepeatsthewordsof institution, hark- ing back rather to Christ's own ordaining of this holy Supper. Therefore, not only the repetition of the words is of the essence but also the distribution and reception of the elenents are amthtbg parts of the Savior's graEious gift (cf. FC W: 83.84). It is regrettable that Teigen feels called on to ride his hobby-horse on "cowara- tionism" to the point where he labels those who & not follow his "high" view of the d e of comeemtion as Melanchxiam, or even worse as holding to Refonned thinking with a "functional doctrine" on the Lord's Supper (p. 178). One thing leads to the next as Teigei~ eventdly also speaks a word for veneration of the elements that have been comeaakd, as also for the need to consume aU the e%nents (the dipbe) cmsamkd at a givPn savioe (pp. 120, 139). In so speakhg he has distanced himself, however consdentiously he speaks in behalf of a more p i o u s ~ i n t h e L u t h e r a n c h u r c h , f k o m v h t d l y a ~ ~ a n d l o y a l t e a r h e r s from Luther onwards. In fad, what becomes most disturbing is Teigen's mustering of Luther along with Chemnitz for defense of his reasoning. Having worked with both Martins for some years now, I must say that the conclusions drawn by Teigen do not accurately refled what Luther and Chemnitz taught commhg the Supper. We can be sure of Christ's body and blood in the Saaament because "Christ has established the validity of all these activities upon His word," says Luther, "for Christnowhereco~thathisbodyshouldcomeintobeingoutofmyword," not by mere repetition of the Saviour's words as in an incantation (LW 37,18@190). One would like to recommend this book to stnkh the minds of thoughtful peo- ple on the important article of Chrisr's Supper. However, it must be stated that it is a shnted stance and a mistaken one; it does the very thing, uoforhmbdy, which the author himself accuses his Lutheran forebears of doing, that is, of fitting "the material under consideration into previously construded pam@m" (p. 185). E.F. Klug Book Reviews 55 FUNDAMENTAL GREEK GRAMMAR. By James W. Voelz. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986. 330 pages. $15.95. This New Testament Greek grammar is a timely publication. The author acknowledges in the preface that many students in our time are acquainted only with English and, in many cases, acquainted with very little English at that. This ,ggxammar is written very carefully, taking the student step by step, leaving very little to the imagination. Dr. Voelz is a capable Greek scfidar, aud he has taught beginn@ Greek for more than a decade. It is quite apparent from this book that Dr. Voelz has sifted through much mataial and had done much thinking about the subject matter. ' l lwe is no unnecessary verbiage. The word "fundamental" is found in the title of this book. The book is that, but it is more. Not many beginning Greek grammars carry the student far enough into the hnguage so that he can begin reading the dassics or the New Testament without the help of an intermediate grammar. Wn this book has enough detail and ~enoughsyntaxsothatthestudentcanbeginsuchw&thoughhewinneed the help of an intermediate grammar. What intaests this reviewer the most is the Greek-teEnglish exercises found at the end of every lesson, beginning with lesson 4. Very often such exercises are eitha too diffiicult or dull. Some grammars take their examples from actual Greek litgature. If these examples are not s i m ~ ~ e d , they are very often too difficult for the beginning student. If the examples are composed by the author to fa preckly the points which he is making, there is the danger that these examples may be insipjd. It appears to this reviewer that Dr. Voek had worked hard and long on these exerdses to maintain the interest of the student. Even the teacher who no longer teaches beginning Greek can profit from this book. New Testament exegetes may not want to admit it but, after teaching no beginning Greek for a W, many of the details of morphology and syntax become hazy in their minds. Let such a teacher read through this book to sharpen his knowledge and to relive the thrills which he b c e d while teaching beginning Greek. For wample, on page 18 Dr. Voelz states: "- amvity is mast common in verbs concerning personal care and grooming." Rarely are we given this i n f o r m a t i o n . O n ~ 3 2 a n d 8 3 t h e ~ c l i s t i n g u i s h e s ~ p h r a s e s w h i c h are ad- and those which are adverbial. Most grammars, not even advanced ones, give us this necessary i n f o d o n . Chapter 32 (pages 211 to 220) is very informative. Not only are we given details a>ncerning the uhima accent of f i e strong aorist verbs but also such syntadical knowledge as is found at the bottom of page 215 and at the top of page 216. In addition to what most grammars tell us we are tddthat theprgentimperativeistheabmxmaltense; and, that it isused for demands that signal action to commence. Very likely few teachax of Gaeek know these details. Here and there there are a few misspelling and a few incorrect Greek accents. But we shall not clutter this review with such matters. By this time Dr. Voelz is surely aware of them. We wish Dr. Voelz had said more about the genitive and 56 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY dative cases of page 24. Basically the genitive case shows more than possession. A beginning grammar ought mention immediately that the Greek genitive basically denotes possession or relationship. Likewise, perhaps it would be best to say that the dative states to or for whom something is done, thus, immediately introducing the student to the socalled dative of advantage or disadvantage. We admit that uses other than the indirect object are delineated on page 254, but the genitive of ~nshipisco~~absadonpage253.~chaptamowditionalsentencg (number 39, pages 266 to 271) contains a few bugs. Dr. Voelz writes: "A a p a r y to fact conditional sentemx imagines apambiktythat is d e f w inposibk.." Instead of "possibility" he surely means "situation." On the next page (267) he fails to inform the student that in New Testament Greek the word an is sometimes dropped in contrary to fact conditions and that the imperfect and aorist tenses are not so sharply dhhgu+hed as in Classical Greek. On page 268 he uses the term "sea,* tense" without infonning the student as to the meaning of this term. But these criticisms are details which will surely be corrected in subsequent editions of this grammar. We truly recommend this grammar to all teachers of New Testament Greek. The book is well written and interesting. The printing job is very appealing. The price of the book is quite reawnable. Harold H. Buls FREEDOM AND OBLIGATION: A STUDY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. By C.K. Barrett. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985. 120 pages. "A Christian man is the most free lord of all and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all and subject to everyone." This statanent by Luther in 1520 expressg well the paradoxical nature of freedom and obligation which fonns the theme of Gabtians and the focus of this examination of that epistle. The author's purpose is to @ore the relationship between history, theology, and ethics in Galatians in order that Paul's view of the paradoxical nature of freedom and obligation in Christian life be clearly articulated. C.K. Barrett, a renowned New Testament scholar with n u m m major litaary m n t r i i n s made during his tenure at the University of Durham, began this analysis of Galatians in the Sanderson Lectures presented to the United F d t y of Theology in Melbourne, Australia, in 1983. Thus, the format of this book is not that of a verse-by-verse commentary. While this study does follow the natural sequence of Galatians and does involve some detailed exegesis, Barrett gives attention to the broader historical situation and the theological method Paul uses to address it. Barrett's treatment is carefully organized and unashamedly Christocentric. With an engaging style he brkgs alive the controversial snuggle Paul faced, danonstrating the interpenetration of history and theology by often offering the reader probable arguments of the Judaizers that Paul seeks to refute. Secondly, Barrett expounds Paul's theology of freedom, stating that the law "was added to turn man's revolt against God into speifk acts of transgression ... to make sin everywhere observable" Book Reviews 57 and that rightmumess is fun-tally forensic, beginning as "God's @ of a proper relationship with himself' (pp. 33-34; 42). The author centers his discussion of freedom on Paul's passionate obsgsion with solus Clhnkus; eveverythi depends upon God's grace visible in the "placarding" of Christ crucified. Lastly, the ethics of obligation in Galatians are "Freedom is freedom to die with Christ by faith and is inseparable from the obligation to live the life of love that Christ iives within the believer" (p. 89). In h@lighting the egocentricity of the Ju-, Barrett effectively demonstrates the enduring signif~cance and application of this letter. As much as Barrett lets Paul speak, he does not "get into his skin" as Luther did. The result is that law and Gospel, as well as justification and sanctification, are at times merged instead of clearly distinguished (e.g., justification is viewed as a ''proms," p. 65; Christian ethics rests upon "an absolute obligation," p. 71). Otller concerns that this study raises center around Barrett's treatment of Luke's method of composition in Acts. In his opinion Luke fails to deal with division in the early church (cf. the epilogue: "Apostles in Council and Conflict"). This is not the type of cpkk-reference book meant for a homileticaI study; it is a penetrating, thought-pmvoking examination of Galatians as a whole that is designed to stimulate the student who is already versed in its content. Charles A. Gischen Traverse City, Michigan BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE. By Raymond E. Brown. Mahway, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1985. 176 pages. Cloth, $8.95; paper, $5.95. This brief work by a famous Roman Catholic scholar of the New Testament is an important study of a mast important topic, even more important for Lutherans than for Roman Catholics, at least in the implications for the two communions. The work is really meant for the family and is at bottom a defense of historical exegesis of the Bible against those Catholics who are, to put it mildly, unhappy with aregetical results. Brown is very honest in his study and conceals nothing of the plain facts. He has a section in which he dixusses "Dmtrines about which the Saiptures are V i Silent" and the doctrk mentioned are the continued virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, and the assumption. Furthermore, he holds "it would be unwise to interpret the institution of baptism by Christ to mean that in his lifetime Jesus s ~ ~ c a l l y commanded the practice," and he seems to side with those critics who regard the eucharistic directive ("Do this in remembrance of Me!'') "as a later liturgical specification similar to the baptismal directive" (pp. 45.46). On the next page he admits that "we have virtually no information in NT times about who this person (i.e., the one who presided at the eucharist) was or how the person was designated to do this." It is dear, or if not it should be, that these facts cause no real problem for Roman Cathdics; "if by logic, or sheer historical reasoning, or traceable eyewitness tradition, the imitable necessity of many dogmas cannot be shown from the NT data, we 58 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY we must then mognk that the guarantee about what must be believed and p.odaimedrestswiththeSpiritw~intheChurchandspeakingthroughits teacks" (pp. B51). The situation for Lutkrans is far different for we have Holy Writ as our authority and not Holy Church. Thus doubts as to the historicity of h tp tu re and its tru& ttuoughwt have immediate and severe repenmsions for the doctrine we confess. Onedoes,~,wondawhelherRornanCatbdicscanreallybesatisfiedwith some of the positions taken by Brown. I know that, if I were a Roman Catholic, I should think a penon guilty of mnethbg like prwarication or sophistry who could argue as foIlows (p. 48): ... the h&ution of prk&ood by Christ would have to be unchstood as a c o m p ~ historical prooess that began at the Last Supper ... In my j&ment, such a view in no way weakens the mlidity of the dogma of Trent (DBS 1752) that "Christ" estabbskd the @es as priests with the words "Do this in comxmmorahn of me." It simply demands nuance. !Gmkly, in an hkbridy written narrative, can one simply invoke the decision 0 f t h e R o m a n ~ ~ " t h a t ~ i n s p i r a t i o n b e ~ w i t h ~ ' (p. 36)? What sort of inspiration of historically, conceived texts is it which gives u p t h e ~ o f t h e t e x t s ? I haw another aiticism. 'Ihere is no denying that it is a right procedure to seek the historical sauation and original meaning of the texts. But I wonder whetha Brorm is critical enough, not of the texts, but of the method of historical criticism that has become the common thing. I beliew that much of the argumentation used toestaMshbig&hmsinformcriticismandredacrioncaiticism,as4asindivichral ju&m&s conoerning this or that text and its provenance and so on, is of such a kind that, if applied to a aiminal case, it would simply be thrown out of court as wasting the court's time. I look for more of the attitude of Joseph A. Fitzmya, to whom this work is dedicated on the ' d n of his *-fifth birthday. Frtpoyez is quoted in an essay of AIber C. Outler (appearing in Jesus aod Man's Hope, Ill, p. 53) as sayingconcerningthe Synoptic Problem that "tbeproblemispraccicany insoluble." But Brown is always stimulating and everything he writes cksmes Henry P. Hamann JESUS. SON OF MAN: A Fresh Examhim of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels. 9. Bamabas Iindars. Grand Rapids: W.B. Emham Pubkhg Company, 1983. 244 pages. 'Zhisbookclaimstobe "anaaempttobreakthedeadlodcinthedebateconcaniog the !hn of Man in the New Testament" (p. viii. The point of contention is the titularvaflls~11~useofthe"SonofMan"~~oninthegospels.~ Book Reviews 59 debate was especially fueled in 1%5 by Geza Vermes who asserted that the Aramaic bamar6 or bar naFha was not a title in Judaism, nor was it used as such by Jesus; rather, it was used as a non-messianic human self&sigmtion to express his identification with the sons of men (i.e., first-person circumlocution in place of "I" or an idiom meaning "a man"). Furthermore, any titular "Son of Man" urage in the gospels was identifd as a post-Easter meation. Such a position has been supported more recently by M. Casey in his Son of Man: l3e Interpretahbn and ~~ of Dinid 7 (London, 1979). Jews, Son of Man follows in the track of Vermes and Cawy by expanding their research into a detailed study of the sayings traditions in the gospels. B a r n a b a s L ~ i s a n i n ~ ~ r e s p e d e d a u t h o r a n d t h e R y l a n d E P r o f e s s o r of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at Man- University. His purpose in this examination is threefold. His primary goal is to demonsbate that the "Son of Man" expression is not a title in "authentic" Jesus sayings. Secondly, Lindars seeks to use this fuldings regarding "authentic" Jesus sayings to give the reader a sketch of the undastanding Jesus had of His own mission. Thirdly, the author also seeks to use his f%dings to better amcubte the special Christological undemtadbgs that each evaogelist "colleded or edited" into his gospel. Two major problems are present in this study. The first involves the pre- suppositions upon which Lindars b W . that the Aramaic bamash or bar narha cannot be a title and that "Son of Man" was not a title in Judaism at the time of Jesus. While tbe bask ling&& meaning of txar naEha is &ady "man" or "human being," we must not condude that "man" is afl it can mean. How a phrase fimctions inaparticularconfextaffectswhatitmeans. It is evident fromtbeusageof Daniel 7 in 1 Enoch 37-71 that such a linguistic form saved an "identity" function for an individual eschtologkal figure. Tbk necessitates that we maintain the possibility that, in certain contexts, the Aramaic comhuct could carry these loaded Danieiic and Enochk associations and thaefore have a titular "identi@" function. It appears that the Septuagint form of Daniel 7:13 has validity as a rendering with this force. Furtheimore, since the 1977-78 SNTS Pxudepigapha Seminars on the Books of Enoch a schobdy cmxmus has been reached that I Enoch 37-71, with its numaous "Son of Man" refaences, is certainly Jewish and pre-A.D. 70. nus, Lindars' main pre+qpos&ns can be considered inaccurate. The second major problem with this study is the critical methodology Lindars employs in his examination of the gospels. He subwvely concludes that all other "Sonof Man" sayingsapart fromtbenineinwhichheisabktodeted theunddyhg har narha idiom ("a man" instead of "Son of Man") must "be regarded as huthentic" (p. 85). He posits the rest to the creative minds of the evangelists and Q. L i i is another scholar who separates the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith and then attwpts to doamEent the transition. Tbk book is a detailed technical pmemtation written for special& in Jesus or gmpd research. Outride of perusal by such specialists, this study, in the opinion of this reviewer is not worth much attmtion. Charles A. G k h e n Traverse City, Michigan 60 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. By Everett F. Harrison. Grand Rapids: W.B. EeKimans Publishing Company, 1985. 251 pages. While some biblical scholars hesitate to label little, if any, of the New Testament record as "history," Everett Hanison is wmfortable grouping all of the New Testament writings into two general divisions: "Gospel History" and "Apostolic History." 'This work attempts to be a comprehemive survey of the Mer; it overviews the life and work of the early Christian church as depicted in Ads and the Epistles. Everett F. Hanison is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary and author of Introdubron to the NAV Testament. Rather than follow a typical chronological sequence in this study, Hanison structures his examination topically. His primary topical focus is the "external history" and "internal development" of the apostolic church, but also included are chapters on the bacirgroundoftheapostolicage,thebd*ofActs,anda-cfrapter which reviews what is known about the individual churches mentioned in the New Testament. 'Ihe a@,& is intended for the student, yet its content is mdly acasiile to the intmsted layperson. This book can best be described as an average conservative treatment of a very broad subject. Hanison touches on so much that very few aspects of his psmtation are deep. For example, his introduction on political, cultural, and religious background is informative, but it lacks detail and further documentation is not available in the endnotes (i.e., the source of population estimates and information on major personages or cults). Hanison's Reformed theology influences his interpretation in some important areas of dochine and praaice: d v i n g "Christ into one's heart" leads to creedal confession (p. 118); baptism is a "a rite by which those who have put their faith in Christ are induded into the church" (p. 122); baptmn is a symbol (b. 130); "water baptism" is separate from "spirit baptism" @p. 44. 126127); early Christian worship had vitality since "fonnalism had not yet laid its restraining, deadening hand upon the senice" (p. 135); the Lord's Supper was a memorial of Christ @. 140); the early Christian's daily activities were "lifted to a higher plane because they lived 'wholly in the Lord' " @. 149). Several positive aspects of Hanison's work should not be ignored. He p m t s a survey of criticism on Acts and positions himself against schokrs like F.C. Baur, Martin D i i , Hans Conzelmann, and others by upholding the historical value of Ads. He insightfully supports his position with mated from Greek historiography (Thucydides), as well as arguing from the strong influence which Hebrew historiography had on Luke and the close correspondence between the speeches of Acts and the content of apostolic letters (i.e.. Peter's speeches and his letters). His explanations of the Jewish background of Pentecost and Judaism's influence on Christian worship show interpretative skill. While this book is basically sound, it lacks the quality that calls for endorsement. Charles A. Gieschen Traverse City, Michigan Book Reviews 61 ISAIAH 1-33. Word Bible Commentary, Volume 24. By John D.W. Watts. Waco, Texas: Word, 1985. lvii and 449 pages. Cloth, $24.95. The book of Isaiah as "dramatic vision" is the reading proposed by John D.W. Watts in this latest addition to the Word Bible Commentary series. Specifically, Watts would have us see the book as a whole, the product of editors working m Judah around 435 B.C. with materials which had been assanbled over the &, beginningwiththehistOrical,~centuryrYIsaiah.Wattswntwdsthatthese fifthcentury editors organized their work in a series of ten "acts," plus an introduction and epilogue, with one act per generation from Isaiah's time to their own. The purpose of their Iabor (and of the f d e d book) was to convince their contemporaries that, beginning in the eighth century, God had been instituting a new role for His chosen people: no longer were they to dream of king and empire; they were still to be His mission to the nations (as they had been since Abraham), but without high political status or even i n d e p e n k . Watts, who serves both as prof= of Old Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in LouisviIle and as editor for the Old Testament volumes in the Word series, has organized his discussion of each periwpe much in the style of the Biblisckr Kommentac Altes Testament series (and, indeed, he acknowledges a heavy debt to Hans Wildberger's BKAT entry on Isaiah). Each seaion begins with bibliography, followed by a fresh translation of the text (in the manner of the Anchor Bale series), notes on text critical matters, comments on the "Form/Structure/ Sdhg" of the passage as a whole, wmment on individual words and phrases, and an aq>lanation setting the given passage in the o v d contat (as Watts sees it) of the book. (Thus, in contrast to the BKAT "Ziel" section, there is no attempt as such at modem application, except in some ex- on the history of interpretation.) Such a thoroughgoing rereading of Isaiah desmes a more serious response than is posnble in a brief review. Nevertheks, some observations are v i l e . The Word series seeks to be of use to a wide range of "consumers": "the fledgling student, the working minister as well as to w k g u e s in the guild of professional scholars and teachers" @ditorial Preface). However, much as is the case with Dahood's Anchor Bale commentaries on the Psalms, the reading of the book proposed in this commentary hangs so heavily on a new undastanding of a multitude of technical details that it is hard to see how many outside of the "guild" wiIl be able to benefit greatly. As to the merits of the argumenf itself, Watts' effort to give p r e h c e to the fmal form of the text is certainIy worthy of note, however much it may derive from the "new litaary dkism" of the Bible, rather than more traditional w ~ z r n s of theology. Nevertheless, although he prescinds from discussion of earlier layers or editions of the text, one cannot avoid the impression that he has not entirely avoided the risks of hypothetical, historical reconstruction. His dating of the finished book of Isaiah places it in the midst of a period of Judah's history of which all must admit we know precious little. His speculations regarding the parties and per- spectives competing in this period might be considered on their own m&, were 62 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY this a work on postexilic history, but to build on them an interpretation of a work which makes no explicit claims to be from that time is a precarious exercise, indeed. He himself admits somwhat the subjdivity of his reading of the text, as he conceded that the assignment of speaking parts in the ostensible "dramatic vision" is arguable and that, in fact, we lack concrete evidence of dramatic tradition in Israel (thanks, he claims, to the "rigid imposition of puritanlike restrictions" by Ezra [p. xxiv]). O r h e r c o n c e m s w i t h t h e w o r k i n d u d e i r s ~ n t o ~ t i o u s ~ n s of Israelite history, such as the suggestion that Isaiah's Ahaz was not a panicked monarch who called in the monster from the east to relieve the Syro-Ephraimite pressure, only to see the monster fairly swallow him as well @. 93). Most serious of all, however, is the suspicion that Watts has been caught "between two stools" of a historical and a literary reading. By reading the text wholktically, yet giving such short shrift to its canonical setting at the time of the prophet Isaiah, Watts runs a great risk of a heavily idiosyncratic reading which will say little to those who cannot accept his thwry. Such extraordinary exertions of energy and scholarship as are here in evidence are certainly not for naught, but their value will all too often have to be mined. George C. Heider Seward, Nebraska RESPONSIBLE FAITH: CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF I W E N T m CENTURY QUESTIONS. By Hans Schwarz. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986. 448 pages. Hans Schwarz offers this work as an exercise in "thwlogical reflections." As such he warns the reader not to expect a comprehensive dogmatics textbook. And, indeed, the reader will undoubtedly be disappointed if this warning is not heeded. Rather, one is amwaged to expect thoughtful refledon on asmiom and chknges, both historical and contemporary, which arise as one encounters the principal dogmatic loci of the Christian faith. Schwarz seeks to p m t the Christian faith in an apologetic mode. Yet this book decidedly is not an "apologetics" in either the historical or "contemporaryevangelid" sense. In fact, the author exhibits a misinformed understanding of early church apologetics when he suggests that such theological writings arose because ''Christians felt a need to inform the authorities, above all, the emperor, that their new faith contained nothing detrimental to the st*, to clear thought, or to desirable mods" @. 19). Rather, Schwarz' work stands as a contemporary reflection of the apologetic approach of Schleiermacher. For the author, the "cultured despisers" to which he appeals are those embued with the scientif~c and philosophical m e s of the late twentieth century, and it is evident that he wishes to convince such readers that in his theological reflection there is nothing detrimental to the state, to clear thought, or to desirable morals. Schwarz also intends this work to be a contribution toward a greater degree of ecumenism between Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed faiths. Thus, traditionally knotty issues Book Reviews 63 i n c k m k ~ , soteridogy, , the means of grace, and eschatdogy are mmistently admessed with geoaous paise for those who seek to reframe Conies- siooal positions so as to include praiously rejected anti tkbl positions. Yet, the a u t h o r d O g n o t ~ e t f o r t h h i s ~ w n a , n P i ~ t o t h e e a u w n i c a l m o v ~ w i t h the typical methodology of ' ' " , in which these are proposed (a) with ter- minological vagua~ss and (b) without mmsponding antitheses. Rather, he con- sistently employs a via oegariva mechoddogy. Toempbyassertionbynegationormt&eseswithoutcorrespondingthggi~ not new. Schwarz's methoddogy has a noble pedigree, inciudiog Plate, Plotinus. M a i m o n i d e s , ~ K a n t . ~ a n d ~ m t t o m e n t i o n t h e & h i s t o r y of "Fastem" thought. Yet Schwarz's method does not exhi i a Tillichian philosophical preoccupafion. Instead, assuming that each art& of Ckistkm faith is bigger than language is capable of handling, his approach is to negate the various linguistic fonnulatjons which history has given to the art& of faith under discus- sion. While this methodology proves frustrating to t h e (this miewer induded) whowouldbeintaestedinImowi4&forexampk,~SchwanachgnyQg~ about sin, or God's wrath, or the real presem~, or eternal damnation, nevertheless S c h w a n ' s ~ t o ~ ~ f ~ o f d o c t r i n e f o r c e ~ r e a d a to engage m a reassessment of his own convictiolrs. ForthewnfessionalLutkan,Schwarz'swhdgaleaccepqanceoftheasnrred resub of higher criticism will be disturbing, as will his w ~ s s to concede to the Wurcahn between the historical J e s s and the Christ of Christian pradama- tion, though he assats that by "Christian con-' both "fom a u d y of peason" (p. aOT). Moreover, Schwarzassumesthat '"thedogyistbearplidt attempt to raise intoconsciousness what wearedoing" @. 38). overagaiDStaConf~Luthem view that theology is the explicit attempt to raise into consfiousress who we are in~.Nevertheh,onceitslimitatiorrciwererecognized,thisrevieWerfound the book to be an enriching ewwnter with some fresh exegebl insights and some provocative dogmatic rfrallengg. Seen m this light, Reqmmibk I:&: Ckktku Zlmhgyin tbeL&ht of Tw-Qwdins is a cakdyst for one's own thedogical-,andthmtokWdesireisfadtfieologicalstimul;t Robat W. schaiblq. Fort Wayne, Indiana ABORTION: POLlTlCS, MOWLHY, AND THE CONSITlWlON. By Stephan UKrason.Lanham,Maryland.UniwrsayPreEEofAmerica,1W.707pages.F'apK, $29.00. The cwent legal status of abortion m the United States rreates many proMems fortheL~parishpasto~.Notthe~oftheseisthechal lengeofconfron- ting the pditical implications of an admhdly moral issue. Trained to be sensitive CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY to the distortions of both message and ministry which are inhaau in the "Social Gospel." the pastor finds himself in danger of being impaled on his own bayonet should he venture to adopt a prophefic stance ova against the legalized immorality of abortionademand. The relationship of the Word of God to the political in- stitution is at stake here. What is the church's role in admessing pem5ved moral issues within the political arena? What moral and theological distinctions exist, if any, between the United Methodist Church's end-ent of a U.S. Presidential candidate in 1%4 and the Lutheran Church - Mkmuri Synod's endorsement of a ''pro-life" stance now? In discerning the proper rde of the church in sodaknoral issues the confessional Lutheran church stands alone. Both the Roman Church, on the one hand, and the Protestant churches, on the other, see as the goal of the church's ministry the changing of human behavior. Luthaanisn dog not share with these other communions a selfconcept of the church as the "IIIoral- of the nation." Rather, the conf- Luthm c b d approarbg social modity from the paspective of Luther's "Two Kingdoms," amording to which we unders- tand that God rules in the social order (the kingdom of the left hand) through natuI-al law. It is precisely at this point that Krason offers to the c o n f ~ ~ pastor a valuable resource. Krason, who is both a political scientist and a lawyer, delivers an insightful critique of the two landmark Supreme Count decisions which revolu- tionkdthesocialstandingofabomon,Roev. Wadeandlhv.Wfon.Thereada is guided through the history leading up to these drxkbns (chapter I), the legal logic employed m the written opinions (chapter 2), a penetratiog a@& of the axnt's line of argumentation, especially with reference to the moral phcipbs annimciatd bytheaxnt(chaptgs4and6),andtheimplicatioasoftheoonceptof1~ rights" in constitutional law (chapter 5). llmwghout these chapteas Krason demonstrates that the crucial i sus which the arurt raises are moral m m. 'Zbus, he confirms the reality of the moral challenge which the pastor faoes. In chaptas 7-9theauthorevaluatesthesemoralissuesfromthe~orkofwbatbecalls the "- framework." This point of deparhne is taken because "earh philosophy stresses the importance of political prudemx and neither is founded on religious doctrine, ... [thus providingl the basis for a pditicany reatistic resolution of the question in our religiously pluralistic political soc&y" (pp. 438439). What is particularly helpful about Krason's approach is that it suggests a way to deal with the social-moral isi is of abortion with terms appropriate to the "kingdom of the left hand. " The author concludes his work with two appendices which outline a strategy by which to effect the prosaiption of abortion in the nation. T k e are three basic options by which the current moral status of abortion might be changed: fedaal legislation, a constitutional amendment, or a rev& of opinion by the Supreme Court,~~throughthepr~of~futurevacanciesmtheaxnt.While Senator John P. East, in his forward to this book, suggests the hst option as the most hopeful one, Krason offers the first option as his recommended strategy. Regardless of the approach which one may advocate, the groundwork laid by this extensive work will prove most valuable. Book Reviews 65 Aborhbn: PdihLs, M m , aid the tlre offers confessional Lutheraos an avenue for an effective and thedogicany jllstifiable exercise of their ~~ asCitiZRlswho,bypasonalChrisitanam~,areconcernedaboutthecurrent legal status of abortion. 'Ihe book is ~~ (espedalty for a work which began as a Ph.D. dkxbtion) and thomgh. One win appreciate the extensive index and t h e h e p , f u l f o r m a t o f i n d d e n d i l o t e s , a h h o u g h t h e h d r o f a ~ i s ~ table for a work of this scope. This book is worth the price of twenty-nine d o h to those who desire to make a case for ending what Christian oonrxkne compels ustoregardasimmoralandto.makethatcasemtheamtwtofthe"Kingdom of the left hand." Robat W. sdIaiib2y Fort Wayne, Indiaua THE BATTLE FDR THE TRINlTY. By Donald G. Bloesch. Arm Arbor, Md@n: Servant Publications, 1985. $10.95. Thecurrent debateovertheordinationof women, indusivelanguagetodenote the Trinity, and the reamstmdcm of the symbols of Christian faith form the substance and thrust of this excdent book. The author (a professor of theology at the UnivecGty of Dubuque) is an ewmgekd Reformed theologh well ground- ed~hissubjectmataial.Heisb~~oplxlsedtoanychaogeinthelanguage and imagery of Saipture. He pmposes that the rise of femi&~ theology on lead the church in one of two directions or even both-BaaIism and Gnosticism. He makg a solid case for his contention. In a striking &@er entitled "ParaUels with German Christians," he comparesthe rise of feminist thedogywith the rise of a "German Church" under Nazism. The simihrities are startling, to say the least. T h e a p p e a l t o t h e A m e r i c a n ~ ~ , w i t h i t s e m p h a s i s o n f r e e d o m , autonomy, and d=w. pdkk the philosophy and thedogy of the Gennan church in the thirties. The book is aaxlrateay entitled 'The Battle for the Trinity." It is necesljary reading for parish pastors and profesors alike. George- DIE APOKALYPSE IN ANGERS. EIN MEISTERWERK MIT- TELALTERLICHER TEF'PICHWERKE. By Pierre- Auzas, Cathaine de M a u p , Christian de Maindol, Francis Muel, Antojne de Ruais. Trauslated by Roswitia Beyer. M d Hinna Verlag, 1985. 1% pages. This berudiful publiation presents the late medieval tapestries depidiug the Apodype of John which are displayed at Angers in France, where they attrad s o m e t w o ~ ~ t c l R n i s t s ~ . ' I h e d ~ p r e s e r t t h e ~ 66 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY oftheApocalypseinart,thehistoryoftheAngexstapestries,thecoatsofarms, the prefervation of the tapestries, and the individual xmes. lk Angeas tapeSrk areconsidaedthefhstandthegreatest~~thissubjed.~arebasedon illusmiions similar to medieval iIhuninations. These were of small size, credited to Jean de Bond01 and Jean de Bruges. lk &gex is unknown but may be Robat Poisson, the weaver. Nabs Bataille was the producer, providing the means. lk tapestries are of heroic proportions. lk total length of six long pieces is 130 meters, theheight4.5metas.Whilethe4epiessareamazi&ywenpreservedandrestored after six hundred years, some scenes are mising, and the original length was 130 meters, the height 5.5 meters. The woven subsaiptions have been lost. Duke Louis I of Anjou commissiooed these works m 1375 "to to his pdge." He was a great collector, uedited with owning 3602 artistic items. Little distinction b e t w e e n s a c r e d a n d ~ w a s m a d e m t h e e a r ~ ~ o e . I n 1 3 7 7 a p a ~ of one thousand francs by Louis I is recorded. 'Ihree more long wall hangbgs wae delivered in 1379, each purchased at the same rate. Other tapesbies were made at about the same time, based on the &odypse. Robert Poisson is known to have made some for the Duke of Burgundy. Others were m the possession of the Duke of Bary, a brother of Anjou. lk artistic of the scenes of the Apodype is quite rdi& and literal, following the book chapter by chapter. This is true of e a r k 'p ' .' , such as the Cloisters Apocalypse in New Yo*. It was Duerer who about 1490, a century later, introduced dramatic dynamism. lk authors give a detailed histclry of the handling and restoration of the Angers tapestries, but they do not enter into a discxlssion of the significance of the Apodype in the early mmkaxe. 'Ihat age produced Peharch, Dante, Wydif, and Huss, an of whom dedared the Pope of Rome to be the antichist. According to Hoe von Hoenegg, m his Clxnnmeo- tariuminAp&p&, m a n y m a n ~ w e r e ~ y e d b y t h e R e f o n n a R m c i t s before the Reformation. There was a rising storm against Rome, a great resistance when priestly c e h i was being enforced in Fiance and other lands. It scans desirable, therefore, that a much more thorough study of the popularity of the Apoabpe of John before the Refomation s h o d be made. lk sober mieman- ding of this matter m the Middle Ages is refreshing and heartening. Otto F. St* BEYOND FUNDAMJZNTALISM. By James Barr. Phhilephia: The WesbniostPr Press, 1W. x and 180 pages with a m e r 15 pages devoted to notes. indices, and hints for further reading. Paper, $9.95. This fudxz book by James Barr on Fundammtalism presupposes that the reader knows what fundamentalism is. However, some sort of aaurate dmaiption w d have been desirable, siuce the term is one that is variously used. Very genedly, it can be said that for Barr fundamentalism is synonymous with inerrancy and "the idea that scripture and one's views about scripture form m themselves the absolute Book RAriews 67 touchstone of e v c q t b g t o be said and done m Ch&h&y" (p. 3). The book is m e a n t f o r ~ , e s p e c i a I t y f o r t b o s e w h o h a v e b e c o m e ~ a m - c a n i n g i t a n d ~ w i t h i t s ~ ~ @ . v i i ) . m h a s a l s o ~ m mind, whose fundamentalistic leanine; in great part Barr rejects (p. 179). Barr's basic position is cleariy st% forth in a number of passages, of which the fdlowing may save as an exampk (p. 174): Ifweareright m s t a r t i n g f r o m ~ a n d takingitasauthoritative,tbm the -talist use and m k n t a d b g of it often contmdkfs saiptmz itself. If saipture, so mdasbmd, amhadh our ideas of biblical authority then our ideas of h i authority have to be adjusted to meet that fact. This is the centre of our argument. Various aspeds of the Bible, treated m different chapters, are examined and shown todemdirhthefmdam&Wposition.Thematterstreatedarequitecentral,as the following selection of chapta .headkgs will imficate: "'The Religious Core I: Justification by Faith," "The R&gbus Core II: What was Jesus Like?," "Law and Morality, and Nahm," "Variation and Perfeuion m tbe Divine." One chapter (13) puts various abmtives to the finadamentalist understandmg . * .. * of . H o w w e r , B a r r d o e s m t a r g u e f o r a n y ~ V i A l V o f t d l i c a l ~ that could take the phce of fun ' " . He says expl idy: "I do not wish t o suggest that thae is any one p a r h k viAv of h i authority that n u x s d y f o b w s from my arguments" (p. 178). One cannot simply dimis all of Barr's arguments out of hand, and a serious student of the B i i has to give dose attention to much of what he has written here. However, some s l a t m a s and axgumeras leave one in a state of some paplar- ity. Barr dedares quite categorically that it is "quite akuud" for anyone to that Jesus, who made such free use of "* as one of his main forms of tead~&" should insist an the historical accuracy of his citaths from the Old Testa- ment (p. 11). Where is the absmdity? Are not both things possi? Again, Barr finds a contradiEtion between Matthew 5:17-18 and the new meaning given to the law by Jesus in His repeated "but I say unto you" in the same chapter. "He is not simply -the law, he is not setting himself under the law as a mere exegete, he is saying something that he considers to be new, to go beyond what the law itself had to say" (p. 9). I do not think f- would deny that JesusasGod'sSonowldm~thehwmakec learhowthehwproperty mderbod goes beyond popular interpretations of it. And yet again Barr argues: "it is dear that mere submission to pnxx&mg . . scripture was not at all a tenet of J e s u s ' o w n v i s i o n , ~ f o r h i m s e l f o r f o r t h e a ~ n m ~ t o b e c r e a t e d ~ his work" (p. 12). This assation seems t o be contmdktd by a great number of sayings a s m i to Jesus m the various gospels, not kst by the one to which Barr himself refers, John 5:39. Barr quite misses the real thrust of this text, that the Jews should believe on Jesus for eternal life just because the scriptures testify of him. 68 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY "The frightening picture of the critical scholar, tearing the Bible to shreds and scat- tering the fragments to the winds is largely a figment of the ignorant imagination." @. 129). I cite the "ignorant imagination" of C.S. Lewis (MYkck): When you turn from the New Testament to modan scholars, rememba that you go among them as a sheep among wolves ... In using the books of such people you must therefore be continually on guard. You must develop a nose like a bloodhound far those steps in the argument which depend not on historical and linguistic knowledge but on the c o n d assumption that miracles are impossible, improbable, or improper. And this means that you must really re-educate yourself; must work hard and consistently to eradicate from your mind the whole type of thought (i.e., Naturalism) in which we all have been brought up. And I cite the "ignorant imagination" of R.P.C. Hanson in the introduction to the third volume of 7 Ie Pelican M e to Modem 7bdogy: But in spite of shocked churchmen ... the revolution moved inexorably on. It consisted in the simple but far-reaching dixoveiy that the documents of the Bible were entirely amditioned by the ciramstances of the period in which they were produced. If this is not a "frightening picture of the Bitical scholar," as he presents us with a Bible completely human and of this world, to be treated pr&y like all other ancient documents of the ancient world, I should like to know what is. A final criticim-the book of James Barr is entitled Beyond Fuodammtahm. What is the alternative to which he points, the "Beyond"? There is none really. The argument is: fundamentalism is no good, give it away, a proper study of the Bible will lead you to a better position. But that better position is not given, although, as stated above, some alternatives to fmdamentalism are mention- ed in chapter 13. Barr himself points to this aspect of the book: "It may be argued that I have not sought in this book to outline any adequate view of bibical authori- ty" @. 178). He goes on to say that he has written amply on the subject of biblical authority in other books of his. But is that good enough, good enough just for the people for whom he wrote this book? They are hardly likely to have read his other works and might fmd it a bit inconsiderate to be asked to buy another book to fmd the answer for the problem which led them to buy this book in the f& place. I think the title has promised more than the book supplies. Henry P. Hamann