e CONCORDIA e nz THEOLOGICAL Po- -= J QUARTERLY ~ - .- .e g c- Volume 48, Number 1 JANUARY 1984 .... Luther and the Doctrine of Justification Robert D. Preus 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luther and Music Daniel Reuning 17 Luther's Impact on the Universities - ................... and the Reverse. James M. Kittelson 23 Luther Research in America and Japan .............. Lewis W. Spitz and Morirnichi Watanabe 39 The Import of the Two-Gospel ....................... Hypothesis. William R. Farmer 55 Linguistic Nonsense about Faith . . . . . . . . . Theodore Mueller 61 For Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free ........................... Luther and Arlene Strasen 67 Theological Observer ................................. 69 Book Reviews ....................................... 75 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINAR LIBRARY The Import of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis William R. Farmer Wesley means to me Charles and John Wesley, and Fellowship implies collegiality, i.e, mutual trust and respect bet- ween members of the same college or school. I take it, then, that my task is to focus on the import of the Two-Gospel hypothesis for those who perceive themselves as standing in the tradition of John and Charles Wesley. Fist of all, what is meant by "Two-Gospel hypothesis"? Why not "Priority of Matthew"? or as some have proposed, "Posteriority of Mark"? Why this emphasis on two Gospels? "Two-Gospels" is meant to be contrasted with "Two documents." As you stand in the pulpit today, armed with a theory of Marcan priority, you are under some academic constraint to rely mentally on a hypothetical document, "Q", in order to communicate critical- ly about the Christian faith with those sitting in the pew. But the layperson in the pew has never seen "Q" . This creates a mental gulf, whether you are fully conscious of it or not, between you and the person in the pew. Therefore, the first import of the Two-Gospel hypothesis is that it restores to the person in the pew the same Scriptures that the clergy have. Everyone is on an equal footing. The clergy do not have some esoteric or elitest advantage of knowing about some unknown document or documents not readily available to the person sitting in the pew. This is a boon to communication. It contributes to a mutual respect and trust between the laypeo- ple and the clergy. How does it do this? First, it does this by removing any feelings of insincerity we may have for withholding from our congregations what we have been taught by our professors. In this case, that there was once a "Q" docu- ment which no longer exists, and that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon this hypothetical document for much of Jesus' teaching. 56 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Secondly, the Two-Gospel hypothesis takes the focus off of the question of which Gospel is first. To speak of Matthew as first in time implies to some that Matthew is also first in impor- tance. The Two-Gospel hypothesis avoids the difficulty of sug- gesting that any one Gospel is more important than any other. This is a very real gain, since all four Gospels in our canon are actually four clearly related, but distinctive, written versions of one and the same Gospel. If the last in time is John, as the early church teaches us and as Wesley believed, it was never in the view of the early church, nor in the view of Wesley, the least im- portant of the four. The Two-Gospel hypothesis invites us, in this post-two-document era, to begin our study of the for*-fold Gospel canon by focusing on Matthew and Luke and the rela- tionship between these two Gospels. Actually, these two Gospels have a great deal in common. Both begin with birth narratives and end with resurrection stories. Both have genealogies, narratives and sayings of John the Baptist, the Temptation of Jesus, sermons, miracles, and passion narratives. Altogether, Matthew and Luke have about 20 of the same topics. Now, to be sure, each often treats a given topic very dif- ferently. The genealogy in Matthew, for example, is not the same as the genealogy in Luke. Nonetheless, laying aside these differences, by beginning with Matthew and Luke, we gain a firm grasp of the humanity of Jesus Christ. We can see, as Paul says, that He was born of a woman. He had a family, a childhood, and a home; that is, he shared our human existence. In Matthew and Luke we are given a full account of ~ e s d ministry, especially His preaching. It is in Jesus' preaching that we begin to sense a very great difference between taking into the pulpit a herrneneutic based on the Two-Gospel hypothesis as over against the two-document hypothesis. Standing in the Wesleyan tradition, we stand in an evangelical tradition grounded in the apostolic doctrine of grace. We are justified before our Father in heaven, not by our obedience to His will, important as that is, but by our trust in His mercy. We know that when Wesley came to Georgia as a missionary, he did not understand how we are justified before God. And we know how things worked out for him. But, after he returned to England, after his experience with the Moravians, there was that night when he felt his heart strangely warmed. He felt that God really did forgive him of his sins. And, from that time forward, he began to preach with greater power the Gospel of the saving grace and mercy of Almighty God. TWO-GOSPEL HYPOTHESIS 57 Now, standing in that evangelical Wesleyan tradition, let us test what difference it makes whether we step into the pulpit with a Two-Gospel understanding of the Scripture or with a two-document understanding. Let us take a text which is familiar to all as being founda- tional for evangelical Christianity: the parable of the Prodigal Son. We face the congregation and we ask ourselves: Is it im- portant for these people to know that God is compassionate and willing to forgive them their sins? The answer is yes. Then we ask: Is this an important text that, through conscientious preaching, can help God's Word of love and forgiveness reach the minds and hearts of these people? And, again, the answer is yes. Armed mentally with a Two-Gospel hermeneutic, we face no serious critical difficulty. This parable is preserved in one of the two earliest Gospels, a Gospel where the author has specifically assured us that he has carefully researched his material. It, along with many other parables created by Jesus, has been preserved in the Gospel of Luke. What Jesus is saying about how we come into a right relationship with God, namely through our trust in His mercy, is fully supported and enlarged on .by other parables of Jesus preserved in Luke, like the parable of the Tax-collector and Pharisee in the Temple. The parable of the Tax-collector and the Pharisee in the Tem- ple clearly teaches us that we are justified by our faith and trust in God, rather than by our good works. So, from the Gospel of Luke, we have ample evidence that our evangelical use of the parable of the Prodigal Son is well supported by the other parable tradition in Luke which is attributed to Jesus. What happens to the Two-Gospel hypothesis when we go to that other Gospel which is even closer to the Jewish and Palesti- nian origins of Jesus and His disciples, i.e., when we go to the Gospel of Matthew? Do we find parables attributed to Jesus in Matthew which emphasize the mercy of the Father? Yes, for ex- ample, the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard in Matthew makes the point that no one has the right to begrudge God His compassion. It is God's nature to be compassionate. We can count on that. That is entailed in Jesus' message as that message can be confidently reconstructed on the basis of the Two-Gospel paradigm. So we have what historians refer to as multiple attestation of Jesus' preaching concerning God's mercy and compassion. This doctrine of divine grace is firmly ground- ed in o w two earliest Gospels. These Gospels provide us with 58 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY our most reliable historical evidence as to what Jesus did and said. Jesus' deeds and words can, on the one hand, account for the positive response from His disciples, whose fellowship developed into the Christian Church, and can, on the other hand, account for the negative response from the religious authorities which led to His death. In other words, on the Two-Gospel hypothesis, everything hangs together. It all coheres. One can preach the Gospel and know that one has the support of a critically understood New Testament. We can stand in the pulpit and, with a clear conscience, say: There need be no doubt in your mind that Jesus Himself pro- claimed the good news of God's unmerited grace. The Gospel goes back to Jesus. He laid down His life for the sake of that Gospel. We have not only His words, e-g., parables, but also His voluntary obedience unto death, which is a powerful witness to the truth of His words. This is what makes our faith strong. He has shown us not only what to preach, but also how to die. We are to die as He did, according to the Scriptures; e.g., think of Martin Luther King: despised and rejected, wounded for the transgressions of others, without deceit, not opening his mouth against his enemies, pouring out his soul unto death, being numbered with transgressors, bearing the sins of many. It is not difficult, on the basis of the Two-Gospel hypothesis, to move with critical confidence from the text of the Gospels in the New Testament books, to the promises which God made through the prophets, to the Gospel in the Old Testament. The whole biblical witness supports the message that develops from the text of Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son when we approach Scripture with a Two-Gospel understanding. But how do we fare when we, who are in the Wesleyan tradi- tion, stand in the pulpit and face a living congregation of sinners hungry for the Gospel, and we have a two-document understan- ding of the Scriptures? Let us first look in the Gospel of Mark. Do we find Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son in Mark? No, it is not in Mark. Can we find it in "Q"? No, it is not in "Q". This means it is in neither of our two earliest and most reliable sources. Why not? Immediately a question is raised which pro- vides critical grounds for some methodological skepticism. Since this parable is so congenial to the Christian faith, does it seem reasonable to think both Mark and "Q" would have omit- ted it? Is it not possible that this parable, which is so similar in teaching to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, could acutally have been composed by someone under Pauline in- TWO-GOSPEL HYPOTHESIS 59 fluence? After all, Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Might he have composed it? If this was the only parable of grace absent from Mark and "Q", this omission might not be so very decisive. But not a single one of Jesus' parables of grace is found in Mark or "Q". This could be decisive. In ways such as this, we can see how critical doubt reasonably leads to an attitude of radical skepticism entering the mind of any New Testament scholar or preacher who really takes the two-document hypothesis seriously. What difference does it make? I suggest that, for those who wish to preach the Gospel with power and a clear critical conscience, the answer is close at hand, no further than the Gospel itself. Most New Testament critical scholarship holds that Mark and "Q" are the basic sources for the Synoptic Gospels. Dr. William R. Farmer finds this view and its frequent derivations unacceptable, and he offers in its place the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, the view that Matthew is first and Luke second. Dr. Farmer, a graduate professor at the Perkins SGhooI of Theology of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, shows that Jesus' parables of grace are absent from Mark and "Q". This would mean that someone other than Jesus was responsible for these parables. Farmer suggests that it is inevitable that this view will be disasterous for the preacher who has used these parables as a basis for his own sermons of salvation. Dr. Fanner is arguing from the conclusion and its negative effects on the saving message of the Gospel, a procedure used by Luther and still essential for Lutheran theology. Farmer's views can be found in more detailed form in Jesus and the Gospel (Fortress Press) and The Formation of the New Testament Canon (Paulist Press).