QTnurnr~ta:
m4tnlngual :!InutlJly
COl1tiDl1il1g
LEHRE UND ~EHRE
MAGAZIN PUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. IX September, 1938 No.9
CONTENTS
Pale
Mastering the Technique of Sel'DlOn Building. E. J. Friedrich ______ 641
Kleine Danielstudien. L. Fuel'brlngel' . ___ . _________________ .___________________________ 648
Erasmus on Luther. Wm. Dallmann ______ _ _____ . _______________________________ _ 660
That Review of Pastor Goel'ss's Book in the "Lutheran"
Martin Sommer _. ___ __ _____________________ __ ._ 674
Sermon Study on Jas.5:13-20. Th. Laetsch _______________________ 678
Miscellanea ____ __ _______ __ __ _ ____ .___ _ __ _ ______________ . ________ .. _. _ 896
Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeilgeschichtliches ______ ... ________ 703
Book Review. - Literatur _ . . __ .
Eln Predlger mWIII nlcht alleln wei-
den, also dass er die Schafe unter-
weise. wte ale rechte ChrWen 6011en
.eln. Bondern 8uch daneben den Woel-
fen wehren. dais sie die Schafe nlcht
angreUen und mit falscher Lehre ver-
fuehren und Irrtum elnfuehren.
Lu ther
_ . ___ __ .--____________ . _____ 713
Es tst keln Ding. das die Leute
mehr bel del' Klrche behaelt denn
die gut e Predl&t. - Apo/o~. A rt. 24 .
If the trumpet give an uncertain
sound who shall prepare h1mH1f to
the battle? -1 Cor. 14. B.
Published for the
Ev. Lutb. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCOBDIA PUBLISHING BOUSE, St. LoWs, Mo.
Theological Observer - ~itd)nd)~8eit(lefd)id)tltcf)es 703
~ological
I. 2(mtriktl
The I:.:f::"C·C:lrc,: that Keep ihne:dcllln Lutherans ham Complete Uni-
fication. - Dr. A. J. Traver's article in "The Young People" section of
the Lutheran of June 8 is entitled "Growing Lutheran Unity." Under
the heading "Missouri and Ohio" it states: "About a century ago a wave
of German immigration came to the Middle West. A center of this
settlement was St. Louis, Mo. Unlike their Eastern brethren of a century
before, they settled in such large numbers that whole communities were
practically German in language and custom. The Lutheran Church
easily became exclusive and separate under these conditions. In addi-
tion their leaders had been vigorous opponents of the forced union of
Lutherans and other Protestants in Prussia. Some had met persecution
for refusal to compromise their convictions. In time a synod was formed
named Missouri, and this with other similar synods became The Synod-
ical Conference. Th.is body of Lutherans has no fellowship with the
United Lutheran Church. It fears what it calls unionism. That is the
name for any union as to organization that does not fully represent an
inner agreement on all essentials. This group refuses to allow other
Lutheran pastors to preach in its pulpits and other Lutheran people to
commune at its altars. It is a vigorous group, however, fast adopting
modern methods for its work. It is becoming increasingly influential in
the national life." (We shall not take the time to discuss the last sen-
tence and the latter half of the preceding one.)
"What is said of this group may also be said of the origin of The
Joint Synod of Ohio and of the various national synods which trans-
plant in a measure their European languages and customs. Every
Lutheran nation is represented by some type of national organization-
Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and the like. Usually these im-
migrants settled in clans, where the language and customs would not
be lost. It is easy to see how they, too, would be led to a position of
exclusion so far as other Christian groups were concerned. Hundreds
of thousands of their young people drifted into other Protestant churches,
But those who remained are giving a new leadership to these synods.
Ai> a result they are federated into The American Lutheran Conference,
and while maintaining their identity, they are gradually fusing into a
mighty power for Christ. They extend a larger measure of fellowship
to the United Lutheran Church and are more often found working with
them in their common interests. This group with the United Lutheran
Church has a bond of unity in The National Lutheran Council. They
also belong to The Lutheran World Convention."
Under the heading of "Differences" four points are discussed. This
section reads: "The differences that keep American Lutherans from
complete unification are more on the surface than real. They are:
1) All agree that the Scriptures are inspired. But some insist that some
certa.in method of inspiration should be accepted while others, as in the
704 Theological Observer - Rtrcf}ncf}=.8dt\lefcf}icf}t!icf}e~
United Lutheran Church, declare that the fact of inspiration must be
accepted while the method may be a matter of opinion." This state-
ment does not describe the situation correctly. There is no agreement
on the matter of inspiration between the United Lutheran Church and
us. True enough, "all agree that the Scriptures are inspired." But that
does not mean a thing in this connection. The rankest liberal, rationalist,
Pelagian, will subscribe to the thesis that Scripture is inspired. He
will say: Sure, just as Emerson and Shakespeare were inspired. It all
depends upon what you mean by inspiration; it all depends on what
our article is pleased to call "the method." When we say that every
word of Holy Scripture is inspired, the very word of God, absolutely
true, and others refuse to say that, the difference between us is not
merely on the surface but is a real one. And a vital one. Those who
have read The New Testament Commentary, H. C. Alleman, ed., know
that a wide gulf separates the Lutherans of America in the matter of
inspiration. Dr. Reu declared that the gulf is impassable. (See CONC.
THEOL. MTHLY., current year, p. 296 ff.) Dr. Dell made the same state-
ment. (See p. 357 ft.) The theologians of the U. L. C. should know, and
should tell their young people, that the differences in the doctrine of in-
spiration as taught by leading theologians of the U. L. C. and by us
are irreconcilable.
The other points of difference mentioned are: '(2) There is a very
marked difference as to the relationship of Lutherans with other Prot-
estants. Unionism seems to be the acme of all sins to many Lutheran
leaders. The United Lutheran Church does not fear unionism as do
many of the other groups. Dr. Greever suggests [in the Lutheran
World Almanac for 1937] that there could be a wholesome discussion
on the subject, 'Resolved, That the sins of unionism are greater than
the sins of separatism.''' The sin of separatism is a grievous sin. But
the subject of the present paragraph is unionism. Let us stick to that.
We shall call upon Dr. J. C. Mattes to discuss that. He will show that
the sin of unionism is a most grievous one. And it will be seen L'1at
the difference on unionism is a real one.
"3) Membership in secret orders is another bone of contention. The
problem here is whether such a matter is to be regulated by legal en-
actment of the Church and discipline enforced or whether the entire
matter is to be left to the conscience of the individual." The question
in reality is whether a Christian can be permitted to join secret orders.
"4) Dr. Greever also suggests that dogmatism stands in the way of
Lutheran understanding. He quotes the late Dr. H. E. Jacobs: 'A dogma
is a definition of doctrine made by church authority, and therefore
the term dogma and doctrine are not synonymous.' The temptation
for the theologian is to include too much in his dogma, to go beyond
the clearly established facts of the Bible, and to insist upon his own in-
terpretation of them. Says Dr. Greever: 'Open minds for open questions
by all might promote fellowship.''' Let him who will discuss the differ-
ence between dogma and doctrine. What concerns us just now is that
clearly revealed doctrines of Holy Scripture are being denied by theolo-
gians of the United Lutheran Church, important, fundamental doctrines.
Dr. Traver should inform his young people that Dr. C. H. Little of the
U. L. C. has written a book on Disputed Doctrines, the very first chapter
of which contains the statement that "the Biblical doctrine of predestina-
tion excludes synergism in all its forms" and, without mentioning names,
takes issue with the men in the U. L. C. who do teach synergism. It is
a notorious fact that to this day leading theologians of the U. L. C. pub-
licly teach synergism. The differences that keep American Lutherans
from complete unification are real.
The last section, headed "Signs of the Times," closes thus: "8) Im-
pelling Conviction. There is a universal opinion that Lutherans must
get together. Laymen and women are speaking out as never before
against separation. They are even forcing the hands of their leaders."
Indeed, Lutherans must get together. God wants a united Lutheran
Church, united in the truth, free from all false teaching. God bless the
laymen who are working towards this end. But we cannot quite un-
derstand the statement that in this matter "the laymen and women are
even forcing the hands of their leaders." We have not encountered such
a phenomenon in our midst. Are the laymen in the U. L. C. forcing the
hands of their leaders? Dr. Traver approves of their attitude. He is
telling his young people that this is an encouraging sign. Now, are these
laymen right? Are they taking the Biblical position, demanding a union
in the truth? If so, their leaders must be taking a wrong position. On
the other hand, if the leaders are right, they should not permit the lay-
men to force their hands. Or are some of the leaders of the U. L. C.
determined to prevent a union at all costs, even though unity of doctrine
is attained? Finally, if the laymen of the U. L. C. are at odds with their
leaders, should that not be attended to before a union on a wider scale
is attempted? Surely the young people will find this situation most
puzzling. E.
A Pronouncement agamst Unionism. - "The Relation of the Lu-
theran Church to Other Churches" is the title of an article by Dr. J. C.
Mattes which appeared in the Lutheran Church Quarterly, April issue,
p.128 ff. The first paragraph reads: "The assertion that one faith is as
good as another or that it does not matter what a man believes so long as
he is sincere, proves nothing so much as the absence of true faith. It is
only another way of saying that a man's inner emotions count for more
than God's objective revelation. Sometimes that sentiment takes the
form of a pseudo-toleration that would forget all differences of belief
because, after all, we are all worshiping one God, accept the same moral
code, or think we do, and all have the same laudable purpose of up-
lifting man."
A subsequent paragraph reads: "There is no place in the New
Testament for sectarianism. The Lord spoke of one fold and one Shep-
herd, and His prayer of intercession pleaded that all might be one.
St. Paul knows only one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, and he upbraids
the Corinthians for the divisions that were among them, 1 Cor. 1:10;
3: 3; 11: 18, and tells them that there should be no schism in the body,
He beseeches the Romans to 'mark them which cause divisions and
offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.'
We might perhaps do well to include the next verse: 'For they that are
45
such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly and by good
words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.' Can these
be prophetic descriptions of some of the paid agents of various union
movements? The ideal of the New Testament is not unionism or mere
external union but unity. . .. There must be unity, not schism, in the
body of C1-.~~ot o~,:l .,11 t].."t r1;orupts the body of Christ is sin. But this
does not mean that unity is to be preserved at the expense of fidelity
or by any surrender of an absolute and uncompromising fidelity to the
faith once delivered to the saints. The Church must be kept free from
every taint of impure teaching or false doctrine, and all offenders against
sound doctrine are to be expelled from the Church. . .. Even the most
gentle and loving of the apostles says: 'If there come any unto you and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him
Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil
deeds.' "
Again: "There can be no outward union with those with whom
there is no inward unity. It is impossible for two to walk together
unless they be agreed, Amos 3:3. Any attempt to do so must result
either in the tacit denial of the importance of all the truths included in
God's revelation, by making elaborate distinctions between the truths
we must keep and those we can disregard, or else must lead to a most
elastic sense of honesty on the part of those who thus seek union even
at the cost of true unity. This was Luther's reason for not taking
Zwingli's hand at IVIarburg. He was fully convinced that he was justified
in saying: 'Sie haben einen anderen Geist.' And this is the reason
why the Lutheran Church has steadfastly refused to become a part
of unionistic movements that grope after an outward union, it la Rome,
but which are ready to disregard the real inner unity of faith."
Dr. Mattes next quotes Luther: "If some broad-minded person, as
they like to be called, should say, 'What does it matter, so long as we
hold fast to God's Word, if we allow some additional teachings that are
not so offensive to stand beside it?' I would answer that they may be
called broad-minded people, but they are people with erring and deluded
minds." And this from his Warnungsschrift an die zu Frankfurt am
Main, sich var ZwingUscher Leh?'e und Lehrern zu hueten: "If anyone
knows that his pastor is publicly teaching Zwinglianism, he should
avoid him and should rather do without the Sacrament all his life than
receive it from him; yea, he should be ready to suffer all things, even
death, in so doing. . .. It is terrible for me to hear that in the same
church or at the same altar two parties should seek and receive the same
Sacrament, the one believing that it receives mere bread and wine, the
other believing that it receives the true body and blood of Christ.
I marvel that it should be possible that a preacher or pastor could be so
hardened or malicious that he could keep silence and allow both parties
to go on in their delusion that they have received one Sacrament, eacb
one according to his own belief, etc. . .. It is true that, when the
preachers distribute nothing but bread and wine, it does not make much
difference to whom they administer it or what those who receive it
know or believe. There is a case where 'all sows eat out of one trough,'
and there such care is useless. . .. Because we administer Christ's body
Theological Observer - Ritd)ltd}=3ettllefd)td}tnd)e!l 707
and blood in the Sacrament, we neither would nor could administer it
to anyone unless he was examined, etc." (St. L. ed., 17, 2007 ff.)
Dr. Mattes continues: "During the struggles of the last century one state-
ment was formulated that in its primary statement is and remains the
correct statement of the Lutheran position and whose principles will al-
ways be binding on the conscience and practise of those who profess real
Lutheranism. It is the so-called Galesburg Rule: 'Lutheran pulpits are
for Lutheran ministers only, Lutheran altars are for Lutheran com-
municants only.' This is a correct statement of the normal Lutheran
position, which grows logically out of the fundamental Scriptural position
as that was outlined before."
The concluding sentences read: "Always and ever we must guard
our people against the subtle propaganda of the order of religious camels
who want to stick their noses into the tent on the plea that we are all
one and who, once they are within, display their love by saying, 'You
are all wrong; you must do things our way.' Practically, that is the
way it always works. The plea is always for cooperation on their basis,
not on the basis of faith. So it seems we can again hear the prophet
Amos asking his ancient question: 'How can two walk together except
they be agreed?' " - Dr. Traver should inform his young people that his
statement "The United Lutheran Church does not fear unionism as do
many of the other groups" needs some restriction. E.
Is This ChHiasmus Crassns 01" Chiliasmus Crassissimus? - The Lu-
theran of March 30 published an article by Dr. Kunzmann, "Revelation.
Chapter 20," which contains the following: "And so we are confident that
during the millennium the Edenic conditions on earth will be restored
and that there shall be a tree of life in the New Jerusalem above which
sheds its leaves twelve times a year for the health of the nations upon
earth and that those who eat of the tree of life and are subject to the
rule of the iron rod and implicitly obey shall live during the thousand
years. It is only the disobedient H,-,t shall die during that period. Life
shall be so prolonged that a transgressor who dies at a hundred years
shall be considered only a child." Do the readers of the Lutheran be-
lieve such things, or does the Lutheran want them to read and mayhap
believe such things?
Here is another choice bit from the same article. The millennialists
use as a sedes doctrinae for their teaching of a double resurrection 1 Cor.
15: 23,24: "But every man in his own order (Ev .0 tMO) .6.YIlU.L): Christ
the First-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. Then
cometh the end." The accepted interPretation of this passage among
the milIennialists is (or rather has been): "'Each in his own order,'
rather rank, 'each in his own regiment.' Christ first and after Him the
godly, in a separate band from the ungodly; and 'then the end,' i. e., the
resurrection of the rest of the dead. Christ's own flock shall share His
glory 'at His coming,' which is not to be confounded with 'the end,' or
general Judgment. . .. The second coming of Christ is not a mere point
of time but a period beginning with the resurrection of the just at His
appearing and ending with the general Judgment, v.24. Then - after
that, next in the succession of 'orders' or 'ranks,' the end - the general
708 Theological Observer - ~itd){id)~8eitgefd)id)md)e~
resurrection." (Jamieson-Fausset-BroVJn Commentary.) The Lutheran
Commentary, edited by H. E. Jacobs, accepts this interpretation. We
quote: "V. 23. 'But each in his own order. Three groups, or ranks, suc-
cessively appear: 1. Christ, 2. 'they that are His,' viz., all believers, and
3. by implication, the resurrection of the unbelieving is included in 'the
end,' mentioned in the next verse. (Cp. 1 Thess. 4: 16.)" Dr. Kunzmann
improves on this interpretation. He is not satisfied with only three or-
ders, troops. He writes: "True, all the dead shall be raised; but Paul tells
us that they shall not be indiscriminately raised, but every dead person
shall be raised in the 'tagma,' the company, the rank, to which he be-
longs. So we have had a number of resurrections: the Old Testament
saints in Matthew, the elders (Presbuteroi) in First Thessalonians, the
tribulation saints in the seventh chapter, the seed of the woman caught
up to God in the twelfth, the 144,000 in the fourteenth chapter, and here
the l.ast company of martyrs, who were slain before the end of the tribu-
lation period in the twentieth chapter. These complete the first resur-
rection, and over these death hath no power. You will also notice that,
when the resurrection of the just and the unjust is spoken of, the just
are always mentioned first. When the Codex Sinaiticus speaks of the
resurrection which takes place in Rev. 20: 11-15, it tells us that they were
all condemned. Certainly God never mixes up things. In this second
resurrection were those who perished with Antichrist. In this second
resurrection are those who die during the millennium because they do
not obey the Law. In this second resurrection are the hordes of Gog
and Magog, and after it there are no fallen angels in heaven nor fallen
men on earth." - Just why did the Lutheran print and publish this?
E.
II. :Aushmb
~in ernfteil j!B.od ge:llen bie iSarmer ttnionilj)luttj'orm. ;;Sn ber "m:. ®.
2. Sl!." unterfuc9t in fUnf raufenben IlrrlifeIn 113farrer ~. lffi. §jopf bon IDlliijr~
~aufen hie vefannte marmer Union~jJrattform, bie atlJilcgen vefennenben Eu~
tr)eranern unb ffieformierlen ein getlJiffe~ (§inigung~i3ieI ~erilufteUen berfuc9te.
:tla~ ffiefurtat feiner Unterfuc9ung geftaltet fic9 fo: "meim ffilicMicf auf bie
(§rgevniff e unf erer 113riifung ber einaefnen marmer 6ii~e fteUen tlJir feft,
bat bie borre unb einbeutige meaeugung ber bi0ijer in ben Iutijetifcgen me~
fennini~fc9riften au~gefpr()cgenen £el)rein~eit tlJeber flir einen einilelnen 6at
noc9 fUr hie ganae (§dfiirung f>eijaujJ±et tlJerben barf. :tle~~alli ift hie mat~
mer ®rfliirung auc9 in feiner lffieife geeignet, ijur meanttvortung ber fo~
genann±en ,offcnen' 5.leqrfragen f>eiautragen, lif>er hie vi~l}er in unferer
Sl!itcge nod) feine @iinigreit erreid.)± tlJerben fonnte. m:ne, bie aUf hie 3eicgen
ber 3eit ac9±en unb auf bie 3ufunf± unfer~ ~(§rrn :;s(§fu ~~rifti luat±en
aLs tlJad.)fame unb arlJeUenbe Sl!ned.)te (nadj Eu!. 12,42.43), fouten be.rf±e~en,
bat tlJir in reiner ffiSeife beraniluorten fonnen, ba~ unierer Sfircge bor anbern
berne~enc toftbare l13funb ber reinen, fc9tiftgemiiten Eeijre ttn±er bem (§in~
brucf augenlJIicfHd.)er (§inmiingreit in Sl!amjJfe~fragen au berfc9Ieubern ober
auc9 nm au berfd.)feietn. :tlenn tlJir vraucgen bie~ (§rve fUr bie 3ufunft ber
ganaen ~l)riftengeit aUf ®rben. lffiir mlitten aner babon laWen, tlJenn tlJir
bet marmer (§dfiirung ben 113rei~ ciner rec9ten m:u~regung unb m:ntlJenbung
unferi21 mefenntniffeil ijuerfennen tlJouten. :tliefe (§rfliirung fUijd un~ atlJar
aum ~ragen, aver il}re m:nttlJorlen fonnen un~ tlJeber noften noc9 ftiiden
nod) unfcre &emeinllen ben unberfalfd)±en @eliraud) bon ~ort unb 6afra~
ment re~ren. ~rrren Iutljerifcljen ~rilbern alier, Die mit un;;; bie ~inbung
em ~armcn aliTeljnen, mUfl gefagt roerben, bafl ber unferer .mrd)e berorbnete
,~amj.Jf unb geroiefene ~eg nid)t reicfjter unb biffiget, fonbern ljader, teurer
un" bor arrem bier, bier einfamet ift ag ber ~eg bon ~armen. ~ur roer
nicfjt tueniger, fonbern meljt ag bie ~armet @:!rflarung nad) 2eljte unb ,3ucfjt,
Sl>taft unb @eroifl!)eit betfangt unb ben .\j@:!rrn bet Si'itcfje batum oittet,
fann ljeu±e mit ben miiiern unfetet SHtd)e in @:!inigreit bei:l @fauoeni:l le!)ten
unb oefennen." stIai3 ift ein ~Ui:lfj.Jtltd) einei:l 2ltt~etaneri:l, bet roo!)l fie!)t, rote
ittefiiljtenb eine lInioniftifd)e ~lattfotm ift unb roie roicfjtig ei:l ift, ban lu±lje~
tifd)e ~aftoren unb @emeinben Dei bem ~efenn±nii:l ber SfitdJc oleioen. ~ur
witb ficfj fUt fold)e ~aftoten in bet llnionifHf cfjen moIfi:lfitcfje leine oleilienbe
6tiitte finben lanen, folange fie geroiffenljaft anf @otiei:l ~ort btingen.
;;Sljnen .breilit fcfjIienHcfj nUt bet ~ui3±titt. ;;So ~. m.
Public Recognition of Our Fellow-Lutherans in Australia. - On
June 8 the Adelaide Advertiser published an editorial on the Lutherans
who immigrated into Australia a hundred years ago, which for the sake
of its historical interest we bring to the notice of our readers. The
editorial (as reprinted in the Australian Lutheran, June 10, 1938) reads:
"One hundred years ago today the first batch of German Lutherans
adventurously left their native village of Klemzig, in Prussia, for the
newly founded province of South Australia. The reason for their de-
parture was that fruitful one of exile, religious persecution; but in the
record of their exodus and subsequent settling stands out, in compelling
detail, the figure of the man who so boldly and capably conceived and
executed the whole project - Pastor Augustus Kavel.
"He was indeed a minor Moses, successfully conducting his per-
secuted people out of bondage and into a land of freedom and boundless
promise.
"Born in 1798, Kavel was appointed pastor of t..l}e Evangelical Lu-
theran Churc..h at Klemzig in 1826, just as the quarrel between King
Frederick William ill and the Lutheran. Church had begun to assume
serious proportions.
"It was a modern manifestation of the old, desperate clash between
spiritual and temporal values. In 1817 a union had been effected between
the Reformed and the Lutheran churches, and as the king was ambi-
tious to bring about the welding together of the Germanic peoples into
one people, he issued, in 1822, an entirely new liturgy, which he ordered
to be used in the military and garrison churches and recommended to
all Protestant communities. The new liturgy was at once unwelcome
and met with such determined and continued protestation that at last,
in 1829, it was revised and various concessions made.
"But Protestant opinion considered the concessions inadequate and
pressed for their reconsideration. The king, however, ignored the request
and acted ruthlessly. Dissentient pastors were immediately imprisoned,
dismissed, or banished; police supervision was enforced, and fines were
levied upon them. They were, further, forbidden to administer Holy
Communion or to attend private meetings of their parishioners.
"This coercive and insufferable attitude was rootedly unfair, since
the new liturgy contained statements which were contrary to the Augs-
71 0 Theological Observer - .Ritd)Hd)