Concordia Theological Quarterly
Concordia Theological Quarterly, a continuation of The Springfielder, is a theological
journal of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, published for its ministerium by
the faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Editor: David P. Scaer
Associate Editor: Charles A. Gieschen
Book Review Editor: Lawrence R. Rast Jr.
Members of the Editorial Committee
Adam S. Francisco, Richard T. Nuffer, Timothy C. J. Quill, and Dean 0. Wenthe
Editorial Assistant: Matthew G Rasmussen Administrative Assistant: Annette Gard
The Faculty
James G. Bushur Walter A. Maier III Douglas L. Rutt
Carl C. Fickenscher II Naomichi Masaki David P. Scaer
Adam S. Francisco John G. Nordling Peter J. Scaer
Daniel L. Gard Richard T. Nuffer Randall A. Schroeder
Charles A. Gieschen John T. Pless Klaus Detlev Schulz
Paul J. Grime Jeffrey H. Pulse William C. Weinrich
Larry S. Harvala Timothy C. J. Quill Dean 0. Wenthe
Arthur A. Just Jr. Lawrence R. Rast Jr. Roland F. Ziegler
Cameron A. MacKenzie Richard C. Resch
Walter A. Maier Robert V. Roethemeyer
Concordia Theological Quarterly (CTQ) is indexed in Religion Index One:
Periodicals and abstracted in Old Testament Abstracts and New Testament Abstracts.
CTQ is also indexed by the ATM Religion Database (published by the American
Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606;
www.atla.com) and the International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the
Humanities and Social Sciences (www. gb v. de).
Manuscripts submitted for publication should conform to the Chicago Manual
of Style and are subject to peer review and editorial modification. Please visit our
website at www.ctsfw.edu/ctq for more information. Previous Articles,
Theological Observers, and Book Reviews can be accessed electronically at
www. ctsfw. edu/ library/ prob ono. php.
CTQ is published in January, April, July, and October. The annual subscription
rate is $20.00 within the United States, $25.00 (U.S.) in Canada, and $40.00 (U.S.)
elsewhere. All changes of address, subscription payments, and other
correspondence should be e-mailed to annette.gard@ctsfw.edu or sent to Concordia
Theological Quarterly, 6600 North Clinton Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825. CTQ is
printed and shipped by Mignone Communications, Inc., Huntington, Indiana.
©2009 Concordia Theological Seminary • US ISSN 0038-8610
Concordia Theological Quarterly
Volume 73:3 July 2009
Table of Contents
The Word of YHWH as Theophany
Richard A. Lammert .......................................................... 195
A Lutheran Understanding of Natural Law in the Three Estates
Gifford Grobien ................................................................ 211
Martin Chemnitz's Reading of the Fathers in Oratio de Lectione Patrum
Carl L. Beckwith ............................................................... 231
At the Edge of Subscription: The Abusus Doctrine of the Formula of
Concord - Doctrina or Ratio?
William C. Weinrich ........................................................ 257
Research Notes ............................................................................ 270
A Response to Jeffrey Kloha's Study of the Trans-Congregational
Church
Book Reviews
............................................................................. 276
Books Received ........................................................................... 287
256 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009)
casually on theological issues, how much more likely are we,
the shoulders of these giants, to do the same? Theology is a
for the proud but the humble. Chemnitz learns this lesson
and displays it in his first published work.
who stand on
discipline not
very early on
cr(2 73 (2009): 257-269
At the Edge of Subscription:
The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of
Concord —Doctrina or Ratio?
William C. Weinrich
I. The Person and Work of Christ in Luther
In his Large Catechism, Luther claims that the entire gospel depends on
the birth, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. "If anyone asks,
What do you believe in the second article about Jesus Christ?' answer as
briefly as possible, 'I believe that Jesus Christ, true Son of God, has become
my Lord." "Lord", Luther affirms, simply means Redeemer, for Christ has
"brought us back from the devil to God, from death to life, from sin to
righteousness, and keeps us there." 2 With these simple words, we are
introduced into the center of Luther's thinking. The God who is "for me
and for my salvation" is and can be none other than the Jesus of the
gospels. And in his work of redemption this Jesus is revealed to be none
other than the God who created heaven and earth and brings eternal life to
the sinful dead. To summarize: to be God is to redeem from sin, death,
and the devil.
In this emphasis, Luther is at one with Irenaeus for whom the power of
God lay in his will to create and bring the life of man to its consummation
in union with himself. In the writings of Luther, this equation of power
and the giving of life is nowhere more clearly put than in his Sermon on
the Magnificat:
Just as God in the beginning of creation made the world out of nothing,
whence He is called the Creator and the Almighty, so His manner of
working continues unchanged. Even now and to the end of the world, all
His works are such that out of that which is nothing, worthless, despised,
wretched, and dead, He makes that which is something, precious,
honorable, blessed and living. On the other hand, whatever is something,
precious, honorable, blessed and living, He makes to be nothing,
William C. Weinrich, Professor of Early Church History and Patristic Studies at
Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, is currently deployed as
Rector of Luther Academy, Riga, Latvia.
258 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 259
worthless, despised, wretched, and dying. In this manner no creature can
work; no creature can produce anything out of nothing. 3
This passage is interesting because it sketches the work of Christ as a
"manner of working" in which God forgives the sinner and gives life to the
dead. In doing so, Christ reveals that he is the Creator and the Almighty.
This theme is extensively worked out by Luther in his Galatians
commentary of 1535. The will to redeem from the curse of the law gives
form to the person of Christ. He is the one upon whom God placed all the
sins of the world, so that Christ became the sinner. Indeed, Christ became
the greatest and only sinner (solus et maxim's peccator). However, to
conquer sin, death, and the wrath of God is the work not of a creature but
of the divine power. The work of Christ in his justifying, reconciling work
is the work of God. To abolish sin, destroy death, give righteousness, and
bring life to light — that is, to annihilate those and to create these — this is
solely and alone the work of divine power. "Since Scripture attributes all
these to Christ, therefore He Himself is Life, Righteousness, and Blessing,
that is, God by nature and essence." 4 Such passages as these represent
Luther's fundamental definition of God and present the center of Luther's
understanding of the revelation of God. God reveals himself to be God
most clearly in the passion of Christ for the sinner. The humiliation of
Christ is nothing other than the revelation of the majesty of God. The
sufferings and death of Christ are works of God and are, therefore,
victorious and life-creating. One might even say that the humanity of
Christ expresses the human form of the divine majesty. Moreover, the
unity of Christ's person is wholly necessary for the effectiveness of the
redemptive work. Unless the humility of the man Jesus is at the same time
the condescension of the divine Son of God, there can be no life out of
death, no righteousness out of sin.
II. The Person and Work of Christ in the Formula of Concord
When, therefore, in the article on the person of Christ the Formula of
Concord defines the divine nature in wholly different terms, the question
arises whether the problem of Christology has not, in fact, shifted. "To be
almighty, eternal, infinite, everywhere at the same time according to
nature, that is, of itself to be present according to the property of the nature
and its natural essence, and to know everything, are essential attributes of
3 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, American Edition, 55 vols., ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan,
Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1955-1986), 21:299 [henceforth LW],
4 LW 26:282.
the divine nature." 5 Did it happen that the intense confrontation with the
Reformed concerning the Christological foundations of the real presence
had brought to the fore another set of attributes that assumed importance
as essential to our understanding of God? In any case, the attributes
mentioned above are qualities of the Deus nudus or Deus absconditus, for
such attributes do not constitute the redemptive work of Christ. Indeed,
these attributes are set over against the natural characteristics of the
human nature. These are: "being flesh and blood, being finite and
circumscribed, suffering, dying, ascending, descending, moving from
place to another, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like" (Ep VIII.8). How
do these two opposite and contrasting natures relate? To articulate an
answer to this question was the purpose of what Werner Elert called "the
most splendid memorial to the architectonics of the generation that
brought the Formula of Concord into being," 6 namely, the doctrines of the
communication of attributes and the three-fold genera. These served to
ground the unity of Christ's person through the mutual relations that
constituted Christ's person. Certainly, as one can easily see from the
Formula of Concord, the personal union (unio hypostatica) of Christ is the
central concern and determinative factor of Lutheran Christology.
However, such an emphasis does raise the question to what extent God the
Son is active and, therefore, revealed in the work of the incarnation. The
same question may be asked in this way: to what extent is the humanity of
Christ the instrument for the demonstration of the divine majesty of Christ
and in what is this demonstration evinced?
The passage of Scripture that usually provided the outline of an
answer to this question was Phil 2:5-11. This famous passage speaks of the
Son, who, although in the form of God, "emptied himself" in that he
assumed the "form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men and
having been found in form as a man," and "humbled himself becoming
obedient unto death." Therefore, God highly exalted him and gave him a
Name above every name. The economic schema of this passage is this:
divine glory, incarnation, kenosis, exaltation. Martin Chemnitz and those
around him distinguished between incarnation, self-emptying, and the
exaltation in this way. Common to all Lutheran thinkers, they understood
the incarnation to be that act by which the divine Son assumed into his
person the man conceived and born of Mary. From the very moment of
5 SD VIII:9; Ep VIII.7; (emphasis added).
6 Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, vol. 1: The Theology and Philosophy of Life
of Lutheranism Especially in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, trans. Walter A.
Hansen (St. Louis/London: Concordia Publishing House, 1962), 229.
258 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 259
worthless, despised, wretched, and dying. In this manner no creature can
work; no creature can produce anything out of nothing. 3
This passage is interesting because it sketches the work of Christ as a
"manner of working" in which God forgives the sinner and gives life to the
dead. In doing so, Christ reveals that he is the Creator and the Almighty.
This theme is extensively worked out by Luther in his Galatians
commentary of 1535. The will to redeem from the curse of the law gives
form to the person of Christ. He is the one upon whom God placed all the
sins of the world, so that Christ became the sinner. Indeed, Christ became
the greatest and only sinner (solus et maxim's peccator). However, to
conquer sin, death, and the wrath of God is the work not of a creature but
of the divine power. The work of Christ in his justifying, reconciling work
is the work of God. To abolish sin, destroy death, give righteousness, and
bring life to light — that is, to annihilate those and to create these — this is
solely and alone the work of divine power. "Since Scripture attributes all
these to Christ, therefore He Himself is Life, Righteousness, and Blessing,
that is, God by nature and essence." 4 Such passages as these represent
Luther's fundamental definition of God and present the center of Luther's
understanding of the revelation of God. God reveals himself to be God
most clearly in the passion of Christ for the sinner. The humiliation of
Christ is nothing other than the revelation of the majesty of God. The
sufferings and death of Christ are works of God and are, therefore,
victorious and life-creating. One might even say that the humanity of
Christ expresses the human form of the divine majesty. Moreover, the
unity of Christ's person is wholly necessary for the effectiveness of the
redemptive work. Unless the humility of the man Jesus is at the same time
the condescension of the divine Son of God, there can be no life out of
death, no righteousness out of sin.
II. The Person and Work of Christ in the Formula of Concord
When, therefore, in the article on the person of Christ the Formula of
Concord defines the divine nature in wholly different terms, the question
arises whether the problem of Christology has not, in fact, shifted. "To be
almighty, eternal, infinite, everywhere at the same time according to
nature, that is, of itself to be present according to the property of the nature
and its natural essence, and to know everything, are essential attributes of
3 Martin Luther, Luther's Works, American Edition, 55 vols., ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan,
Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1955-1986), 21:299 [henceforth LW],
4 LW 26:282.
the divine nature." 5 Did it happen that the intense confrontation with the
Reformed concerning the Christological foundations of the real presence
had brought to the fore another set of attributes that assumed importance
as essential to our understanding of God? In any case, the attributes
mentioned above are qualities of the Deus nudus or Deus absconditus, for
such attributes do not constitute the redemptive work of Christ. Indeed,
these attributes are set over against the natural characteristics of the
human nature. These are: "being flesh and blood, being finite and
circumscribed, suffering, dying, ascending, descending, moving from
place to another, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like" (Ep VIII.8). How
do these two opposite and contrasting natures relate? To articulate an
answer to this question was the purpose of what Werner Elert called "the
most splendid memorial to the architectonics of the generation that
brought the Formula of Concord into being," 6 namely, the doctrines of the
communication of attributes and the three-fold genera. These served to
ground the unity of Christ's person through the mutual relations that
constituted Christ's person. Certainly, as one can easily see from the
Formula of Concord, the personal union (unio hypostatica) of Christ is the
central concern and determinative factor of Lutheran Christology.
However, such an emphasis does raise the question to what extent God the
Son is active and, therefore, revealed in the work of the incarnation. The
same question may be asked in this way: to what extent is the humanity of
Christ the instrument for the demonstration of the divine majesty of Christ
and in what is this demonstration evinced?
The passage of Scripture that usually provided the outline of an
answer to this question was Phil 2:5-11. This famous passage speaks of the
Son, who, although in the form of God, "emptied himself" in that he
assumed the "form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men and
having been found in form as a man," and "humbled himself becoming
obedient unto death." Therefore, God highly exalted him and gave him a
Name above every name. The economic schema of this passage is this:
divine glory, incarnation, kenosis, exaltation. Martin Chemnitz and those
around him distinguished between incarnation, self-emptying, and the
exaltation in this way. Common to all Lutheran thinkers, they understood
the incarnation to be that act by which the divine Son assumed into his
person the man conceived and born of Mary. From the very moment of
5 SD VIII:9; Ep VIII.7; (emphasis added).
6 Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, vol. 1: The Theology and Philosophy of Life
of Lutheranism Especially in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, trans. Walter A.
Hansen (St. Louis/London: Concordia Publishing House, 1962), 229.
260 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 261
conception, therefore, the man Jesus was in full possession of the divine
majesty and of all divine attributes. As the Formula of Concord puts it: "In
him [Jesus] 'all the fullness of the deity dwells bodily.'" 7 However, the
Gospel narratives contain accounts in which Jesus appears to exercise
divine power, such as in the water into wine miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11),
and they also contain accounts in which Jesus appears to be without such
divine power, such as when he says that only the Father knows the time of
the end (Mark 13:32). The explanation of this apparent contradiction was
to claim that the kenosis of the Son in his incarnation was a self-
renunciation. That is, the humiliation (TocTrEwcooLc) of the Christ involved an
abusus of (at least) certain of his divine attributes, that is, the non-use or
non-employment of his divine attributes. From time to time, however, and
as he willed, Christ could use and manifest his divine power and majesty,
as when he raised up Lazarus from the dead. But such demonstrations of
divine power were more or less infrequent and extraordinary. In sum, the
humiliation/kenosis of Christ lay in the non-use of the divine attributes of
majesty that he nevertheless possessed in full. According to this view,
possession but not use is the short definition of the humiliation of Christ. It is
this understanding of the non-use of divine attributes in the state of
humiliation that will be examined below.
With this understanding of the kenosis of Christ, his exaltation is
correspondingly interpreted to mean the resumption of the use,
employment and manifestation of the divine majesty that Christ possessed
from the beginning of the incarnation. Here is how Chemnitz expressed it:
"By the ascension infirmities being laid aside and self-renunciation
removed, he left the mode of life according to the conditions of this world,
and departed from the world. Moreover, by sitting at the Right Hand of
God, he entered upon the full and public employment and display of the
power, virtue, and glory of the Godhead, which, from the beginning of the
union, dwelt personally in all its fullness in the assumed [human] nature;
so that he no longer, as in self-renunciation, withholds, withdraws, and, as
it were, hides himself, but clearly, manifestly, and gloriously exercises it in,
with and through the assumed human nature." 8
Possession and full and
public use is the short definition of the exaltation of Christ in relationship to
his divine attributes.
7 Col 2:9; FC VIII:30.
8 Quoted in Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, 3rd ed. revised and trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1899, 1961), 387-388. Schmid refers the quote to de duab.
nat. 218.
III. The Relationship between the Person and Work of Christ after
the Formula of Concord
In his Doctrinal Theology, Heinrich Schmid makes the claim that the
doctrine of the renunciation and exaltation, as articulated by Chemnitz,
was "not so clearly set forth" and "was still undecided" because the
dogmaticians of that day "were not agreed upon it." 9 Although Pieper is
insistent to the contrary, 1° it does seem true that Johannes Brenz and the
theologians who followed him insisted on a different reading of the states
of humiliation and exaltation. Brenz takes with full seriousness the
implications of the claim that the incarnation consisted in the assumption
of the man Jesus into the divine majesty. For Brenz this meant that even in
his state of humiliation Christ was not only in full possession of the divine
glory and majesty, but that he also , exercised this divine majesty fully and
at every moment, only not in an open manner but in secret. In no way did
the humiliation of Christ lay in the fact of his flesh. Rather, the humiliation
of Christ lay in the fact of Christ's servanthood in which the divine glory
was h, Kpintt , hidden and concealed. The lowliness of the Christ was the
exercise of divine power in the manner of a servant, and in this sense the
majesty that the human nature possessed from the incarnation was
concealed and hidden. To give but one example of Brenz: "He lay dead in
the sepulchre, in humiliation; living, he governed heaven and earth, in
majesty; and this, indeed, during the time of his humiliation, before his
resurrection." 11
This brings us to a brief consideration of the so-called "Crypto-Kenotic
Controversy" of 1619.12 The controversy was between the theology faculty
of Ttibingen and the theology faculty of Giessen, 13 and the question was
whether even in his humiliation Christ ruled the universe and all creatures
fully and directly also according to his human nature. The question as it
9 Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 388-389. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1950-57), 2:300 n. 24 holds that Chemnitz and Brenz
"taught the same doctrine"; therefore the "compromise" of the FC is only "alleged" and
such opposing views "never existed" (also 2:296 n. 17).
10 Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:300 n. 24.
Quoted in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 389, emphasis mine, (quoted from Brenz,
De divine majestate Domini nostri jest, Christi, 1562).
12 For a thorough review of Lutheran Chrisological discussion leading to this
controversy, see Jorg Bauer, "Auf dem Wege zur klassischen Tubinger Christologie.
Einfuhrende Uberlegungen zum sogenannten Kenosis-Krypsis-Streit," in Theologen and
Theologie an der Universitat Tubingen, ed. Martin Brecht, Beitrage zur Geschichte der
Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultat (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977), 195-269.
13 Ttibingen: Lukas Osiander, Melchior Nikolai, Theodor Thumrnius; Giessen:
Balthasar Mentzer, Justus Feuerborn.
260 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 261
conception, therefore, the man Jesus was in full possession of the divine
majesty and of all divine attributes. As the Formula of Concord puts it: "In
him [Jesus] 'all the fullness of the deity dwells bodily.'" 7 However, the
Gospel narratives contain accounts in which Jesus appears to exercise
divine power, such as in the water into wine miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11),
and they also contain accounts in which Jesus appears to be without such
divine power, such as when he says that only the Father knows the time of
the end (Mark 13:32). The explanation of this apparent contradiction was
to claim that the kenosis of the Son in his incarnation was a self-
renunciation. That is, the humiliation (TocTrEwcooLc) of the Christ involved an
abusus of (at least) certain of his divine attributes, that is, the non-use or
non-employment of his divine attributes. From time to time, however, and
as he willed, Christ could use and manifest his divine power and majesty,
as when he raised up Lazarus from the dead. But such demonstrations of
divine power were more or less infrequent and extraordinary. In sum, the
humiliation/kenosis of Christ lay in the non-use of the divine attributes of
majesty that he nevertheless possessed in full. According to this view,
possession but not use is the short definition of the humiliation of Christ. It is
this understanding of the non-use of divine attributes in the state of
humiliation that will be examined below.
With this understanding of the kenosis of Christ, his exaltation is
correspondingly interpreted to mean the resumption of the use,
employment and manifestation of the divine majesty that Christ possessed
from the beginning of the incarnation. Here is how Chemnitz expressed it:
"By the ascension infirmities being laid aside and self-renunciation
removed, he left the mode of life according to the conditions of this world,
and departed from the world. Moreover, by sitting at the Right Hand of
God, he entered upon the full and public employment and display of the
power, virtue, and glory of the Godhead, which, from the beginning of the
union, dwelt personally in all its fullness in the assumed [human] nature;
so that he no longer, as in self-renunciation, withholds, withdraws, and, as
it were, hides himself, but clearly, manifestly, and gloriously exercises it in,
with and through the assumed human nature." 8
Possession and full and
public use is the short definition of the exaltation of Christ in relationship to
his divine attributes.
7 Col 2:9; FC VIII:30.
8 Quoted in Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, 3rd ed. revised and trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1899, 1961), 387-388. Schmid refers the quote to de duab.
nat. 218.
III. The Relationship between the Person and Work of Christ after
the Formula of Concord
In his Doctrinal Theology, Heinrich Schmid makes the claim that the
doctrine of the renunciation and exaltation, as articulated by Chemnitz,
was "not so clearly set forth" and "was still undecided" because the
dogmaticians of that day "were not agreed upon it." 9 Although Pieper is
insistent to the contrary, 1° it does seem true that Johannes Brenz and the
theologians who followed him insisted on a different reading of the states
of humiliation and exaltation. Brenz takes with full seriousness the
implications of the claim that the incarnation consisted in the assumption
of the man Jesus into the divine majesty. For Brenz this meant that even in
his state of humiliation Christ was not only in full possession of the divine
glory and majesty, but that he also , exercised this divine majesty fully and
at every moment, only not in an open manner but in secret. In no way did
the humiliation of Christ lay in the fact of his flesh. Rather, the humiliation
of Christ lay in the fact of Christ's servanthood in which the divine glory
was h, Kpintt , hidden and concealed. The lowliness of the Christ was the
exercise of divine power in the manner of a servant, and in this sense the
majesty that the human nature possessed from the incarnation was
concealed and hidden. To give but one example of Brenz: "He lay dead in
the sepulchre, in humiliation; living, he governed heaven and earth, in
majesty; and this, indeed, during the time of his humiliation, before his
resurrection." 11
This brings us to a brief consideration of the so-called "Crypto-Kenotic
Controversy" of 1619.12 The controversy was between the theology faculty
of Ttibingen and the theology faculty of Giessen, 13 and the question was
whether even in his humiliation Christ ruled the universe and all creatures
fully and directly also according to his human nature. The question as it
9 Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 388-389. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1950-57), 2:300 n. 24 holds that Chemnitz and Brenz
"taught the same doctrine"; therefore the "compromise" of the FC is only "alleged" and
such opposing views "never existed" (also 2:296 n. 17).
10 Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:300 n. 24.
Quoted in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 389, emphasis mine, (quoted from Brenz,
De divine majestate Domini nostri jest, Christi, 1562).
12 For a thorough review of Lutheran Chrisological discussion leading to this
controversy, see Jorg Bauer, "Auf dem Wege zur klassischen Tubinger Christologie.
Einfuhrende Uberlegungen zum sogenannten Kenosis-Krypsis-Streit," in Theologen and
Theologie an der Universitat Tubingen, ed. Martin Brecht, Beitrage zur Geschichte der
Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultat (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977), 195-269.
13 Ttibingen: Lukas Osiander, Melchior Nikolai, Theodor Thumrnius; Giessen:
Balthasar Mentzer, Justus Feuerborn.
262 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 263
was raised in this controversy concerned most specifically whether in his
humiliation Christ possessed and exercised the attribute of omnipresence.
It is helpful to remember that this controversy arose between Lutherans.
The Lutheran assumption that the fullness of deity was possessed by the
human nature of Christ even in the state of his humiliation was certain to
raise difficulties in the reading of the various evangelical stories of the
gospels. The faculties of both Tubingen and Giessen agreed that in the
state of humiliation the divine nature of Christ in no sense suffered a
dimunition of the exercise of its power, nor did the humiliation consist of
an actual surrender or diminution of the possession of the divine majesty
given to the human nature of Christ at his incarnation. 14 The Tubingen
theologians, following the Christological outlines of Brenz, were, however,
of the opinion that the attribute of omnipresence was a direct and
necessary consequence of the personal union, and therefore the flesh of
Christ was to be regarded as omnipresent from the moment of his
conception. Where the person of the Word incarnated was, there must be
also the human nature. Since the Godhead possesses an utterly absolute
simplicity and is completely there wherever it is, there could be for the
Tubingen theologians no question of a partial or temporary renunciation of
Christ's omnipresence.
The distinction between the state of Christ's humiliation and of his
exaltation, therefore, existed only in the manner in which Christ exercised
his dominion. In the state of humiliation, on one hand, Christ exercised
fully his divine majesty in the form of a servant, that is, in a hidden form.
In the state of his exaltation, on the other hand, Christ exercised his
dominion openly and in a manner corresponding to his divine majesty.
From his conception on, according to the Tubingen theologians, Christ was
at the right hand of the Father, for the incarnation means nothing other
than this, that the man is assumed into the majesty of God. There was,
therefore, no renunciation of the exercise of the majesty of the divine
nature through the human nature but a concealment of it in the state of his
humiliation. "Christ, according to his human nature, already from the first
moment of his conception sat at the Right Hand of the Father, not indeed
in a glorious majestic manner, but without that and in the form of a
14 No one of either faculty, Giessen or Tubingen, represented the view characteristic
of 19th century kenoticism, namely, that the humiliation of the Word consisted in the
actual divestment of his divine attributes. Among Lutheran theologians perhaps the
most famous of such kenoticists was Gottfried Thomasius (18024875). In his treatment
on Christi Person end Werk, 2 vols, one may find a thorough discussion of the Crypto-
Kenotic Controversy of 1619.
servant." 15 Possession and concealed use of the divine majesty in the state of
humiliation with possession and open and glorious use of the divine majesty in
the state of exaltation is the short definition of the Ttibingen position.
The Giessen theologians opposed this view. They rejected the idea that
in his state of humiliation Christ according to his human nature possessed
absolute omnipresence, that is, that Christ was present to all things in
heaven and on earth even in his human nature. Rather, they held, the Son
of God exercises his divine rule only as the divine Word, not in and
through the human nature. Omnipresence was defined as a divine work,
and, therefore, the use of such an attribute by Christ was not based on the
personal union but on the divine will of the Word. They virtually excluded
the human nature of Christ entirely from his work of governing and
preserving the world (regnavit mundum non mediante came). The state of
humiliation, therefore, involved a strict renunciation of the use of the
attributes of divine majesty, but did so by referring the use of such
attributes to the Word considered "outside" the human nature. Not
surprisingly, the Tubingen theologians perceived in the Giessen position
an unacceptable accommodation to the extra calvinisticum (that the deity of
Christ exists also outside his human nature). In agreement with Chemnitz,
however, the Giessen theologians held that the exaltation of Christ
involved the human nature receiving the full exercise of the divine
majesty. This reception of the full use, however, did not occur until the
resurrection of Christ from the dead.
Eventually the controversy was mediated by Saxon theologians led by
Hoe von Hoenegg. In the so-called Decisio Saxonica (1624), the Giessen
theologians were in the main judged to be correct. For the most part, later
Lutheran orthodoxy rendered the same judgment, although John Gerhard
refused to concur with the Decisio Saxonica. The Tubingen position was
judged deficient because it did not adequately distinguish between the
state of humiliation and the state of exaltation and because its claim that in
the state of humiliation Christ ruled the world by a direct presence also
according to his human nature threatened to make the historical Jesus a
mere docetic fantasy. Heinrich Schmidt summarizes the outcome of this
controversy:
After the decision (1624) pronounced by the Saxon theologians, . . . those
of Tubingen modified their views in this one respect, they also admitted a
humiliation in a literal sense, with reference to the functions of the
sacerdotal office, so that Christ renounced the use of the divine glory
during his passion and death, and in connection with everything that he
15 Quoted in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 391.
262 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 263
was raised in this controversy concerned most specifically whether in his
humiliation Christ possessed and exercised the attribute of omnipresence.
It is helpful to remember that this controversy arose between Lutherans.
The Lutheran assumption that the fullness of deity was possessed by the
human nature of Christ even in the state of his humiliation was certain to
raise difficulties in the reading of the various evangelical stories of the
gospels. The faculties of both Tubingen and Giessen agreed that in the
state of humiliation the divine nature of Christ in no sense suffered a
dimunition of the exercise of its power, nor did the humiliation consist of
an actual surrender or diminution of the possession of the divine majesty
given to the human nature of Christ at his incarnation. 14 The Tubingen
theologians, following the Christological outlines of Brenz, were, however,
of the opinion that the attribute of omnipresence was a direct and
necessary consequence of the personal union, and therefore the flesh of
Christ was to be regarded as omnipresent from the moment of his
conception. Where the person of the Word incarnated was, there must be
also the human nature. Since the Godhead possesses an utterly absolute
simplicity and is completely there wherever it is, there could be for the
Tubingen theologians no question of a partial or temporary renunciation of
Christ's omnipresence.
The distinction between the state of Christ's humiliation and of his
exaltation, therefore, existed only in the manner in which Christ exercised
his dominion. In the state of humiliation, on one hand, Christ exercised
fully his divine majesty in the form of a servant, that is, in a hidden form.
In the state of his exaltation, on the other hand, Christ exercised his
dominion openly and in a manner corresponding to his divine majesty.
From his conception on, according to the Tubingen theologians, Christ was
at the right hand of the Father, for the incarnation means nothing other
than this, that the man is assumed into the majesty of God. There was,
therefore, no renunciation of the exercise of the majesty of the divine
nature through the human nature but a concealment of it in the state of his
humiliation. "Christ, according to his human nature, already from the first
moment of his conception sat at the Right Hand of the Father, not indeed
in a glorious majestic manner, but without that and in the form of a
14 No one of either faculty, Giessen or Tubingen, represented the view characteristic
of 19th century kenoticism, namely, that the humiliation of the Word consisted in the
actual divestment of his divine attributes. Among Lutheran theologians perhaps the
most famous of such kenoticists was Gottfried Thomasius (18024875). In his treatment
on Christi Person end Werk, 2 vols, one may find a thorough discussion of the Crypto-
Kenotic Controversy of 1619.
servant." 15 Possession and concealed use of the divine majesty in the state of
humiliation with possession and open and glorious use of the divine majesty in
the state of exaltation is the short definition of the Ttibingen position.
The Giessen theologians opposed this view. They rejected the idea that
in his state of humiliation Christ according to his human nature possessed
absolute omnipresence, that is, that Christ was present to all things in
heaven and on earth even in his human nature. Rather, they held, the Son
of God exercises his divine rule only as the divine Word, not in and
through the human nature. Omnipresence was defined as a divine work,
and, therefore, the use of such an attribute by Christ was not based on the
personal union but on the divine will of the Word. They virtually excluded
the human nature of Christ entirely from his work of governing and
preserving the world (regnavit mundum non mediante came). The state of
humiliation, therefore, involved a strict renunciation of the use of the
attributes of divine majesty, but did so by referring the use of such
attributes to the Word considered "outside" the human nature. Not
surprisingly, the Tubingen theologians perceived in the Giessen position
an unacceptable accommodation to the extra calvinisticum (that the deity of
Christ exists also outside his human nature). In agreement with Chemnitz,
however, the Giessen theologians held that the exaltation of Christ
involved the human nature receiving the full exercise of the divine
majesty. This reception of the full use, however, did not occur until the
resurrection of Christ from the dead.
Eventually the controversy was mediated by Saxon theologians led by
Hoe von Hoenegg. In the so-called Decisio Saxonica (1624), the Giessen
theologians were in the main judged to be correct. For the most part, later
Lutheran orthodoxy rendered the same judgment, although John Gerhard
refused to concur with the Decisio Saxonica. The Tubingen position was
judged deficient because it did not adequately distinguish between the
state of humiliation and the state of exaltation and because its claim that in
the state of humiliation Christ ruled the world by a direct presence also
according to his human nature threatened to make the historical Jesus a
mere docetic fantasy. Heinrich Schmidt summarizes the outcome of this
controversy:
After the decision (1624) pronounced by the Saxon theologians, . . . those
of Tubingen modified their views in this one respect, they also admitted a
humiliation in a literal sense, with reference to the functions of the
sacerdotal office, so that Christ renounced the use of the divine glory
during his passion and death, and in connection with everything that he
15 Quoted in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 391.
264 Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009) Weinrich: The Abusus Doctrine in the Formula of Concord 265
did in behalf of the work of redemption. But this difference still continued
between the two parties, that the Tubingen theologians so far as the
prophetic and royal functions are concerned, regarded the humiliation as
a mere concealment and regarded it as exceptional when Christ during his
earthly life renounced the dominion belonging to his human nature. The
Giessen theologians considered it, on the other hand, exceptional when
Christ during his earthly life made use of his divine majesty through the
human nature. 16
In his own judgment of the matter, Karl Barth claims that "the basic
view common to all Lutherans, that the man Jesus as such shares the
totality of the divine attributes, undoubtedly points in the direction taken
in Wurttemberg with the mere '