I (ttnutnrbttt (!Jl1rnlugtrul lInut41y Continuing LEHRE U_ 0 VVEHRE M.'\GAZIN FUER Ev -L TH. HOMILETIK THEOLOlJICAL QUARTERL Y -THEOLOGICAL MONTIIL Y Vol. III March, 1932 No.3 CONTENTS r MUELLER, J. T.: Lux Vent.,t 161 KRETZMANN, P E . Zwd pr,lktische Fr.\gen betretfs der hE:.ligen T .. L . . . • .. . . . . . . .. .. . 107 1 AIER. W. A.: Vag. ries o� TeJldential Exogesib as Illus- ., .d by the Interpretation of Is. 1, 18..... 175 SIHLER, E. G.: A Note on the First Christian Congrega- tion at Rome.. . 180 KRETZMANN, P. E.: Die HAuptschriften Luthers in chro- nologi::cher Reihenfol"e 185 LAETSCH, TH.: Studie tIl Hosea 1-3 . ... . . . . 187 KRETZM NN, P. E .. Th Fu:;nlH 1 .l! actor in Preaching 196 Dispositionen ueber dlf' :..welte VOll der Synodalkonferenz angenommene EV'n,,'elienreih ' . . .. .. . 202 Mi cellnn"" 213 Theologico1 0 "�rver. - KiI'chllch-Zp.itgeschichtlichE's . .. 216 Book ne"l � . - LiLt 1 �tur 233 E Pred\g(r muss nicht alletn WMdtn, n' 0 er die Schafe unterwciae, w ie ale re<:hte Chri ten 801len eeln, .. ,,,de:n Jch d. � b � den Wocfen wehren dasa 1.. I t .. � -• .lJUI t J die hr .. I der Kuche Lehaelt t! n d. gute l'redlgt. - - ApoloU!:, Arl.24. lie d' I3chafc nieht angreifeu uad mit If fhe 'rumpct rr\ve an unctrtaln sound. fais.:ber I,e!lle �·.;fuehrcn und lrrtum e1n. who " pr"Pare �Imsc'f to the battle' f'Jehren. - LulMr. 1 Cor. �. 8. I Published for the I Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other states t CONCORDIA PUllLISHING HOUSE, St- Laut • Xo. Vagaries of Tendential Exegesis of Is. 1, 18. 175 feWor ~iioer (t 1894) fjat bie i)'rage, bie un~ borHegt, fein in feinem: "llmri13" einer ~aftoraI±~eoIogie 3ufammengefa13±: ,,~~ ift offenoar na§. miClj±ige, baB man ba, lno cine el)rif±riclje ®emeinbe erft in~ Eeoen ge" rufen bJirb, alfo aUf bem ~JHffioni3felbe, erft un±erriell±d unb bann tauf±' SDa aoer, roo eine cljrif±riclje ®emeinbe oeftefjt mit i~tem ganaen ®infIu13 aUf jung unb aIt, foU man erft taufen unb bonn unierricljien. SDort roirb bie ;raufe bet ~rroacljf enen, ~iet bie ~inbedaufe bie ffi:egeI f ein; bodj ift bie leJ.?iere nur bann oerecljiigt, roenn bie ® e ro i 13 fj e it b 0 r fj a n ben ift, b a 13 bet el) xi ftL i clj e U n ± e r " xiclji foIgen roirb." ~uf biefen ~Ui3fii~rungcn, bie aUf ber €clJtif± o erufj en, mag ficlj unf ere ~ra6i~ auclj fenter aufliauen. msilfjrenlJ ein ~aftor nidj± Ieiclj± ben @5tanbpunft einnefjmen roirb, bat er bie ;raufe berroeiged, roenn folclje, Me bie eIterliclje ®eroaH iioer ein mnb oefiJ.?en, bief ei3 aur ;raufe oringen, fo roitb et gIeidjroofjI auclj ~iet aUe j80tficlji georaudjen, baB Me fjeiHge &Janblung nidjt au einer oloten @5pieIerei toirb. ~ft irgenbroeIdje S[(Ui3ficlj±, baB ber djriftriclje lln±erricljt fpilter foIgen fann, fo mag bie ;raufe boU30gen roerben. ~ft aber cine foldje ~nnn~me bon born~erein bomg aUi3gefdjloffen, fo mU13 hie 5taufe jebenfaUi3 berroeiged roerben, oefonberi3 roenn jebe ffielefjrung bon feHen be~ SDiener~ am msod am:iicl:" getuiefen roitb. ~. ®. Sh e J.? man n. ~ . ~ Vagaries of Tendential Exegesis as Illustrated by the Interpretation of Is. 1, 18. It would be difficult to find on the pages of the entire Scriptures, even in the fulfilment of the New Testament, a passage which in point of clarity, precision, and emphasis surpasses the offer of full and free grace that is contained in the oft-quoted, much-beloved words of the prophet Isaiah: "Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord: Tho1[gh your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red lilee c1'imson, they shall be as wool," chap. 1, 18. The very English of this promise seems to have been chosen with a peculiar fitness; for with only two exceptions the words of the second part of the verse, with which we are particularly engaged, are monosyllables; and in the entire verse only two words are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. The appeal is thus clothed in a directness and simplicity which worthily corresponds to the profound promise of a divine mercy that assures to lost and condemned sinners the full and free forgiveness of sins, that lays down no conditions and insists upon no exceptions. This English is a faithful and idiomatic reproduction of the original. Here, without any significant manuscript variants, with- 176 Vagaries of Tendential Exegesis of Is. 1, 18. out any essential divergences in any major or minor version, the Hebrew presents this promise of pardon with such forcefulness and directness that no suggestion of any other interpretation was ad- vanced until the rise of anti-Scriptural scholarship. Our attention has been focused upon this passage and the mutilating tendencies of radical interpretation by the American Bible, issued by the University of Ohicago. Mter the separate trans- lations of the Old Testament, directed by Dr. J. M. Powis Smith, and of the New Testament, supervised by Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, had been individuaIly announced to the American press and each one singly acclaimed, both were combined, and in another extensive publici ty program "the first American Bible" was o:fferGd to the American people as the embodiment and consellSUS of the most scientific opinion in Biblical research and interpretation, clothed in the best and most modern English. In this Ohicago University Bible the direct affirmation of full forgiveness in Is. 1, 18 is changed into the skeptical query:- If your sins be like scarlet, Can they be white as snow? If they be red like crimson, Can they lJBC01l1e as ,yool? And because this is but one of a half dozen attGmpts to vitiate this pledge of limitless love, we o:ffer the following synopsis of some of the exegetical vagaries that have associated themselves with this passage. I. The Ohicago University translation, of course, is neither new 1101' original. A Lut11erRn publication speaks of the American Bible [)s promoted by "the progress of modern criticism of the Bible teachings and truths." But there is nothing modern in the inter- pretation of Is. 1,18 as a question. Some have ascribed it to IN ell- hausen (so, apparently, Sir George Adams Smith, The Book of Isaiah, p. 13); but long before vVellhausen, Koppe, Eichhorn, Michaelis, and Augusti made the verbs in the last clause intel'l'ogative: "Shall they be white as snow?" etc. In other words, this modern American Bible contains and endorses an interpretation which was current in Germany much more than a century ago, and an interpretation which must be rejected o~ the basis of reasons so compelling that the perpetuation of this mistranslation in the Ohicago Bible must be ascribed to tendential reasons. In the first place, this assumption of a question is utterly arbi- trary. It is well known, of course, that there are some instances in which the interrogative particles nand Ot:t are omitted, since the natural emphasis is sufficient indication of interrogation. But this is not a syntactical license which permits a plain indicative to become Vagaries of Tendential Exegesis of Is. 1, 18. 177 an interrogative by capricious metamorphosis. In Old Testament and Semitic Studies in ~J!lemory of William Rainey Harper H. G. Mitchell discusses "The Omission of the Interrogative Particle" (Vol. I, p. 115 ff.) and shows that "thel'e are comparatively few cases in which the particle is omitted from a dil'ect and independent single question." The omission of the interrogative particle is thus not a syntactical device to which promiscuous reCOUl'se may be taken; it is rather of such relatively infrequent occurrence that there must be strong and conclusive evidence of natural emphasis and context before it may be adopted. Mitchell, o. c., finds only thiTty-nine in- stances of omitted interrogative particles in the entire Old Testa- ment; and we might just as easily, and with cOl'l'esponding' inap- propriateness, change the opening words of Genesis to l'ead: "Did God create the heaven and the earth in the beginning?" as to make our passage a question. But there is a precise and absolute denial of this interrogative theory. Burney, J oumal of Theological Studies, 11, 433-435, has shown that the interrogative pal'ticle is essential in constructions such as that before us. He says : "No clear case occurs throughout the Old Testament in which a question is to be assumed as implied by the speakel"s tone (without use of an intel'l'ogative particle) in the apodosis of a conditional or a concessive sentence." And the Ohicago translation's perpetuation of Wellhausen, and vVellhauscn's reproduc- tion of earlier critics, stand condenmed on the decisive basis of Hebrew syntactical usage and contextual surrounding. Even the rationalist August Knobel, Del' P1'ophet J esaias, p.l0, feels that "m,it einer solchen Eroeffmmg konnte del' Prophet das V olk nicht zur Ve1'- hancll1mg einladen, was e1' doch tut." The claims that are raised in SUppOl't of the interrogative hypothesis are typical of the liberal and tendential attitude. For instance, Gray, in "The Book of Isaiah," International Oritical Oommentary, p.29, says: "The interrogative interpretation, though grammatically questionable, would accord with prophetic teaching .... If the sins are really Hagrant, are they to put on the appeanmce of mere triHing errors ~ The whole argument of Yahweh in vv. 18-20 then embodies the fundamental, now teaching of the prophets: That Yahweh is Israel's God does not make Him more lenicnt to Israel's sin (cp. Amos 3, 2); scarlet sins He will treat as scarlet, not as white (v. 18); only through obedience to Yahweh's moral demands can Yahweh's favor be gained (v. 19); disobedience must invoke disaster (v. 20)." But the obvious answer to this labored presentation is simply this, that the verse patently does not involve any "fundamental, new teaching of the prophets," but that it simply offers a restatement of the many promises of pal'don with which the pages of the Old Testa- 12 178 Vagaries of Tendentia1 Exegesis of Is. 1, 18. ment abound. Thus, the natural, the direct and inevitable inter- pretation, recognized in the Targums and in the Jewish Ohurch, expressed in every significant translation, offers the only reverent and scientific explanation of the passage. It cannot be surprising thel'efore that the interrogative inter- pretation has, at best, found only half-hearted and hesitating en- dorsement, like the tentative approval of Gray, above, and that it is not accepted by the vast majority of liberal interpreters to-day. But these interpreters, instead of avowing the universal intcrpretation of these words, have frequently offered exegetical vagaries which are like- wise condemned by the process of sound exegesis. II. Thus, Duhm, in Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (UDas Bttch J esaia/' p. 10), offers: - Wohlan denn vmd lasst uns rechten, lVenn BU1'e S1lenden sind wie Schadach, lVenn sie rot sind wie Purpu1', spricht J ahve: lasst sie wie Schnee weiss sein! la,sst sie wie Wolle sein! He rejects the question hypothesis and pictures the proffering of this pardon as ironical, claiming: U Die I1'onie passt vielleicht besser, da doch das Rechten nu1' sa1'lcastisch gemeint sein lcann und da man dann auch das ~~W~, .,'?~~ als absichtliche, naemlich spoettische U ebertrei- bung fasse:a'da1'f,"waeh1'end die unabsichtZiche U ebe1'treibung eine Un- ge1'echtiglceit enthalten und den Angl'iff schwaechen wuerde. Auch der Bedingungssatz passt bessel' zul' Ironie; e1' steZlt als moegZich hin, dass scharlachrote Suenden zum T1 orsch ein lcommen, sagl aber nicht, dass 'eU1'e Suenden' ueberhaupt schal'lachrot sind." But the irony is vicious, because the picture of a tainted nation, heavy with social and religious sins, being flaunted by the sarcastic derision of a God who institutes a mock trial, tantalizes the accused with the suggestion of purification and pnrdon, and then ridicules the very suggestion of their release from sin, - all this is utterly alien to Isaiah's and Israel's picture of the gracious Father. Again, there is not the slightest evidence of any ironical elements in the verse itself or in the context. If the literal meaning of a text is to be abandoned in favor of a figurative meaning, the reasons for this departure must be clear and convincing. The mere fact that a German critic, two and a half millennia after the promulgation of this promise, insists upon a figurative interpretation which no one else had recognized or acknowledged, is one of the sharpest denunciations of this claim. And the following verse, which is based upon the ac- ceptance of God's proffered purification, dismisses this theory of sarcasm as quite out of harmony with its textual environment. Even Gray, o. c., admits: "But this [Duhm's theory of irony] gives a less satisfactory connection between" vv. 18 and 19. Vagaries of Tendential Exegesis of Is. 1, 18. 179 III. Others, realizing that the sentence is indicative and that the offer 'of God is real and not ironical, have gone to other extremes in the effort to obviate the plain implications of the text. Gesenius asserts -that the sins of Israel will be blotted out by divine punishment and that in this way the red sins will become white. In his Kommenta1' ueber den J eSQ,ias, pp. 163. 164, he claims: «lvI an wird sich attch hier Jehovah nicht vergebend, nicht das Yolk als zu ueberzeuyen suchend, sondern als strafenden Richter denken muessen, so dass Weyschaffen der blutroten Schuld in einer Vertilgung der Sttenden besteht." But the introductory proposal "Oome and let us reason together" repudiates this; for if the passage involves merely the announcement of punishment, no consolation or forensic procedure such as that is required. Besides, the color symbolism is neither adequately ap- preciated nor correctly explained in the picture of sins that are whitened in destruction. A particularly curious interpretation of this symbolism has been made by Umbreit, who explains the last clause by asserting that, how- ever red, i. e., discolored or disguised, Israel's sins may be, they are to be brought to the light and to aPlx,ar in their natural guilt. In his Pmktischel' K ommen tar twber den J esaja, Part I, p. 9, he declares: uDenlcen wir bei Scharlach und Purpur nicht an die blutrote Farbe der Suenden, nach V.16, welches ueberhattpt dem guten Geschmacke widerstrebt, sondern ... on die stoe1"7,:ste U eberfoerbung derselben, so dass sich im Gegensotz der 1'oten Farbe zu der weissen des Schnees und der W oile del' passende Sinn el'gibt." 'W enn die Fl'evle1' ihre SchuZd auch noch so sol'yfaeZtig verbergen und mit Scheinheiligkeit uebertuenchen, so wird dieselbe, sobald sie sich in einen Rechtsstreit mit J ehova einlassen, doch in ihrer nackten Bloesse hervortreten.' >-" Similarly, Hackmann in D'ie Zukunftserwartung des J esaia, p. 118, asks whether the key to the interpretation is not to be found in the scarlet as a symbol of pomp and majesty and the white as the symbol of the sins that have lost their color and glamor. The sense would then be (Gray, o. c., 29): "Your sins, though they may now flaunt forth in all the glory of color, will lose it and become washed out." But these interpretations have found little critical favor because they are openly inconsistent with the Scriptural associations of red and white. Deep red, expressed by the two forceful terms "crimson" and "scarlet," is the color of extreme guilt, Rev. 17,4, while white is the color of restored innocence, according to the natural and widely accepted presentation of Scriptures, Mark 16, 5; Rev. 3,4; 7, 13 f.; 19,11. 14. And any suggestion or any translation that rides ruthlessly over these accepted figures eliminates itself. 180 A Note on the First Christian Congregation at Rome. IV. These translations, while presenting the most frequently sug- gested critical evasions, by no means exhaust the catalog of misinter- pretations. Thus Gray, o. c., offers: - Though your sins were like scarlet (robes), they might become white like snow; Though they were red like crimson, they might become like wool, and claims that the argument is: "Even though the people may have committed the most flagrant sins, they may regain the highest degree of innocence," putting the whole as merely imaginary hypothesis. Oheyne similarly gives the imperfect a potential force, translating, "They may be white as snow," but palpably weakening this magnifi- cent assurance. Moses Buttenwieser takes the inevitable recourse to emendation and changes the text, against all textual evidence and in utter disregard of the sacred prophecies. But behind all this, directly or indirectly, is the refusal of radical scholarship to accept and believe the plain reading of a plain text that is substantiated by every aid to interpretation which we have. All arguments that have been advanced to discountenance the traditional interpretation (the assertion that "an offer of complete forgiveness is out of place in a summons to judgment"; the objection that "Isaiah nowhere so complacently offers the free forgiveness"; that this con- tradicts other statements of the prophet) are all easily met by sound and reverent exegesis. Once again the conviction forces itself upon the student of the text that this squirming, evasive exegesis is but the telling evidence of an inflexible desire to mll111TIlZe or even to eliminate the free grace of a forgiving God. W. A. MAIER. A Note on the First Christian Congregation at Rome. Ohapter 16 of St. Paul's letter to the Romans has been called in question by some of the higher critics. To one who realizes that Rome then was the center of JliIediterranean civilization and that men (and women) incessantly came and went there for a multitude of motives, there is nothing wonderful in the preponderance of Greek names over Latin in that chapter. Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila pursued there the manufacturing of tent-cloth; but they were natives of the prov- ince of Pontus. Paul himself, a Roman citizen by birth, was a native of Tarsus, capital of Oilicia. I will dwell a little on that town. Let us see what our best authority, Strabo, tells us. Strabo,l) a con- temporary of Augustus and Tiberius, a native of Amaseia in Asia 1) See my essay on Strabo in the Amerioan Journa~ of Philology, 1923.