(!lnurnrbtu
UJl1rnlngtrul :!Inut41y
Continuing
Lehre und Wehre (Vol. LXXVI)
Magazin fuer Ev.-Luth. Homiletik (Vol. LIV)
Theol. Quarterly (1897-1920) -Theol. Monthly (Vol. X)
Vol. I June, 1930 No.6
CONTENTS
Page
PIEPER, F.: Thesen, die dem "theologischen Schluss-
examen" dienen koennen... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 401
DALLMANN, W.: How Peter Became Pope .. . ............ 406
ENGELDER, TH.: Marburg: Der Sieg ueber den Unionis-
mus. (Fortsetzung.)... . . ... ...... . . .. ...... . ........... 416
KRETZMANN, P. E.: The Place and the Time of the Cap-
tivity Letters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 426
WISMAR, O. W.: Sermon Study 011 Eph. 2, 19-22 .... . ... 434
Dispositionen ueber die Eisenacher Evangelienreihe... .. .. . 440
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches .... " 450
Vermischtes und zeitgeschichtliche Notizen ................ 468
Book Review. - Literatur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 470
Ein Predlger muss nlcht all.in ","'den,
also dass er die Schafe unterweise, wie
ele rechte Ohr~en BOllen seln, sondem
auch dllneben den Woelfen wehren, dan •
• ie die Schaf. nlcht angreifen und mit
falscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum eln·
fuehren. - Luther.
Es ist keln Ding, daB die Leute mehr
bei der Kirche behaelt, denn die gute
Predlgt. - Apo!ogt.., Art. Iij.
If the trumpet give an uncertain Bound,
who shall prepare himself to the battle t
100'.14,8.
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCORDIA PU:BLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
450 Theological Observer. - .!l'itd)1id)'3citgcfdJid)tlid)e~.
reitet. ~urd) iJ~n fjaoen mit bie fliergeoung ber ®iinben. ~iefe 2(rsnei
mitb unB im )ffior± unb ®aframent gereid)±. ~aB &;JeiImittel ift fidjer,
bie &;Jeifung gemit. ®oUten mir ben 2(rat nid)t fud)en? iljm ber"
trauen? unfer &;JeiI giinsIid) bon ifjm ermar±en? aUe eigenen &;JeilungB"
berfud)e einfteUen? )ffiir moUen an ~CEfum, ben eeeIenars±, gIauoen;
er mirb unB fjeffen.
3.
)ffienn etner bon ciner fd)meren Shanrljei± gcncfcn if±, meibet cr
fernere @elegenfjeit, fid) biefeIoe ~ranfljeit mieber i\U3Ui3ieljen. )ffienn
unfere ®iinbenfranl'ljeit burd) ~CEfum gefjeut ift, foUen mir bie oofen
)ffiede laffen unb aUB ~anfoadeit gute )ffiede tun, aud) anbern biefen
eeefenarot anpreifen. eo tat ilJCat±fjiiuB. 2(g ber &;Jeilanb ifjn rief,
Iiet er fein fiinMid)eB @emeroe. Unb bann lub er anbere ein, bat aud)
fie in feinem &;Jaufe mit bem ®eelenara± oefann± merben foUten, bamit
aud) iljre ®eefe gefjeirt miirbe. eo moUen mit, menn unB bie ®iinbe
bergeoen ift, ber &;JeiHgung nad)ftreoen, aud) oefonberB am 2TIed ber
IDCiffion mitfjelfen. 2at± unB bie ®iinbenfranfljei± edennen, bem
®eefenars± unfer flier±rauen fd)cnl'en unb in ber Shaft @otteB fromm
1eoen unb @u±eB tun! g; r. ?n.
~ . ~
Theological Observer. - ~itdjndj"geitgefdjidjtndje~.
1. ,1(mtrikll.
~ulJ bet @5l)nDbe. ~m Wuftrage ber ~elegatenfL)nobe 1929 follen bie
ffiebafiionen unferer ft)nobalen ,Beitfcfjriften bafUr forgen, baf3 iioer ®d)rift"
lefjr en , Die innerljalO ber amerHanifcfj"ru±ljerifcfjen ~ircfje in ®iteit geaogen
roorben finb, awfiiljrIicfje 2Irtifel erfcfjeinen, unb stuar un±er WUBgeljung
bom status controversiae UnD unter fBeriicfficfjiigung ber cinfcfjliigigen @Ie"
fcfjicfjte. :tiamit ift aucfj im CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY oereit£l ber
Wnfang gemacfjt roorben. imir ljalten eB aucfj fUr bienIicfj, aUf cinige oereitB
borHegenbe :tiofumen±e unb ®cfjriften ljinsutucifen, bon benen Sfonferensen
unb :tiiftrifi£lfi)noben oei 2eljrberljanbhmgen SfenntniB neljmen l'iinnten. imir
nennen ljier auniicfjft nur 1. ,,:tiie 2eljre bon ber @lnabentualjl in i)'rage unb
Wn±tuort, bargeftelIt au£l bem elften Wrmel ber Sfonforbienformel ber eban"
geHfcfj"lutljerifcfjen SHrcfje". IDCit cinem mor" unb ?nacfjtuort berfeljen bon
(r. i)': m5. m5aItljer. ,Broeite 2Iuflage, 1887. :tiiefe 59 ®eiten umfaffenbe
®cfjrift ift aucfj auf3erlja[jj unferer Sfreife aH3 cine facfjgemiif3e, flar oeleljrenbe
®cfjrift oeaeicfjne± morben. - 2. :tiie breiaeljn 5tljefen iioer bie 2eljre bon
ber @lnabentualjl, bie bon ber :tielegatenftmobe 1881 angenommen murDen.-
3. :tiie breiaeljn 5tljefen, iioer bie ilmifcfjen meritetern ber ®iicfjfifcfjen i)'rei"
fircfje unD P. 5tljeobor .\;)armB, bem jjSriifeB ber .\;)ermann£lourger i)'reifircfje,
berljanbert unD 2eljreinigreit fonftatiert rourbe. IDCitgeteilt in ,,2eljre unb
imeljre" 1885, ~anuarljeft. - 4. i)'iinf 5tfjefen fUr Die ~n±erfi)nobale Sfon"
fereni! am 13. unb 14. i)'eoruar 1917 au m5aufau, imiB.: ,,:tiie sola gratia
unb bie universalis gratia." ~iefe 5tljefen finb in biefer illummer be§
CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY mitgeteiIt. i)'. jjS.
Theological Observer. - .Rhcf)ficf)<3eitgefcf)icf)tHcf)es. 451
mit bet 2e~tfteUung bet mifiourif\Jnobe 6efdjiiftigt fidj dne neine,
32 @5eiten umfaflenbe @5djrifi, bie un§ rurilHdj au§ WUftraHen ilugefanb±
toorben iff. :Die @5djrifi ~at ben ;;titeI ,,:Der Stoiefpart inner~alO ber Iu±~e~
rifdjen SNrdje WuftraHen§. ~ a § ~ i n b e r± b i e @ i n i gun g? mon
~. S'UebeI, ebAu±~. \l5aftor. metIag: Lutheran Book Depot, 19 O'Oon-
nell St., North Adelaide." :Da§ 'EorlDort raute±: ,,:Die i)'reube iilier bie
i)'ortfdjritte be§ @inigung§toede§ un±er ben 2ut~eranern WuftraIien§ toa~~
renb ber Ietten ~a~re fann erf± bann eine biiflige fein, toenn ber @5djaben
~of ep~§ giinilIidje SjeiIung gefunben ~a±. :Der @5djmera iilier ben nodj bor~
~anbenen S'tifJ, gleidj tief empfunben in ber 'E. @. 2. Sf. W. [ber 'Eereinigten
@b.~2ut~. Sf i r dj e in WuftraIien] tote in ber @. 2. @5. W. [ber@b.~2ut~.
@5 ~ nob e in Wuf±raIien], ~a± e§ fett bem ~a~re 1925 au 'Eereinigung§~
ber~anblungen fommen Iaffen, in benen ber ernftIidje 'Eerfudj gemadjt
tourbe, bie @inigung au eraielen. 2eiber ~alien biefe nidjt ben getoiinfdj±en
i)'ortgang genommen. @5idjer ~alien allerlei lie±riiliIidje 'Eodommniffe atoi~
fdjen ben @5~noben, bie ba§ mertrauen in bie gegenfeitigen e~rIidjen Wli~
fidj±en f±ad lieein±radjtig±en, baran mit fdjulb. :Die Sjaup±fdjulb ±rag±
jebodj unfer§ @radj±en§ ber llmftanb, baf:j ber eigentIidje :Differenapunft
nidj± fIar genug erfann± toorben ift. :Der Sflarf±ellung be~f ellien toill bie§
@5cf)rif±djen bienen. Sugleidj lidunbe± e§ auf§ haftigf±e ben i)'rieben§toillen
ber m. @. 2. Sf. W., bie jeberaei± aur mereinigung liereft if±, toenn biefe o~ne
@efa~rbung ber au aller Sei± in ber Iu±~erifdjen Sfirdje anerfann±en ge~
funben @runbfate gefdjloffen toerben fann. @§ iff feine @5±reitfdjrif±, fon~
bern toill bielme~r bem i)'rieben bienen. :Der Sj@rr ber SNrdje alier toolle
unfern meitrag aum i)'rieJjen~lDede geliraudjen, bami± in ber @inigung ber
2u±~eraner Wuf±raIien§ lialb ein toei±erer IDCadf±ein aUf bem ~ege au bem
~o~en Siele ber e i n en Sjerbe unier bem e i n e n Sjir±en gefett toerben
fonnel" :Die @5djrifi ge~± e±toa§ ~art mit ber IDCiffourif~nobe um. @5ie
lie~aup±e±, ben urfpriingIidjen @5±anbpunft ber @5~nobe bon ~otoa au ber~
±re±en. ~ir toerben gelegentIidj aUf biefe @5djrifi iJuriicffommen. i)'. \l5.
Scriptural Grounds for Divorce. - In the Lutheran Ohuroh Herald
of January 14 a lengthy article appeared with the heading, "What Does
the Bible Say about Divorce?" The writer, Rev. Walter L. Wang, sums
up everything in the following three points: -
"1. According to the Word of God there is but one proper ground for
divorce, namely, fornication, meaning by this term adultery after marriage
and probably fornication before marriage. If, however, the sin before wed-
lock was known to the other party at the time of marriage, it can be no
ground for separation. The sin of fornication thus explained authorizes,
but does not require, the innocent party to seek a dissolution of the mar-
riage contract. A faithful husband or wife is at liberty to pardon an un-
faithful companion; and if there is proof of repentance, this ought doubt-
less to be done.
"2. Ohristian churches ought to recognize in their discipline no other
cause of divorce as valid. In this matter they cannot be guided by the
civil law, but must strictly and cheerfully obey and sustain the divine Law.
And to do this, it is necessary to treat those who have been divorced for
any other causes as ineligible to marriage.
"3. According to the Word of God, separation from bed and board may
properly be granted to the innocent party when the other is guilty of wilful
452 Theological Observer. - Sfitcf)Hcf)~8eitgefcr)icf)tlicf)e~.
desertion, cruelty, or perhaps of other crimes equivalent thereto. The
parties, however, are still held by the nuptial tie and cannot, so long as
both live, be married to others without committing adultery."
The Lutheran Ohurch Herald, in an editorial note, says correctly,
although rather weakly: "The general opinion within the Lutheran Church
has been that there are two reasons for divorce: adultery and malicious
desertion, and in both cases the innocent party is permitted to remarry."
The writer of the article understands 1 Cor. 7, 15 to refer to mere separa-
tion and not to actual divorce; but the meaning of the apostle plainly is
that, if the one party leaves the other, deserting him or her maliciously,
then the marriage bond is entirely broken, and the innocent party is free
to contract another marriage. That this is the meaning of the apostle
is clear, in the first place, from the words themselves, which emphatically
state that, when the malicious desertion takes place, the condition of
bondage for the innocent party ceases. This is borne out, too, by the
language of Rom. 7, 3, where a woman is said to be f1'ee from the law when
her husband has died. In other words, the situation of a Christian husband
or wife who has suffered malicious desertion with respect to marriage is
the same as that of a widow or widower. The Lutheran position on this
point, then, must be said to rest on solid, unambiguous Scripture-teaching.
A.
The Uncertainty of the Conclusions of Science. - iV'riting in
Scribner's Magazine, Robert A. Millikan, one of the foremost physicists of
the day, makes an interesting admission, which it is worth while to re-
member and to quote when one is dealing with enemies of the Bible who
maintain that science has proved the unreliability of the statements of Holy
Scripture. Dr. Millikan says: "There is also a philosophic side [sc., of the
question]. Science is sometimes charged with inducing a materialistic
philosophy. But if there is anything which the growth of modern physics
should have taught, it is that such dogmatic assertiveness about the whole
of what there is or is not in the universe as was represented by nineteenth-
century materialism is unscientific and unsound. The physicist has had the
bottom knocked out of his generalizations so completely that he has learned
with Job the folly of 'multiplying words without knowledge,' as did all
those who once asserted that the universe was to be interpreted in terms of
hard, round, soulless atoms and their motions. The Oxford biologist John
Scott Haldane has recently written: 'Materialism, once a scientific theory,
is now the fatalistic creed of thousands; but materialism is nothing better
than a superstition on the same level as belief in witches and devils.' ".
Let us, then, not be afraid when would·be scientists attack our holy Book.
Their boasts reveal not the depth, but the shallowness, of their learning.
A.
On the Establishing of Fraternal Relations among the Different
Branches of the Lutheran Church of This Country. - In the Theolog-
ical Forum, published by the Norwegian Lutheran Church of America, we
find a reprint of a part of an essay written by Rev. H. 1. Schuh, D. D., and
published in the .Pastor's Monthly appearing within the Ohio Synod. The
title of the essay must be appealing to everyone who loves the American
Lutheran Zion, "What Can be Done to Bring About More Fraternal Rela-
tions among the Different Branches of the Lutheran Church of This
Theological Observer. - .Rird)nd)~2ett(Jefd)id)md)eil. 453
Country?" We shall briefly sketch the contents of this part of the essay
and append a few comments. We are justified all the more in dwelling
on it since the writer several times mentions the Missouri Synod or
Missourians.
Unity of doctrine, practise, and spirit, says Dr. Schuh, is the im-
portant objective, not unity in outward organization. The latter is not to
be despised, but there must first be unity in spirit. How can it be brought
about?
First it ought to be recognized that more personal conference and
less controversial writing is desirable, since men are so apt to read not
only on, but between the lines, and words as well as sentences are not
always accepted in the sense in which they were written. In personal
conference the opportunity for immediate correction and clarification is
given. Besides, it must not be forgotten that there are a great many
things on which we agree. While it would be wrong for us to ignore our
differences, we should not magnify them till we see nothing but these dif-
ferences. .Again, let everyone be honest to his opponent, and let him
not impute to a man what the latter expressly repudiates. Put the best,
not the worst, construction on everything.
Furthermore, in your controversy avoid all personalities. What you
are after is not victory, but the truth.
In the next place, be willing to admit the possibility of error on your
part. While our faith must be a conviction based on the clear Word of
God, no one should forget that to him, too, applies the old saying, "It is
human to err."
Then, do not blame a whole church-body for what at some time one
of its members has said. Members of a synod are, of course, responsible
for the official declarations of their synod, especially if they did not protest
at the time when such declarations were made, but do not hold every
member of a body responsible for every word that any member of that body
may have written .
.Again, the erection of opposition altars should be avoided if it is at
all possible. This is to be urged all the more strongly since frequently
congregations are divided not on questions of doctrine, but for personal
reasons. Furthermore, cooperation in spheres where it can take place with-
out sacrifice of principle and violation of conscience is to be sought. .And
finally, "let us in earnest prayer ask for the guidance and direction of the
Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of peace, in our efforts to bring about more
fraternal relations among the various Lutheran bodies of this country."
Those who oppose the opening of free conferences with devotional services,
the reading of Scripture, and prayer have erring consciences in this matter.
"Common prayer seems to them under the circumstances as the next thing
to hypocrisy; but they certainly look at the whole matter from a wrong
viewpoint. We meet in such conferences not to ignore, but to remove,
our differences, and why should it be wrong in common to plead with God
for the enlightenment and guidance of His Spirit?"
The above contains in brief form the principal thoughts of that part of
Dr. Schuh's article which the Theological Forum reprints. Can we deny
that it strikes responsive chords in our bosom? .Among the things which
454 Theological Observer. - .Rirdjlidj~3eit\1efdjidjmdjes.
we Missourians wish and pray for is this, that we might join hands with
those who like ourselves profess to stand on the Lutheran Confessions.
To bring about such unity, our fathers, in the fifties of the last century,
advocated free conferences of Lutherans, and in several instances such
meetings were richly blessed.
But while conceding at once that it is our duty to work for unity
among the various synods of our American Lutheran Church, let us not
overlook that the tendency to-day is to ignore differences and to bring about
union at almost any price. Dr. Schuh deprecates such an attitude, to be
sure, but must we not say to ourselves that the danger to-day lies not on
the side of too great rigor in insisting on distinctive doctrines, but rather
on that of yielding to the spirit of the times, which clamors for union?
Again, everyone of us will have to admit that it is comparatively
easy at present to contract a union or bring about fraternal relations with
some other church-body, since everybody is in favor of such action, but that
it is difficult to dissolve the bond after it has once been established. Is it
not the better part of wisdom to go slowly in this respect? Most of us
recently have heard of people who are dissatisfied with the company into
which they were brought by church mergers, but who find themselves in
such a strong net that they cannot escape. Above everything else let it be
emphasized that in striving for unity we cannot ignore the Scripture-
teaching with respect to unionism. The Bible throughout urges us to be
truthful, honest, and upright, especially when it comes to matters of doc-
trine. We must not through church connections create the impression that
we are teaching something which in reality we reject. Such a course would
be insincere and dishonest. When the Bible warns against unionism, it
really warns against a dishonest attitude toward revealed truth. This
matter we must not consider lightly. Furthermore, there is the Scripture-
warning against the insidiousness of error, be it ever so small. "A little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump," says St. Paul. Anybody who is condon-
ing a doctrinal error is going counter to this word of the inspired apostle.
When Missourians at free conferences objected to joint public prayer, it
was due, not to an erring conscience, but, as Dr. Schuh acknowledges, to the
conviction that obedience to the Scriptures demanded such an attitude.
In conclusion, then, we say that, while we should earnestly pray and
work for the coming of the day when all American Lutherans will stand as
one united host, and while we should carefully guard against bigotry and
fanaticism, which easily beset the path of the strenuous confessor, the perils
of the time require that we should beware especially of the poison of
unionism, which, when it has entered a body, soon begets indifference
toward every article of divine revelation. A.
,,