January 2007

CONCORDIA JOURNAL
Volume 33 January 2007 Number 1
CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
Theological Potpourri ...................................................................... 2
ARTICLES
Dying to Live: God’s Judgment of Jonah, Jesus, and the Baptized

Reed Lessing ............................................................................ 9
Authority, Authorship, and Apostolicity as a Part of the
Johannine Question: The Role of Papias in the Search for the
Authoritative Author of the Gospel of John
Randar Tasmuth ..................................................................... 26
A Translation and Analysis of Martin Luther’s 1528 Catechetical
Sermons on the Lord’s Supper
Aaron Moldenhauer ................................................................... 43
GRAMMARIAN’S CORNER ................................................................ 61
HOMILETICAL HELPS .................................................................... 63
BOOK REVIEWS ............................................................................... 81
BOOKS RECEIVED ......................................................................... 108
CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 1

Theological Potpourri
Thinking About the Church:

A Response to Richard John Neuhaus, Catholic Matters
Richard John Neuhaus has written a thoughtful and engaging book

entitled Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth
(New York: Basic Books, 2006). Neuhaus provides an insightful look at
Roman Catholicism as it is today especially in North America. One of the
highlights is his diary of Rome between the death of John Paul II and the
election of Benedict XVI. His comments and observations are always per-
ceptive.
Given the size and increasing growth of the Roman Catholic Church,
we Lutherans should pay attention. Moreover, some Lutheran theologians
have joined Neuhaus in going to Rome, such as Leonard Klein, Reinhard
Hütter, Bruce Marshall, and Mickey Mattox. Neuhaus gives one of the
more articulate arguments for making that move. In fact, the book raises
important questions and challenges for our own Lutheran self-understand-
ing as church. Therefore, I want to interact especially with the
ecclesiological argument of the book.
Neuhaus speaks much of “the Church.” Sometimes he seems to un-
derstand her as the una sancta, the Body of Christ, the hidden church. For
example, he mentions his own Baptism at a Lutheran congregation by a
Lutheran pastor, his father: “Remembering that there is but one Christ
and therefore but one Church, it is the Church into which I was baptized
so long ago at St. John’s Lutheran in Pembroke, Ontario” (244). He af-
firms Vatican II’s statement that the Church of Jesus Christ “subsists” in
the Roman Catholic communion. To say “subsists” is different from assert-
ing that Rome is exclusively and exhaustively the one church of Jesus
Christ. These kinds of statements are improvements over what used to be
asserted by Rome. Although Neuhaus might call it the “development of
doctrine,” one could interpret it as a “change of doctrine.”
Nevertheless, by the “Church” Neuhaus usually refers to the Roman
Catholic Church. He asserts several times that the Roman Catholic com-
munion is “the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered
through time” (15, 73, 108). He sees it as a continuing and identifiable
community that stretches from the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts
15 to Vatican II, from the apostle Peter to Pope Benedict XVI (198). It is
“rightly ordered,” that is, apostolically ordered, because it has a structure
of bishops under and in communion with the bishop of Rome. The bishop
of Rome, according to Neuhaus, is “Peter among us.”
Neuhaus spells out the argument for going to Rome: “If Christ in-
tended a definite ‘form’ for his Church, and if one wants to be obedient to
2
Christ’s intention, then one should belong to the form of his Church that
most fully embodies that intention” (20). So if you want to obey Christ’s
intention, you should belong to the Roman Catholic Church and be in com-
munion with the Petrine ministry. So the argument goes.
How does one discover this definite “form” for the church intended by
Christ Himself? Neuhaus reads it off of empirical church history. The way
things developed in church history with bishops under the bishop of Rome
must reflect Christ’s own intention.
But does that hermeneutical approach really withstand scrutiny? The
effort to detect Christ’s intention from empirical church history is rather
doubtful to say the least. Was Christ’s intention revealed and implemented
by the way things developed in the first-century church at Corinth or Galatia
or Thessalonica before Paul’s epistles? Did it reflect Christ’s intention that
the Arians dominated fourth-century Christendom?
On the contrary, the New Testament writings repeatedly reveal Christ’s
intention for His church, that her ministers would teach the Gospel purely
and administer Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Confession/Absolution
according to Christ’s institution and mandate, and that false teachers would
be resisted and not given a place. But nowhere do the pages of the New
Testament say anything about the necessity for a hierarchical structure
with the bishop of Rome at the center. There is an important difference
between what Christ mandates and what Christ leaves open to human
reason and human wisdom. Form and institutional structure belong to the
latter. We may debate what kind of polity and governing structure would
serve the Gospel the best—and that is an important discussion to have—
but we should not pretend that decisions made in human freedom are
anything other than decisions made in human freedom.
What about the bishop of Rome as “Peter among us”? It is simply an
assertion without historical evidence that Peter was the first bishop of
Rome or that Peter was supposed to hand off his unique office to a succes-
sor in Rome. We Lutherans do hearken to the voice of Peter through his
confession of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi (but not his subsequent denial),
his speeches recorded in Acts, and 1 and 2 Peter. But the bishop of Rome is
no more the exclusive bearer and voice of the Petrine ministry than is the
bishop of Patmos the exclusive bearer and voice of the Johannine ministry
or the bishop of Athens the exclusive bearer and voice of the Pauline min-
istry. Lutheran pastors, in fact, are in communion with the Petrine minis-
try as well as the Johannine and Pauline ministries. It is not necessary to
be ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop in order to be in the one Office of
the Holy Ministry established by Christ. After all, the apostle Paul himself
was not ordained by Peter.
The arguments made by Melanchthon in the Treatise on the Power
and Primacy of the Papacy remain unrefuted. The thirteen apostles in the
first century—with Peter as first among equals—were unique. They are
the foundation of the church, with Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone

(Eph. 2:20). An assembly is “apostolic” if it teaches and practices according
to the revealed apostolic doctrine.
What about “catholic”? Is “catholic” possible without being Roman Catho-
lic? The word “catholic” (from kath holen) simply means “whole” and “uni-
versal.” The Body of Christ cannot be fragmented or divided up. She is
always whole. The word also denotes “universal.” The one church of Christ
does not belong exclusively to one nation or ethnic group, nor is she cen-
tered in one bishop. She extends throughout all nations and time. This
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, the whole Body of Christ, is there
wherever Christ is present giving the forgiveness of sins and eternal life
through His Gospel and Sacraments. As Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110) said:
“Wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church” (Letter to the
Smyrnaeans).
However, if the Roman Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ
most fully and rightly ordered through time, then what about Christians
outside of this communion? Neuhaus quotes Vatican II that “all Christians
who are baptized and believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are
‘in a certain but imperfect communion’ with the Catholic Church” (15).
Notice the shift in referent. It does not say that we are “in a certain but
imperfect” communion with the Body of Christ, but with Rome. We are
anonymous Roman Catholics. And in order to fulfill our own identity we
should enter into full communion with Rome.
That is how Neuhaus sees his move. He brought the imperfect to per-
fection; he became the full Catholic he always was. He states, “The fulfill-
ment of the Reformation, therefore, is to bring its gifts into the main-
stream of the continuing community from which it had been separated in
the sixteenth century, mainly because of the obtuseness of Rome” (56).
Now that Rome is no longer obtuse, we should fulfill our own identity.
So what is our Lutheran ecclesial self-understanding? Neuhaus at-
tributes to Arthur Carl Piepkorn, a professor at Concordia Seminary in
the 1950s and 1960s, “an understanding of Lutheranism that required my
becoming Catholic” (55). It is, at least, debatable whether Piepkorn had
such an understanding, but that certainly became Neuhaus’s understand-
ing of Lutheranism. As much as Neuhaus objects to the alternative of
autonomous individuals obeying themselves and their own constructions,
the irony is that in going to Rome, Neuhaus obeyed his own notion of
Lutheranism.
I must say that as I read Neuhaus’s characterization of Lutheranism,
I did not recognize it. He understood Lutheran communities as a reform-
ing movement within and for the Western church. Supposedly, our very
raison d’être, our purpose and destiny, is to be a temporary movement
until the breach with Rome is healed. When that happens we should close
our doors and enter into the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, Neuhaus
depicts the Reformation as Lutherans leaving the Catholic Church; now
he went back home. The picture is that of Rome continuing down the main
4
highway while we Lutherans went off on our own separate path or detour.
We Lutherans supposedly created our own denomination on the theology
of Martin Luther. “Lutheranism is an ecclesial structure built on a school
of theology, namely, that of Martin Luther and his followers” (105). Well, if
that were true, Lutheran churches would indeed be sectarian. I hope Ro-
man Catholic readers do not believe his caricature.
That is certainly not our self-understanding as presented by Augsburg
Confession VII or the Apology VII/VIII and the other confessional docu-
ments. Nor was it Luther’s understanding. As stated in the Apology on the
church:
However, the church is not only an association of external ties and

rites like other civic organizations, but it is principally an associa-
tion of faith and the Holy Spirit in the hearts of persons. It never-
theless has its external marks so that it can be recognized, namely,
the pure teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sac-
raments in harmony with the gospel of Christ. Moreover, this
church alone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews,
sanctifies, and governs by his Spirit (Kolb-Wengert, Ap VII/VIII,
par. 5).
Talk of “church” necessitates talk of “faith,” because faith is the orga-

non leptikon that receives Christ’s gifts. And it necessitates talk of the
church’s “marks” because they are the instruments by which the Spirit of
Christ gives the gifts and creates and sustains faith. Wherever the marks
are located, there is located the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,
the Body of Christ in that place, the flock that hears the voice of the Good
Shepherd. There is nothing deficient about the churchly status of that
community. The identity of a Lutheran communion in a given place is
neither a temporary reform movement nor a voluntary association of like-
minded people; it is church, fully church.
Moreover, the assembly of believers gathered by and around the Gos-
pel and Sacraments has a history. Believers are real, concrete, flesh-and-
blood people who live and work together. We cannot tell specifically which
individuals believe in Christ in their hearts. In that sense the church is
hidden. But we know that the assembly of believers is located here or
there by virtue of the church’s marks. Just as we call a field a “wheat field”
even though there are weeds in it, so we call an assembly “church” be-
cause we know from the external marks that the assembly of believers is
there, even though hypocrites may be mixed in. That assembly of believ-
ers gathered by and around the marks has a history. Lutherans take church
history seriously, or at least we should. The debate with Rome deals with
a proper theological understanding of the church. But part of the debate
also concerns the description of church history.
A more accurate church-historical description of the empirical church

would go like this. The church in Germany underwent a renewal in the
sixteenth century. She was the same church, the same people from 1500 to
1530, the same Baptism, the same creeds, the same Scriptures, the same
Lord’s Supper, only now purified. In the recent past the bishop of Rome
failed to carry out his pastoral duties and instead introduced innovations
that distorted and obscured the pure Gospel. There was a hostile takeover
of the church, which Luther dated to the thirteenth and fourteenth centu-
ries. The Reformation blew away the smoke, removed the stubble that
had obscured the Gospel, returned the Lord’s Supper to its original insti-
tution and mandate, and once again taught the Scriptures in their truth
and purity. It was not the case that the reformers left and started their
own church. Rather, the same empirical, visible church in Germany un-
derwent a renewal.
The reformers hoped that this Scripturally normed and Gospel-cen-
tered renewal would also take place in the church in Italy and elsewhere,
but the bishop of Rome at that time resisted. So there was a fork in the
road with Rome going one way and the reformers going a different way.
Both sides claim continuity with the single highway of the early church
and the church of the Middle Ages.
Neuhaus commendably warns against ecclesiological docetism, the
failure to take concrete empirical church history seriously. But his own
approach to church history seems rather romantic. He claims that the
Roman Catholic Magisterium has never erred on matters of faith and morals
“on which the Church has invoked her full teaching authority” (97; see
also 76-78, 96). Talk about putting the best construction on everything! To
take one example, Neuhaus commends the statement of Vatican II in Lu-
men Gentium:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel
of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a
sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his
will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—
those, too, may achieve eternal salvation (24).
If that is not a frontal attack on the pure Gospel, then what could possibly
be?
No, if we are going to talk about church history, we need to describe it
accurately and honestly. We do not concede that there is one, unbroken
continuity between Peter and Benedict XVI or between the Council of
Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 and Vatican II. Except for the fourth ecu-
menical council at Chalcedon, the bishop of Rome was never much of a
player in the seven ecumenical councils. Nor do we concede that the re-
formers created their own denomination in the sixteenth century.
Neuhaus provides a telling indictment of modern Western religious
behavior. To pick and choose your own beliefs, doctrines, and practices, to
6
construct your own denomination, is to act like an autonomous individual.
It is to obey yourself, to be curved in on yourself. This is how Neuhaus
characterizes non-Roman Catholics and there is an element of truth to it.
It is one reason why his critique is challenging. Too often I fear that even
Lutherans think of themselves as just another Protestant denomination,
just another voluntary association of like-minded people on a smorgasbord
of denominations and voluntary associations. Too often Lutherans live up
to Neuhaus’s depiction of Protestant church-hoppers and church shoppers
in a free market of religion where a consumer seeks a “spirituality that
meets my needs” (4). But when we do, we betray our theology and church
history.
In contrast to obeying yourself and your own construction, Neuhaus
proposes an alternative, namely, becoming obedient to the Roman Catho-
lic Magisterium with its inherited wisdom. He theologically justifies this
position by virtually equating obedience to Christ with obedience to the
Magisterium. As he puts it, “For the ecclesial Christian, the act of faith in
Christ and the act of faith in the Church are not two acts of faith but one”
(36, 75). He defends this with the Nicene Creed, “I believe in the one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic Church,” but that is to misinterpret the expression.
The sentence simply means “I believe that the one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic Church exists.”
Yes, we are ecclesial Christians. Whoever has God as Father has the
church as mother. But we are Scriptural, ecclesial Christians. Neuhaus
sets up a false alternative between obeying your own notions and entrust-
ing yourself to the Magisterium. There is a third alternative, and that is
entrusting yourself to Christ’s Word, Christ’s external Word that exists
outside of you and outside of the Magisterium. Christ’s Word spoken through
the apostles came from outside the first-century churches and often had to
correct those churches. One assumes that those churches stood corrected
and came into line with the Lord’s Word. A visible, empirical church can
err and need correction. That conclusion is readily evident from the pages
of the New Testament epistles. According to Galatians 2, after Pentecost,
Christ’s Word spoken through the apostle Paul had to correct even Peter
himself, who “stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11).
Over the last two centuries we have witnessed a massive loss of confi-
dence in the clarity and unity of the Holy Scriptures. How tragic. It is
understandable—given all the conflicting interpretations and interpreta-
tions piled upon interpretations—but tragic nevertheless. For the Scrip-
tures really do teach one clear teaching when it comes to matters of salva-
tion, Gospel, Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Confession/Absolution, church and
ministry. It is possible for a visible, empirical church to teach the Gospel
purely in all its articles and to administer the Sacraments rightly. This is
not some will-o’-the-wisp. This is not a demand for theological perfection
and brilliant theologians. It is simply the challenge to all churches and
ministers to submit their own human reason to the clear Scriptural teach-

ing, what Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus call the “healthy/hygienic
teaching,” which the apostle assumed is knowable.
A friend of mine was once asked what denomination he belonged to.
He answered, “None. I belong to the church.” That answer impressed me.
That is or should be our reply as well. By faith in Jesus Christ we belong to
the church, His church, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church that
by his promise will remain forever. When we bring the Gospel to all na-
tions, we are thereby bringing the church to all nations. There is no such
thing as an isolated, autonomous, individual Christian. Everyone who has
been baptized into Christ has been baptized into His church, the Body of
Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). If by faith God is your Father, then the Church is
your mother. As the Large Catechism puts it, the church “is the mother
that begets and bears every Christian through the Word of God” (The Creed,
par. 42).
In his typically engaging way Neuhaus writes, “This is neither the
best of times nor the worst of times but only the brief time of the testing of
our fidelity” (139). During this brief time of testing the Lord of the church
calls all of us, Roman Catholics and Lutherans, to spread the pure Gospel
into all nations and to work for true confessional unity throughout
Christendom. There is no need for Lutherans to follow Neuhaus and sub-
mit to the Roman Catholic Magisterium. But there is need for all of us to
hear the voice of Jesus Christ, God’s Son in the flesh, the church’s Lord.
For, as Simon Peter said, the Lord has “the words of eternal life” (John
6:68).
Paul R. Raabe
8
Articles
Dying to Live: God’s Judgment of Jonah,

Jesus, and the Baptized
Reed Lessing
Our view of Jonah’s encounter with the big fish, our Lord’s reference
to “the sign of Jonah,” and our own baptismal theology often neglects the
judgment aspect of these salvific events.1 Yet the only way God has prom-
ised to work is to condemn before He delivers, use Law before Gospel, and
kill in order to make alive. This discussion primarily considers Jonah 2:1
(MT)2 in order to explore the judgment/salvation sequence as it relates to
Jonah, Jesus, and the baptized. When Jonah is swallowed by the great
fish, when Jesus undergoes the events from Good Friday to Easter, and
when people are thrust into the baptismal waters, all three are paradoxi-
cally placed both under God’s judgment and given His salvation. They are
dying in order to live.
But does such a rich theology reside in the likes of Jonah? Is not this
book a “theological lightweight”? How can a narrative that inspired
Pinocchio, Moby Dick, and a Veggie Tale cartoon contain a foundational
belief of Lutheran theology? Why, Jonah appears to be fit only for the
Sunday school flannel board. If we want a bona fide theological discussion
on “dying to live,” we go to Psalm 22, Isaiah 52:13–53:1-12, 1 Corinthians
1:18-31, or any of the four Gospel narratives.
1
Excerpts in this article are from Jonah, by Reed Lessing, to be published in summer
of 2007 in the Concordia Commentary series, order # 15-6046 © 2007 Concordia Publish-
ing House. Used with permission. All rights reserved.
2
English versions renumber Jonah 2:1 as Jonah 1:17. This versification groups
Yahweh’s provision of the great fish and his swallowing of Jonah together with the
narrative material in the first chapter. The reason for such a change is that the Hebrew
of Jonah 2:1 is written in narrative form which resembles that of Jonah 1:1-16, whereas,
Jonah 2:2-11, renumbered in English versions, as Jonah 2:1-10, contains the prayer of
Jonah. This change from the Masoretic Text (MT) creates problems, however, in that it
suggests Yahweh’s appointment of a great fish to swallow Jonah is a response to the
sailors’ prayers, sacrifices, and vows, rather than simply His next act to pressure Jonah
into complying with the divine will. Jonah 2:1-11 in the MT (English Jonah 1:17-2:10)
better follows the basic structural pattern of Jonah 1:1-3 and 1:4-16 in that Yahweh
initiates the action to which the major protagonists of the narrative respond. In this case,
Yahweh appoints a fish to swallow Jonah in 2:1 of the MT, Jonah responds with prayer in
verses 3-10 (MT), and Yahweh speaks to the fish that vomits Jonah onto dry land in 2:11
(MT). In this study, hereafter, all references to Jonah are from the MT.
Dr. Reed Lessing is Associate Professor of Old Testament Exegetical Theol-

ogy at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO .

Yet consider these facts. The only prophet to whom Jesus directly com-
pares Himself is Jonah (Matt. 12:41). Drawings of Jonah appear more of-
ten in the Roman catacombs than any other Biblical figure.3 Also, until
recently the narrative of Jonah played a part in the major liturgical festi-
vals of three religious traditions: Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy,
and Judaism. Until the Second Vatican Council Jonah was read in the
Holy Saturday liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. It still retains this
place in the liturgical calendar of the Greek Orthodox Church; and in Ju-
daism Jonah is the Haftarah for Yom Kippur. Therefore, it might be pos-
sible that the book of Jonah leads us into a deeper understanding of the
classic Lutheran dialectical motifs of judgment and salvation, Law and
Gospel, and that death always precedes life.
Yahweh’s Judgment of Jonah
The primary verse for this investigation is Jonah 2:1: hvIîîl{v. ggDDIêh; y[eäm.Bi
‘hIn Ay yhiÛy>w: hIAy -ta, [;l{ßb.li lAdêIG ggDDIää ‘hwIhy> !m:Üy>w: tAl)yle hhv
Ay-ta,
n+Ay vIîîl{v.W ~ymiIÞy —“But Yahweh pro-
vided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the inner parts of
the fish three days and three nights.” From this verse the words, “but (He)
provided” (!m: !m:Üy>w): , “to swallow” ([;[;l{ßb.li), and “three days and three nights” (tAl) tAl)yle
hvIîîl{v.W ~ymiÞy” hhvvIîîl{v), need further clarification. We will also consider the word
Sheol (lAa± lAa±v.) from Jonah 2:3 in order to understand the profound theology
of death and life in chapter two of Jonah.
Let us first consider the words, “but (He) provided”; !m:Üy>w:: is a piel im-
perfect waw-consecutive verb from the verbal root hnm hnm, which is strategi-
cally employed four times in the narrative of Jonah–2:1; 4:6, 7, and 8.4 In
each of these occurrences a non-human agent is appointed using the verb
3
Commenting on Jonah’s popularity in early Christian art, Graydon Snyder ob-
serves, “There can be no doubt that the primary artistic representation of early Chris-
tianity was the Jonah cycle” (Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before
Constantine [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985], 45). Of all known pre-
Constantinian Christian frescoes, mosaics, sarcophagi, and sarcophagi fragments, Jonah
at rest appears forty-two times, Jonah cast into the sea thirty-eight times, and Jonah
vomited from the fish twenty-eight times. By way of contrast, the next most frequent
figure is that of Noah, who appears in eight instances. The most frequent New Testament
scene is the Baptism of Jesus with six occurrences. Jonah is far and away the most
popular Biblical narrative before and even some years after Constantine. For example,
when Jerome changed the Latin translation of Jonah 4:6 from the traditional “gourd
plant” (curcurbita) to “ivy plant” (hedera), near riots broke out in North Africa. Jerome
complained that he was accused of sacrilege in Rome (as noted in Claude Peifer, “Jonah
and Jesus: The Prophetic Sign,” The Bible Today [1982]: 377-387).
4
Although on the surface the narrative of Jonah appears to be simple and straight-
forward, underlying it is a complex use of language. H. C. Brichto comments on the
narrative’s literary genius: “The Book of Jonah is from beginning to end, in form and
content, in diction, phraseology and style a masterpiece of rhetoric. It is the work of a
single artist, free from editorial comment or gloss; every word is in place, and every
sentence” (Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets [New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992], 68).
10
hnm
hnm, and in each case the subject of the verb is a different divine epithet.
That is to say, Yahweh provides a great fish (2:1), Yahweh Elohim provides
a qiqayon plant (4:6), Ha- Elohim (the God) provides a worm, (4:7), and
Elohim provides a scorching east wind (4:8). When an agent of creation is
provided to save Jonah, the divine name “Yahweh” (2:1) or “Yahweh Elohim”
(4:6) is used. This means that in 2:1 and 4:6 Yahweh seeks to deliver Jonah
from Sheol (2:1) and from the prophet’s evil (4:6). When an agent is ap-
pointed to judge Jonah, the divine name “the God” (4:7) or simply “God”
(4:8) is used. This overview of the subject of hnm in Jonah confirms that in
2:1 the fish is provided as a means of Yahweh’s grace, not judgment. 5
If the phrase hIw hy> !m:Üy>w—
: “but Yahweh provided…”—indicates that Jonah
is receiving salvation from God, then what the great fish does with Jonah
indicates that the prophet is also paradoxically placed under Yahweh’s judg-
ment. This becomes clear when we understand that the word “swallow,”
from the Hebrew verb [lb [lb—, never has a positive meaning in the Old
Testament. For example, in Exodus 7:12 Aaron’s rod swallows those of
Pharaoh’s magicians (~~tI((Jom;-ta, !roàh]a;-hJe(m; [l;îb.YIw), while in Isaiah 25:8 Yahweh
states that He will swallow up death forever (xc; xc;n<ëlI ‘tw<MIh;
‘ h; [L;ÛBi). Korah’s fol-
lowers are swallowed up by the earth (Num. 16:30, 32, 34). The psalmist I
begs Yahweh not to allow the depths to swallow him up (Ps. 21:9; 35:25;
69:16; 106:17; 124:3). “Swallowed up” is synonymous with being annihi-
lated (cf. Lam. 2:2, 5, 8, 16). Elsewhere the same word is used of Samaria;
the city was gulped down as a person would eat a ripe fig (Is. 28:4).
Richard Clifford points out that [lb in Jonah 2:1, with its accompany-
ing psalm, provides an excellent description of Mot’s domain as it is de-
scribed in the Ugaritic literature.6 In these texts Mot is portrayed as a
voracious monster into whose gullet one descends only to go down further,
all the way to the base of the mountains in the netherworld (cf. Jonah 2:7).
Adding to the idea that when Jonah is swallowed by the great fish, he
is “dying to live,” is the prophet’s cry in 2:3 where he says that at one point
in the ordeal he was “in the belly of Sheol.” This phrase (lAa± lAa±v. !j,B,óm)) is only
used here in the Old Testament and “conveys despair of the darkest hue.”7
The term Sheol is not found in other Semitic languages, although its
equivalent in Akkadian is Arallu or “the Land of No Return.”8 Sheol occurs
sixty-six times in the Old Testament and always means the realm of the
dead located deep in the earth. 9 Synonymous terms with Sheol include
5
This interpretation was already recognized by Jerome, In Ionam (see Paul Antin,
St. Jerome sur Jonas [Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1956], 80). See also Jack Sasson,
Jonah, (Anchor Bible) (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 147-148. Sasson’s commentary is
one of the most thorough and complete recent studies of Jonah.
6
Richard Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Harvard:
Harvard University Press, 1972), 79-86.
7
Sasson, Jonah (Anchor Bible), 172.
8
Jean Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 204.
9
This includes Isaiah 7:11, where most scholars and versions—ancient and mod-
ern—emend the MT to read Sheol.

!ADåb;a] (“place of destruction”), rb,q,, (“grave”), tx;vI (“pit”), rb
rbo (“pit”), and #r,a,ê
(“earth”). Sheol is considered a place lacking in possessions (Ps. 49:17),
memory (Ps. 88:11, 13), knowledge (Eccl. 9:10), and the possibility of re-
turn (Job 7:9; 10:22; 16:22). It is the absolute and final end (Jer. 51:39; Job
14:12).
The realm of Sheol is located beyond Yahweh’s presence, though not
beyond His power (Amos 9:2; Prov. 15:11; Ps. 139:8). It is a place of captiv-
ity with gates (Is. 38:10) and bars (Jonah 2:7). It is the lowest point (Deut.
32:22; Is. 7:11), often used in contrast to the highest heavens (Amos 9:2;
Ps. 139:8); it is a place of darkness (Lam. 3:6; Ps. 88:13), and silence (Ps.
31:17-18). No wonder oil lamps are among the most common items found
in Iron Age Israelite tombs. Sheol is an enemy: “Like sheep they are ap-
pointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd” (Ps. 49:14). “Three things
are never satisfied; four never say, ‘Enough’: Sheol...” (Prov. 30:15).
Sheol is the opposite theological extreme of Yahweh’s presence and its
dominant feature for its inhabitants is their separation from Him. It is
characteristically “the land of forgetfulness” (Ps. 88:12), where people are
cut off from Yahweh and forgotten (Ps. 88:5). Sheol is a fitting place for the
wicked who forget God (Ps. 9:17; 31:17; 55:15), but one which the righ-
teous dread (Ps. 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13).
Because Sheol is often associated with the wicked, the term is fre-
quently translated as “hell” in the KJV. Inhabitants are often described in
general terms as wicked (Is. 5:14; Ps. 9:17), sinners (Job 24:19), the foolish
rich (Ps. 49:14), scoffers (Is. 28:15, 18), and the immoral (Prov. 5:5; 7:27). A
few are specifically named: Korah and company (Num. 16:30, 33), as well
as Joab and Shimei (1 Kings 2:6, 9). They might also be national enemies
of Israel: Sargon II (Is. 14:11, 15), the Egyptians (Ezek. 31:15-17), and many
others (Ezek. 32:18-32).
Yet some individuals otherwise presumed to be righteous envisage
descent to Sheol; these are Jacob, Hezekiah, Job, a psalmist, and, of course,
Jonah (Gen. 37:35; Is. 38:10; Job 17:13-16; Ps. 88:4; Jonah 2:3). Each of
these people speak in the context of extreme trial, whether loss, illness,
affliction, or abandonment.
But mention of Sheol is conspicuously absent in Jacob’s words after
his family is happily reunited in Egypt, and Hezekiah ceases to invoke the
terrors of Sheol after he is healed. We may conclude, then, that the righ-
teous only speak of Sheol when they face an unhappy or untimely death,
which they interpret as divine punishment. By contrast, when they face a
contented death at the end of a full and happy life, there is no mention of
Sheol.
Yet seemingly at variance with this view are two texts that apparently
present Sheol as the destiny of all. The first text is Psalm 89:48-49, which
notes that life is brief, created “for vanity,” and asks rhetorically whether
anyone can avoid death and Sheol. This follows a reference to Yahweh’s
fiery wrath in a lengthy lament of His spurning of kings, covenant, and
12
city. The consignment of general humanity to Sheol occurs in a context of
widespread divine judgment. After analyzing the parallelism in these two
verses where falsehood (aw> aw>VI) corresponds with Sheol, Philip Johnston be-
lieves that the psalmist is portraying humanity’s sinfulness and life’s ab-
surdity and not that everyone—without exception—is going to Sheol.10
The second problematic text is Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, where Qoheleth
instructs readers to enjoy their life of meaninglessness (lb, lb,h,) under the
sun, since afterwards they will go to Sheol. Milton Horne believes Qoheleth
does not attempt to articulate a systematic presentation of normative Old
Testament doctrine. He writes, “In no way can readers think of Qoheleth,
the sage behind the book of Ecclesiastes, as a systematic theologian.”11 In
reading this book, therefore, we cannot always expect logical arguments;
Qoheleth is debating with himself. That all without distinction go to Sheol
is part of Qoheleth’s reflection on the absurdity of observable life and is
not to be understood as a universal truth. In Yahweh’s clearer revela-
tion—“above the sun”—elsewhere in the Old Testament, we are told that
Sheol is only the destiny of those who spurn Yahweh’s goodness. Sheol is
not the Hebrew term for the underworld which awaits all people. It is
exclusively reserved for those under divine judgment. It is therefore not
surprising that the LXX translates the word a[d| ou as (“Hades”).
This means that Jonah’s use of Sheol in 2:3 indicates he is under
Yahweh’s judgment. His words ^yn<+y[e dg<N<åmi—“from before your eyes” (2:5)—
confirm the idea that Jonah was completely separated from Yahweh. The
prophet realized that Sheol would be his permanent address if Yahweh did
not intervene. In the rest of his psalm Jonah accurately describes Sheol in
terms of its watery chaos (2:4-6), its prison bars (2:7), and his loss of life
(2:8).
The word #r,aI²²hI in Jonah 2:7 is equivalent to Sheol12 and adds to the
pathos being described by Jonah in his psalm. In Exodus 15:12 the phrase
#r,aI( Am[eÞlIb.Ti (“Sheol swallowed him” [i.e., Egypt]) speaks of the demise of the
Egyptian troops in the waters of the Red Sea. This verse’s use of the verb
“to swallow” ([lb [lb
[lb) in its context is consistent with the Ugaritic metaphor of
Mot’s devouring appetite and our earlier discussion on the negative impli-
cations of [lb [lb. Since the Ugaritic cognate for #r,a,ê describes Mot’s realm,
10
Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), 83.
11
Milton P. Horne, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2003), 375.
12
This is well-attested with examples from Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Aramaic. Herman
Gunkel first called attention to this interpretation (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und
Endzeit [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1885], 18, n. 1). This meaning of #r,a,ê has
also been recognized in Isaiah 44:23; Jeremiah 17:13; Psalms 46:2; 141:7; and Job 10:21.
See also N. J. Tromp’s examples in Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World
in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 23-46. For further discus-
sion on the Ugaritic influence on #r,aê, in the Old Testament see Beyond Babel: A Hand-
book for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. John Kaltner and Steven McKenzie
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), 236.

we may assume that in his psalm Jonah is telling us that he has been cast
into outer darkness. No wonder he is “weeping and gnashing his teeth”!
Before we can piece all of this together, we need to consider the phrase
“three days and three nights” (Jonah 2:1). The Sumerian myth entitled
“The Descent of Inanna to the Nether World”13 assists our interpretation
of these words and adds to the growing evidence that Jonah—the prodigal
prophet—experienced Yahweh’s most severe form of judgment; complete
separation from God. In this myth Inanna instructs her divine messenger,
Ninshubur, to set up an elaborate lament for her after she departs for the
underworld in order to enlist the divine aid of Enlil, Nanna, and Enki to
effect her return. Following the text of lament is an account of Inanna’s
departure and reception into the lower realm, culminating in her death at
the hands of the goddess Ereshkigal. At this point the text reads, “After
three days and three nights had passed, her messenger Ninshubur, her
messenger of favorable words, her carrier of true words, fills the heaven
with complaints for her….”14
Close study of the entire context of this myth shows that the “three
days and three nights” are not meant to cover the time Inanna spends in
the underworld. The phrase’s complete separation from the account of
Inanna’s revival and ascent back to the upper world does not suggest the
goddess is raised from the dead after three days and three nights. Rather,
when comparing the text of Inanna’s instructions to Ninshubur, with the
account of his execution of her commands, it is clear that Ninshubur’s
delay is to allow sufficient time for Inanna to arrive within the nether
world. The “three days and three nights” are intended to cover the time of
travel to the chthonic depths. This is not to suggest that the narrator of
Jonah was familiar with the Sumerian story. But is does suggest that in
the ancient Near East there was a common understanding that in some
contexts “three days and three nights” could refer to the time of travel to
what we would term “hell.”
In the Old Testament as well, “three days (and three nights)” can be
the length of a journey. Sometimes the journey is more mundane (e.g.,
Gen. 30:36), but in other passages, including the narrative of Israel’s exo-
dus redemption, the goal of a journey of three days is the worship of Yahweh
(Ex. 5:3). If this interpretation is correct, the “three days and three nights”
in Jonah 2:1 is the period of time it takes the great fish to bring Jonah back
from Sheol and the brink of death (2:3, 7) to life and the worship of Yahweh
(2:8-10). This is not a reference to the time it took Jonah to descend into
the nether region, as in the pagan myth of Inanna; rather, in this span, the
13
James Prichard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 52-57. George Landes, “The ‘Three Days
and Three Nights’ Motif in Jonah 2:1,” JBL 86 [1967], 446-450, demonstrates the back-
ground of the motif through his interpretation of “The Descent of Inanna to the Nether
World” story.
14
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 53, my emphasis.
14
great fish returns his passenger from Sheol to “the dry land” (2:11).
The placement of the temporal motif of “three days and three nights”
in 2:1 before the references to Jonah’s descent (2:3, 7) rather than after
them (i.e., if it were in 2:11), stresses the distance and separation of Jonah
in the nether realm from Yahweh and those alive in the upper realm.
Whether this refers to a span of seventy-two hours or only to parts of
“three days and three nights” is an issue of greater concern for modern
commentators than it was for the ancient narrator. The motif emphasizes
the great gulf between death and life and the difficulties Yahweh over-
comes in rescuing Jonah from certain death in Sheol. Understood in this
way, Jonah journeys from death to life with Yahweh.15
Let’s put this together. Jonah goes to Sheol because of this sin: he
does not even discuss his call with Yahweh but instead tries to traipse off
to Tarshish (1:3). Yahweh’s fish swallows Jonah, but, at the very point of
this judgment, he is also delivered by Yahweh’s provision of the great fish.
The prophet then spends three days and three nights in very cramped
quarters on his return trip. And so we may conclude that Jonah went to
“hell and back!”
When Martin Luther discusses this section in the book of Jonah, he
also makes it clear that the prophet was under God’s judgment:
Jonah may have felt that he, by reason of his disobedience, was
eternally cast out from God like one of the damned.... All kinds of
instances of God’s anger and of His punishment of sinners must
have come to his mind, for example, Adam and Eve, Cain, the
Deluge, Sodom and Gomorrah. This is one of the types of the real
pain of hell that will overtake the ungodly after this life.16
Although being swallowed ([lb

[lb) by the great fish must mean judgment,
[lb
the fish was also appointed to save Jonah’s life (h hIw hy> !m:Üy>w). This is then the
great reversal for Jonah. What is death is also life—both at the same time.
Luther writes:
Now the former order of things is reversed: what a moment ago

served the purpose of death must now serve to further life. The
fish who was but recently the tool of death must now be life’s imple-
ment; it must be a gateway to life, though just a short time before
it held Jonah captive and consigned him to death.17
15
This same literary device, where a time period denotes more than simply the
duration of a certain event, is used when John says that Jesus went to Bethany and
found Lazarus had been in the tomb for “four days” (John 11:17, 39). The mention of “four
days” underscores the fact that Lazarus truly was dead—until Jesus raised him to life.
16
LW 19:77.
17
Ibid., 82.

Jonah’s psalm is then a fitting thanksgiving to Yahweh who at the
same time “kills and makes alive; casts down to Sheol and brings back up”
l[;IY) w: lAaßv. dyrIïAm hY<+x;m.W tymiäme (1 Sam. 2:6). In chapter two Jonah first comes
under Yahweh’s Law and then—and only then—is he delivered by the
Gospel. Jonah is dying to live.
The Father’s Judgment of Jesus
“The sign of Jonah” is mentioned three times in the Gospels: twice in

Matthew (12:39; 16:4) and once in Luke (11:29).18 Our discussion will focus
primarily upon the first of these “sign” sayings in Matthew. All too often
Jesus’ mention of “the sign of Jonah” in Matthew 12:39 is interpreted as
referring only to His resurrection; this is due, to some extent, because the
number “three” (cf. Matt. 12:40) in other New Testament contexts is di-
rectly associated with His rising from the dead (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:34).19 But if
the words we have just considered, [lb (“to swallow”) and Sheol, as well as
the phrase “three days and three nights,” indicate that Jonah was sen-
tenced to complete separation from Yahweh, then “the sign of Jonah” must
also refer—to some degree—to the Father’s consignment of Jesus to this
same utter separation. In this section we will discover that when Jesus
refers to “the sign of Jonah,” He—just like Jonah—is also stating the para-
dox of Jonah 2:1: death precedes life.
The three references to “the sign of Jonah” are not the only New Tes-
tament passages that support this analysis. Our Lord’s stilling of the storm
is an important episode in the Synoptics (Matt. 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; and
Luke 8:22-25) which contains strong allusions to the first chapter of Jonah.20
Only after coming to grips with the accounts of this miracle in Matthew
8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; and Luke 8:22-25 and how they intersect with the
18
Although Mark does not record this phrase, he does have a report of the refusal of
a sign (Mark 8:11-15) which is, in part, closely related to the “sign of Jonah” reports in
Matthew and Luke. J. Jeremias, “’Iwna/j,” TDNT 3:410, sees no discrepancy between Mark
on the one hand and Matthew and Luke on the other. He says: “Both statements make it
clear that God will not give any sign that is abstracted from the person of Jesus and that
does not give offence.” All of the NT references to Jonah (Matt. 12:39-41; 16:4; Luke
11:29-30, 32) are in the immediate contexts of “the sign of Jonah.”
19
This misguided interpretation of Matthew 12:39 apparently began with Justin
(Dialogue 107.1). Many have followed him ever since, for example Pierre Bonnard,
L’evanglie selon saint Mattheiu. Commentarie du Noveau Testament 1 (Neuchatel:
Delachaux & Niestle, 1963), 184; Richard Edwards, The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of
the Evangelists and Q (London: SCM Press, 1971), 99-100; Robert Gundry, Matthew: A
Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 243-
245. Interpreting the sign of Jonah as referring only to the resurrection contradicts the
very point that Jesus makes in this section (12:21-50). It would presuppose that the
recognition of the authority of God results from a mighty deed of Jesus which convinces
and coerces people to believe.
20
This discussion on the correlations between Jonah chapter one in the LXX and the
stilling of the storm texts in the Synoptics follows John Woodhouse, “Jesus and Jonah,”
The Reformed Theological Review 43 (1984): 33-41.
16
narrative in Jonah 1 can we arrive at the understanding that both Jonah
and Jesus go down to Sheol before they are brought up and saved by God.
Certainly there are differences between the incidents of the storms in
Jonah and in the Synoptics, but these do not obscure the similarities. Both
in Jonah and in the Synpotics there is a story of a great storm at sea
through which the leading character sleeps until awakened by others who
are afraid. This same person then miraculously calms the sea. Moreover,
in each of the three Gospel accounts, the context involves a movement
from Jewish to Gentile territory, which is also an important element in
Jonah 1. The prophet moves from traditional Israelite turf to board a ship
he buys in Joppa so that he may flee to Tarshish.21
These strong general similarities are sharpened by several points of
detail that are highlighted by the LXX.
1. Jonah 1:4: kai. evge,neto klu,dwn me,gaj evn th|/ qala,ssh| kai. to. ploi/on (“and
there happened a great wave in the sea, and the boat…”).
Matthew 8:24: kai. ivdou. seismo.j me,gaj evge,neto evn th/| qala,ssh|, w[ste to.
ploi/on (“and behold, a great shaking happened in the sea so that
the boat…”; cf. Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23).
Identical vocabulary: evge,neto (“happened”), me,gaj (“great”), evn th|/ qala,ssh|
(“in the sea”), to. ploi/on (“the boat”).
2. Jonah 1:5: Iwnaj de....evka,qeuden (“but Jonah was sleeping”).
Matthew 8:24: auvto.j de. evka,qeuden (“but he was sleeping”; cf. Mark
4:38; Luke 8:23).
Identical vocabulary: de, (“but”), evka,qeuden (“was sleeping”).
3. Jonah 1:6: o[pwj diasw,sh| o` qeo.j h`ma/j kai. mh. avpolw,meqa (“so God will
save us and we will not perish”).
Matthew 8:25: kuvrie, sw/son, avpollu,meqa (“Lord, save; we are perish-
ing”; cf. Mark 4:38; Luke 8:24).
Identical vocabulary: forms of the verb sw/z| w (“save”) with God/the
Lord as subject and the verb avpo,llumi (“perish”).
4. Jonah 1:15: kai. e;sth h`` qa,lassa evk tou/ sa,lou auvth/j (“and the sea stood
from its shaking”).
Matthew 8:26: kai. evge,neto galh,nh mega,lh (“and a great calm ensued”;
cf. Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24).
5. Jonah 1:16: kai. evfobh,qhsan oi` a;ndrej fo,bw| mega,lw| (“and the men feared
a great fear”).
21
The noun HrIkI f. (literally, “her payment”) ends with a feminine singular pronomi-
nal suffix that refers to the closest feminine singular noun, which in this verse is the ship.
Translations ignore this reference to “her payment” by reading “the fare” (RSV, NAB) or
“his fare” (NRSV, NEB, JB). The idea expressed, however, is not that Jonah pays a fare,
but rather that makes a payment for the ship and its crew. Supporting this translation is
that, according to Sasson (Jonah, Anchor Bible, 84), it wasn’t until Roman times that the
ancient world had a specific word for “fare”—a charge for the purchase of space in an
expedition, seagoing or otherwise. This understanding underscores the magnitude of
Jonah’s action; he has financed an entire ship for his disobedience!

Mark 4:41: kai. evfobh,qhsan fo,bon me,gan (“and they feared a great fear”;
cf. Matt. 8:27; Luke 8:25).
Identical vocabulary: the verb fobe,w (“to fear”) with the cognate
noun fo,boj (“fear”) and the adjective me,gaj (“great”).
This evidence does not prove that the LXX of Jonah chapter one has
influenced the Synoptic tradition in their accounts of the stilling of the
storm,22 but the specific similarities are many. Jerome’s interpretation,
however, seems to go—just like Jonah in 1:15—a bit overboard. 23 He states
that Jonah is like Christ because He fled the heavens to come to Tarshish,
that is, “the sea of this world.” Jonah in flight is a sign of the incarnate
Christ who “abandons his Father’s house and country, and becomes flesh.”
Jerome looks at Jonah sleeping in the hold of the ship and sees Jesus
asleep on the storm-tossed lake (thus Jonah 1:5 mutates into Mark 4:35-
41; Matt. 8:23-27; and Luke 8:22-25).24 In this “proto-Passion” the ship func-
tions as the church snatched from ruin by Jonah’s vicarious sacrifice. The
sailors become the apostles, steering the ship of the church.
On the other end of the spectrum is the argument that any correspon-
dence between Jonah chapter one and the Synoptic accounts are “dictated
by the circumstances of describing a severe storm, the fear it imposes, and
the presence of one who sleeps undisturbed,”25 and are therefore coinci-
dental. Following this same argument is the observation that there are
other Biblical narratives which parallel the accounts of the stilling of the
storm just as impressively as Jonah chapter one.26
This study navigates between the extremes of skepticism and allegory.
The important question may be framed this way: Could the inspired Gos-
pel writers have written their narratives of the stilling of the storm in a
way that prepares us for this assertion by Jesus later in Matthew and
Luke: “Behold, one greater than Jonah is here” (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32)?
Since Jesus Himself invokes the name of Jonah in Matthew and Luke, it
seems reasonable to posit a connection between Jonah’s self-sacrifice, which
saved the sailors from the storm, and our Lord’s greater sacrifice, which
provides salvation for all. Thus “salvation belongs to Yahweh” (Jonah 2:10)
finds its fulfillment in the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If we bear in mind the connections between Jonah 1 and the stilling of
the storm, then we are in a better position to see that “the sign of Jonah”
involves more than Jonah’s three-day sojourn in the fish (Jonah 2:1) as a
22
This, however, did not stop L. Goppelt from stating that Mark clearly had Jonah’s
story in mind (Typos. Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments in Neuen [Gütersloh,
1939], 84).
23
In Ionam I, 3a, in J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina (221 vols., Paris 1844-1963;
henceforth PL), xxv, 1122 B-D.
24
In Mattheum 9, 24-25, (PL) xxvi, 53, C-DO).
25
William Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
176, n. 91.
26
Ibid.
18
type of our Lord’s resurrection on the third day. It also involves sacrificial
death. Jonah offered himself (Jonah 1:12) and descended to “the belly of
Sheol” (2:3), where his “life ebbed away” (2:8) in a kind of death that saved
others, who believed and worshiped Yahweh (Jonah 1:15-16). All the more
does the sacrificial death of the Son of Man atone for the sins of all human-
ity, and this salvation is received by all who believe in Him.
Additional evidence for this interpretation of “the sign of Jonah” comes
from the fact that in first-century Palestinian Judaism there were literary
reflections on the significance of Jonah’s death (or better, near death). For
example:
R. Jonathan (c. 140 A.D.) said: The only purpose of Jonah was to
bring judgment on himself in the sea, for it is written, “And he said
to them, Take me and cast me into the sea” (Jonah 1:12). Similarly
you find that many patriarchs and prophets sacrificed themselves
for Israel.27
If we remember that in Matthew and Luke the events of Jonah chap-

ter one are brought to mind when Jesus finally invokes the name of Jonah,
then we are in a position to see that the emphasis is not only on our Lord’s
resurrection but also on His sacrifice and death. Just as Jonah’s “death”
saves others, so will the Son of Man’s—but all the more so!
Confirming that the primary emphasis of “sign of Jonah” is Jesus’ pub-
lic, sacrificial, vicarious death, which was witnessed by disciples and oppo-
nents alike (whereas on Easter only disciples saw the risen Christ), is that
all three references to the phrase in the Synoptics occur in contexts where
Jesus is responding to opponents who ask Him for a “sign.” The inquirers
are called “the scribes and Pharisees” in Matthew 12:38 and “the Phari-
sees and Sadducees” in Matthew 16:1. These designations establish their
status as opponents of Jesus. In Matthew 12:38, “the scribes and Phari-
sees” say, “We want to see from you a sign” (qe,lomen avpo. sou/ shmei/on ivdei/n). In
Matthew 16:1 (Mark 8:11), the opposition of the questioners is indicated by
the circumstantial participle peira,zontej, “Testing, they asked him [Jesus]
to show them a sign from heaven.” The participle could also be rendered
as “challenging [Jesus].” Luke 11:16, using the same participle, says: “But
others, challenging [peira,zontej], kept seeking from him a sign from heaven.”
In Luke 11:29, Jesus calls those who seek such a miraculous sign “an evil
generation” (similar are Matt. 12:39 and 16:4). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus
says that “the sign of Jonah” will be the only “sign” He will furnish to such
antagonistic interrogators (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29). Jesus’ response
27
Cited by J. Jeremias, “Jonas,” TDNT, 1963, 407, from Mekilta Exodus, Tannaitic
Midrash in Exodus 12, 1. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 89ab) and Pirqe de Rabbi
Elezer 10 also make it likely that Jesus’ reference to “the sign of Jonah” has the incident
of Jonah’s judgment and deliverance in mind.

is even harsher in Mark, where Jesus categorically announces, “Truly I
say to you, a sign shall certainly not be given to this generation” (avmh.n le,gw
u`mi/n, eiv doqh,setai th/| genea/| tau,th| shmei/on, Mark 8:12).28
It follows that the context of the “sign of Jonah” saying raises a serious
question over the common interpretation that this investigation is trying
to correct; namely, if Jesus is in fact refusing to give a sign to “this evil and
adulterous generation,” is it likely that “the sign of Jonah” refers only to
His resurrection? Are we to understand that Jesus simply says, “No sign
will be given to this generation, except a resurrection from the dead like
Jonah’s”? If this is what Jesus is saying, then we must conclude that in
doing so He is giving into their demands by embracing a theology of glory.
But this certainly is not the case.
The word translated “sign” in all three accounts is shmei/on; this often
refers to “an event that is an indication or confirmation of intervention by
transcendent power, miracle, portent.”29 Yet this general definition cannot
determine the meaning of the phrase “the sign of Jonah” in the texts we
are studying. Their context is polemical. Hence, it is better to understand
that Jesus is taking the term shmei/on from His opponents and using it against
them to denote that the real “transcendent power, miracle or portent” is
His rejection, humiliation, and crucifixion. Put another way, we would not
expect the concessive clause of the “sign of Jonah” to overthrow so com-
pletely the fundamental refusal in Matthew 12:39, where Jesus says, “A
wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But no sign will be given
it….”
The second half of Matthew 12:40 confirms this interpretation where
Jesus says, ou[twj e;stai o` uiòj. tou/ avnqrw,pou evn th/| kardi,a| th/j gh/j (“so the Son of
Man will be in the heart of the earth”). Some consider this phrase to mean
the grave.30 However, the following reasons argue against this interpreta-
tion. First, the term kardi,aj (“heart”) occurs in the LXX of Jonah 2:4 (eivj
ba,qh kardi,aj qala,sshj, “into the depth of the heart of the sea”), where the
reference is associated with Sheol. Second, the description of Jonah’s de-
scent into Sheol in the LXX of Jonah 2:7 is kate,bhn eivj gh/n (“I went down to
the earth”); here gh/n = #r,aI²²hI = Sheol. Jesus is referring to His descent into
Sheol.31
The primary meaning of the “sign of Jonah,” then, according to Mat-
28
The syntax here, which reflects Hebrew idiom, amounts to an absolute refusal, cf.
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, F. Blass,
A. Debrunner, R. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 454.5.
29
Fredrick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,
2000), 920.
30
E.g., D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1972),
220.
31
J. Jeremias, “Hades,” TDNT 1 (1964), 148; A.T. Hanson, “The Scriptural Back-
ground to the Doctrine of the ‘Descensus ad Infernos’ in the New Testament, in The New
Testament Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1980), 148.
20
thew 12:40, is the correspondence between Jonah’s descent into Sheol and
our Lord’s experience of death, especially when He—like Jonah—is “driven
away from Yahweh’s presence” (Jonah 2:5) when the Father abandons Him
and He cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt.
27:46).
But this is not all, for the description of Jonah’s experience in chapter
two is imbedded in a song of praise for deliverance from judgment. Mat-
thew 12:40, therefore, also implies Christ’s resurrection—not, however,
simply as a miraculous wonder (as a “sign” in the Pharisees’ sense of the
word), but as deliverance from the experience of divine judgment. Jesus
will be the one—and how much more so than Jonah—whose cry to the
Father from the depths of Sheol will be heard and answered, whose life
will be brought up from the pit (cf. Jonah 2:3, 7; Heb. 5:7).
Luther also believed that Jonah’s reversal from death to life manifests
itself supremely in Jesus. He points to the sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:39-40)
as the point at which this connection is made. He writes:
Except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The
answer is the same here; only the words and the figure of speech
are different. He says: “This shall be your sign: ‘Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.’” That is: “I shall be the Jonah
whom you will cast into the ocean and into the jaws of the whale,
whom you will crucify and kill; and on the third day I shall rise
again.32
When making reference to “the sign of Jonah,” Jesus indicates that He is

dying to live.
God’s Judgment of the Baptized
In the first part of this investigation we saw, among other things, that
the Hebrew verb used to describe the great fish’s actions in Jonah 2:1 is
[lb
[lb, “to swallow.” This verb is used exclusively in the Old Testament to
denote judgment. Moreover, when the verb hnm (“to provide”) appears in
2:1, the idea conveyed is that Yahweh is providing the great fish to save
Jonah from permanent death in Sheol. When we consider the verbs [lb
and hnm
hnm, they indicate that Jonah experiences at the same moment both
Yahweh’s judgment and His salvation. Law and Gospel work to create
faith in the prophet so that the second time the word of Yahweh comes to
him (3:1), as a “new man,” he “walks in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4) when he
travels to Nineveh to preach Yahweh’s word (3:3-4). Jonah dies so that he
32
LW 22:242.

can live.
In the second part of this study we saw that the comparison of Jonah
and Jesus may be constructed in terms that denote their experiences un-
der divine judgment. Just as Jonah was cast into the belly of Sheol (2:3),
into the deep (2:4), out of Yahweh’s presence, down “into the earth” (un-
derstood here as synonymous with Sheol, 2:7), so it was for the Son of Man
when He hung upon the cross for six hours and became sin for us (2 Cor.
5:21). Like Jonah, Jesus dies to live.
From early in his ministry until late in his life, Luther speaks of Holy
Baptism as simultaneously a death and resurrection.33 For example, in his
1520 treatise entitled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church he writes
that Baptism “is actual death and resurrection” that occur at the same
time.34 This means that the dying and rising of Jonah and Jesus are the
destiny for the baptized. Let us explore Luther’s teaching on this in more
depth.
To be sure, Luther employs a wide variety of images to denote what
Baptism effects and accomplishes, including the images of regeneration
(John 3:5), cleansing, and washing (Titus 3:5), as well as death and resur-
rection (Rom. 6:1-11).35 These images function as equivalents in describing
the work of God in Baptism for Luther.36 He employs the images of dying
and rising within this broader framework of expressing Baptism as the
monergistic, regenerative work of God—“the power, effect, benefit, fruit,
and purpose of Baptism is that it saves.”37
Luther’s early writings, even if influenced by his theology of humility
as shaped by German mysticism, especially that of Johann Tauler, refer to
the baptismal dying and rising as a spiritually experienced reality. “Bap-
tism, dipping, to baptize, and to dip all mean that we were buried therefore
together, that is, spiritually. We have been buried in a spiritual death, a
mystical death, that we might walk in newness which comes through the
grace of Baptism.”38 Luther’s definitive identification of Baptism as death
and resurrection is in his 1519 sermon, “On the Holy and Blessed Sacra-
ment of Baptism”:
The significance of Baptism is a blessed dying unto sin and a resur-
33
I am indebted to Dr. Kent Burreson, Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at
Concordia Seminary, for many of the insights in this section.
34
LW 36:68.
35
See Jonathan Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther, (Leiden: Brill
Academic, 1994), 75-81, for examples of the profundity of ways in which Luther speaks of
the benefits, gifts, and effects of Baptism.
36
Ibid., 92-94.
37
Large Catechism 4, 24 (Kolb and Wengert, The Book of Concord [Philadelphia:
Augsburg/Fortress, 1999], 459); also see Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther,
32-34, 75; Robert Kolb, “‘What Benefit Does the Soul Receive from a Handful of Water?’:
Luther’s Preaching on Baptism, 1528-1539,” Concordia Journal 25:4 (October 1999), 353,
where it is indicated that Luther referred to Baptism as “God’s bath.”
38
1515-1516 Romans Lectures; LW 25:51-52.
22
rection in the grace of God, so that the old man, conceived and
born in sin, is there drowned, and a new man, born in grace, comes
forth and rises…. Therefore this whole life is nothing else than a
spiritual baptism which does not cease until death, and he who is
baptized is condemned to die…. Therefore the life of a Christian,
from baptism to the grave, is nothing else than the beginning of a
blessed death. For at the Last Day God will make him altogether
new.39
The Reformer’s death and resurrection imagery comes out in his 1520
treatise, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He writes:
When the minister immerses the child in the water it signifies

death, and when he draws it forth again it signifies life...this death
and resurrection we call the new creation, regeneration, and spiri-
tual birth. This should not be understood only allegorically as the
death of sin and the life of grace, as many understand it, but as
actual death and resurrection.40
Here we see that Luther has no difficulty speaking of a washing that kills.
When he writes about the death of the Old Adam, he is using no metaphor.
“To be born anew, one must consequently die.”41
This image of death and resurrection continued to be a primary motif
of Baptism for Luther throughout his theological corpus.42 One example is
from his commentary on 1 Corinthians 15 from the years 1532–1533:
For his life on earth is nothing other than death; as soon as a

Christian is baptized, he is thrust into death, as St. Paul declares
in Romans 6:4. And all who accept Christ are already sacrificed
and sentenced to death. They are like people who have already
died and are awaiting their resurrection.43
Luther persisted in speaking of Baptism in this way until the end of

his life. In his Genesis commentaries, which were the basis for the aca-
demic lectures during the last ten years of his life, 1536–1546, he engages
in a lengthy discussion about death and resurrection given in and through
39
LW 35:30-31.
40
LW 36:67-68.
41
“The Heidelberg Disputation,” LW 31:55.
42
Other instances in English translation where Luther speaks of Baptism as death
and resurrection, beyond those cited here, include: Commentary on Psalm 2, 1535, LW
12:59; Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, 1532–1533, LW 28:149-150; House Postils,
Third Sermon for Epiphany, 1534, The Sermons of Martin Luther: The House Postils,
vol. 1, edited by Eugene F. A. Klug (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 221; Sermons on
the Gospel according to St. John, 14:6, LW 24:51; Genesis commentaries, LW 1:152-153,
155; Genesis 48:20, LW 8:182.
43
LW 28:132.

Baptism:
In his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:2) Paul declares that the
Israelites were baptized under Moses in the cloud and in the sea. If
in this passage you look merely at conduct and words, then Pha-
raoh too was baptized, but in such a way that he perished with his
men, while Israel passed through safe and unharmed. Similarly,
Noah and his sons are preserved in the baptism of the Flood, while
the entire remaining world outside the ark perishes because of
this baptism of the Flood. These are fitting and learned statements,
for Baptism and death are interchangeable terms in the Scripture....
In accordance with this meaning, the Red Sea is truly a baptism,
that is, death and the wrath of God, as is manifest in the case of
Pharaoh. Nevertheless, Israel, which is baptized with such a bap-
tism, passes through unharmed. Similarly, the Flood is truly death
and the wrath of God; nevertheless, the believers are saved in the
midst of the Flood.44
Luther not only affirms baptismal regeneration, but, as Trigg notes,

he also connects it with the life of faith and the ongoing reality of regen-
eration, the “present tense” of Baptism.45 Baptism is then an ever-present
reality in the life of the Christian. This understanding, which is continu-
ous throughout Luther’s life,46 means that the baptized are to recall and
re-experience their Baptisms daily as they die to sin and rise to a new life
of faith. This sequence of dying to live is what we also find in the lives of
Jonah and Jesus.
Conclusions
Jonah’s descent into Sheol and subsequent ingestion by the fish are
correlated to Christ’s death when the Savior invokes the phrase “the sign
of Jonah.” Likewise, Jonah’s regurgitation on the third day is parallel to
Christ’s resurrection. This connection has double significance. First, it
provides an explicit Christological interpretation of Jonah chapter two.
The language of ingestion and regurgitation becomes the language of
Christ’s death and resurrection. Second, it provides hope for the baptized,
in that just as Jonah was alive on the dry ground after three days and
44
LW 2:152-153.
45
Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther, 79.
46
Trigg argues for this continuity: “Many important themes within Luther’s baptis-
mal theology proper show almost complete continuity between the years 1519–1520 and
the later period from 1527 onwards” (Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther, 146). He
states that Luther’s understanding of the benefits of Baptism, and his emphasis upon its
significance as death and resurrection appear to show no appreciable change from The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church to the end of his life. In particular, Luther’s stress
upon the “present tense” of Baptism is as strong in the De Captivitate as it is in the later
period.
24
three nights, likewise all the baptized will undergo a much more glorious
resurrection on the Last Day. Luther writes:
Christ says: “If you believe in me, death shall not devour you ei-
ther. Even if death should hold you for three days or so, as he
detained me for three days in the earth and Jonah for three days
in the belly of the whale, he shall nonetheless spew you out again.”47
Luther goes on to write, “In this way death has become the door to life for
us; disgrace has become the elevation to glory; condemnation and hell, the
door to salvation.”48 Jonah and Jesus had to go through judgment, con-
demnation, and death before they experienced new life. This is the same
order of events for the baptized. We—daily—are dying to live.
Luther—one more time—writes of Jonah’s fish: “It vomited out Jonah
upon the dry land. In this way death and sin are an opportunity for life and
righteousness for the saints; shame becomes an opportunity for glory.”49 Is
there any more profound theology than this? Life comes only from death;
Law must precede Gospel; there is no salvation without damnation.
Lutheran theology holds these paradoxes together as a “both/and” and
never as an “either/or.” And to think this grand dialectical doctrine is lo-
cated in—of all places—the book of Jonah!
47
LW 22:359.
48
LW 31:78.
49
LW 19:21.

Authority, Authorship, and Apostolicity as a
Part of the Johannine Question:The Role of
Papias in the Search for the Authoritative
Author of the Gospel of John
Randar Tasmuth
A Note to the Reader: When we recite the apostolic creed, we usually

do not pay sufficient attention to the meaning of the word “apostolic.” People
often say that it is believed that the apostles thought about the Christian
faith in basically the kind of categories that were fixed in the creed. That
may be true, but the issue is not limited to that. When the creed was
entitled as “apostolic” in the early church there was in the background an
important aspiration to reach the very early days of Christianity via the
apostles and to furnish the creed with the authority of the first witnesses.
There is an enigmatic figure in the “Gospel of John” whose name is
never told and whose designation “the disciple whom Jesus loved” has
raised the curiosity of the readers since the Gospel was put into circula-
tion. Why? One of the main reasons is that the Gospel receives its credibil-
ity due to this disciple “who is testifying to these things and has written
them” (John 21:24).
This disciple is often identified with John the son of Zebedee, but some-
times with John the Elder who lived in Ephesus. A distinguished scholar,
Martin Hengel (1993), has painstakingly studied the earliest witnesses,
among them the fragments of Papias, and associated the figure of the
Beloved Disciple with both Johns who are mentioned already by Papias in
the list of the disciples of the Lord. James H. Charlesworth (1995) could
not omit the fragments of Papias, but used them differently. His theory
that identifies the Beloved Disciple with Thomas is less classical, but much
more intriguing.1
Papias worked at the time when the authority of the oral Gospel be-
gan to be replaced by the written Gospel. But how competent were the
written documents that told about Jesus? With regard to the identity of
the authoritative author of the Gospel of John (the Beloved Disciple), these
1
See my doctoral dissertation: Randar Tasmuth, The Disciple with Many Faces:
Martin Hengel’s and James H. Charlesworth’s theories concerning the Beloved Disciple.
Helsinki: Tyylipaino, 2004.
Dr. Randar Tasmuth is Adjunct Professor of New Testament Studies and

Academic Dean in the Institute of Theology of the Estonian Evangelical
Lutheran Church in Tallinn, Estonia. This article is written by the aid of
the Estonian Science Foundation, Grant No. 6849.
26
short fragments of Papias are of great value. Early Christianity produced
many writings and documents that are relevant to the studies that focus
on the relationship between the Gospels and the apostles, but Fragment II
of Papias antedates all of them. Therefore its testimony with regard to our
questions is essential.
Introduction
The Bible has always been central to the life of the Christian commu-
nity. The authority of the New Testament writings is part of a larger whole,
in which the origin of the writings played an important role. Canonization
of these writings is often explained by the references to the apostolicity of
their authors, which was acknowledged by those who initiated the norma-
tive use of these writings.
I am not going to question that generalizing view. The real history,
however, must have been much more complicated than this summarizing
statement. According to N. T. Wright, the earliest apostolic preaching was
“the story of Jesus understood as the fulfillment of the Old Testament
covenant narrative, and thus as the euangelion, the good news or ‘gospel,’
and thus as the creative force which called the church into being and shaped
its mission and life.”2 It may be said that the Gospel received its authority
from the apostolic preaching of Jesus. This Gospel, however, was oral Gos-
pel. How were the written Gospels understood, accepted, and designated?
With whom were they associated in order to establish them as authorita-
tive writings? The process does not become clear until the middle of the
second century, when Justin Martyr, who was martyred between A.D. 162
and A.D. 168, offers us some hints. I refer to Justin here since he stands in
direct continuity with the apostolic fathers and is contemporaneous with
Papias. Of his works, only the first and second Apologies and the Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew survive. The first Apology is dated about A.D. 150-155
and the Dialogue a little later.3 These writings are of some help in the
search for authority ascribed to the New Testament writings.
It is remarkable that in the works of Justin the designation “reminis-
cences of the apostles” (avpomnhmoneu,mata tw/n avposto,lwn) occurs nineteen times.
Usually it is not difficult to recognize the passages of the Gospels. In those
days, however, when a person quoted a passage, he did not speak of the
euvagge,lion as Scripture. Justin, too, mentions no evangelist by name, but
uses the term euvagge,lion three times, in the singular in Dialogue 10.2 and
100.1, and in the plural in Apology I 66:3. Justin introduces Jesus’ words at
the passover meal with the words oi` ga.r avpo,stoloi evn toi/j genome,noij u`p v
auvtw/n avpomnhmoneu,masin, a] kalei/tai euvagge,lia. The wording is close to that in
2
N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (London: SPCK, 2005), 35.
3
Berthold Altaner and Alfred Struiber, Patrologie: Leben, Schriften und Lehre der
Kirchenväter. (Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder: 1980), 65-67. This work dates the death of
Justin to A.D. 165.

Luke 22:19-20. Once Justin uses the term euvagge,lion when introducing a
quotation from Matthew 11:27 (cf. Luke 10:22 in the words “In the Gospel
it is written” [Dialogue 100.1]). He must have had an understanding of the
term euvagge,lion in relationship to the genre of the Gospel.
Justin’s reception of the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics in the middle
of the second century seems probable. Justin knew the term gospel as a
genre and used this word in parallel with the designation “reminiscences
of the apostles.” This parallel use allows us to surmise that Justin associ-
ated the Gospels with the apostles. Here, clear information about the need
to furnish the Gospels with apostolic authority first becomes visible. There
is no direct reference to the Gospel of John or to its author in Justin’s
works. There are, however, veiled reflections on the authority of written
and oral sources in the fragments of the lost writings of Papias. The texts
of Papias are often questioned when the Fourth Gospel and its author are
studied.
In this present study I focus on the meaning of the data about two
different Johns in Fragment 2 of Papias with regard to the key words
listed in the title of my work: authority, authorship, and apostolicity. Frag-
ments of Papias’s work are like chips of glass or drops of water that mirror
much of what one may associate with the New Testament writings. As we
are going to see, Papias put oral testimony first and appreciated it more
highly than written sources. Still it seems to me that he stands at the
boundary line that marks first attempts to associate the written Gospels
with the bearers of tradition. One of the issues is how the Lord’s disciples,
the apostles, and the elders mentioned by Papias related to each other.
Who were the main authorities, and who built up a secondary group of
trustees? May one see here the beginning of the history of furnishing the
Johannine writings with authority that goes back to Jesus?
I shall study Fragment 2 of Papias first and then try to find out what
information Papias may have left behind with regard to the Gospels and
their authors. I also will pay attention to the major works of Martin Hengel,
James H. Charlesworth, and other scholars who recently have contrib-
uted to the study of the fragments of Papias and the beloved disciple of the
Fourth Gospel.
Fragment 2 of Papias
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, wrote his five-volume work, The Sayings

of the Lord Explained, between A.D. 120 and 135. Martin Hengel, in his
very learned work, Die johanneische Frage, accepts the data provided by
Irenaeus in Adv. Haer. 5.33.4 (=Eus. HE 3.39.1) that Papias was a hearer of
John and companion of Polycarp. So if Papias was about the same age as
Polycarp, he was probably born between A.D. 70 and 80.4 The five books of
4
Martin Hengel, Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungversuch mit einem Beitrag zur
Apolalyse von Jörg Frey (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993), 93, n. 299.
28
Papias are known only from a few fragments, and some of them are quoted
by Eusebius.
The second fragment of Papias (Eus. HE 3.39.3) contains a much dis-
puted list of the disciples of the Lord and is the only document that men-
tions John the Elder in the same section with the disciples of Jesus. Hengel
relied heartily on Papias’s information and is of the opinion that Papias
was a hearer of John. No wonder that he paid great attention to the list of
disciples in Fragment 2 of Papias. The position of John the Elder in Frag-
ment 2 of Papias was in the focus of Hengel’s interest since John the Elder
may fill the gap in the chain of authoritative information from John the
apostle to Papias. Eusebius, however, explained that, in the preface to his
work, Papias himself made it clear that he never was a hearer or eyewit-
ness of the apostles (Eus. HE 3.39.2). He also wrote that there are two
Johns on the list and two tombs in Ephesus and that Papias listened to the
teaching of Aristion and John the Elder (HE 3.39.5ff.). Let us turn to the
text of the fragment.
Hengel presented the idea that Papias was close to John the Elder and
thus a bearer of the Johannine tradition. According to Hengel’s interpre-
tation of Fragment 2, John the Elder was a disciple of the Lord in the
almost-apostolic sense of the word. Hengel associated the “apostolic” dis-
ciples of the Lord with the elders,5 so that even the apostles are elders. He
specified that the disciples seem to belong to the group called “the Elders,”
though not all the elders may be designated as disciples. However, it was
Eusebius who clearly distinguished between two Johns in HE 3.39.5-7,
where he commented on Papias’s treatment of John. But Hengel saw John
the Elder as a disciple of the Lord in the plain sense of the word and as an
eyewitness of Jesus,6 though not as one of the Twelve. A part of Fragment
2 of Papias (Eus. HE 3.39.4) reads as follows:
If, then, anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I
inquired into the sayings of the elders, what Andrew or Peter said,
or Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the dis-
5
Hengel (1993, 105): “Der nicht endende Streit, ob Papias mit den ‘Alten’ nur die
Schüler der Herrenjünger oder auch diese selbst gemeint habe, ist hinfällig, denn er
macht hier wohl bewusst keinen grundsätzlichen Unterschied. Bei einem unbefangenen
Lesen wird man die aufgezählten Jünger durchaus zu den ‘Alten’ rechnen dürfen, wobei
er dieselben natürlich nicht auf die Jünger beschränkt haben muss. Euseb, der das Werk
besser kannte als wir, identifiziert selbstverständlich die Jünger mit ‘den Alten.’”
6
Hengel, 1993, 317f.

ciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the dis-
ciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not think to profit from
the books as much as from the living and abiding voice.7
The occurrence of maqhtai, twice in a short passage emphasizes the impor-

tance of the term for Papias and at the same time leaves the matter of the
relation of these disciples to each other open. It is possible that Papias
received his information from travellers who had had contact with Aristion
and John the Elder. The first question is this: What chronological inter-
vals lay between Papias and the persons on his list?
The text itself is not without problems. Emphasis is on the issue of
discipleship. What does tou/ kuri,ou maqhtai, (applied to Aristion and John the
Elder) mean? Though this section is grammatically correct, the proposal
that the correct reading is oi` tou/ kuri,ou maqhtw/n maqhtai,8 makes the text
historically more reasonable. However, it is not known from other sources
that Aristion and John the Elder were, or were regarded as, the disciples
of the apostles. Th. Mommsen proposed that this is a case of dittography,
i.e., that the words tou/ kuri,ou maqhtai, from the preceding line are wrongly
repeated.9 This is possible, though not certain, since the word disciple is
changed from the genitive plural to the nominative plural. Irrespective of
the fact that the designation, disciples of the Lord, also occurs in the sec-
ond part of the section, the question arises: How do these two groups of
disciples of the Lord relate to each other historically? Papias left the issue
ambiguous.
Historically speaking, Papias probably made inquiries (avne,krinon) be-
fore writing his books. But the teachings of Aristion and John the Elder
(the things that they are saying, le,gousin) may well have taken place at the
same time as Papias questioned the followers (parhkolouqhko,tej) of the el-
ders. The time when the apostles had spoken (ei=pen) their words lay in the
indeterminate past. The scheme proposed by C. K. Barrett is of value:10
The apostles, Andrew, Peter, etc.
The elders, Aristion, John (? and perhaps others)
parhkolouqhkw,j tij
Papias
7
Charles K. Barrett, trans., The Gospel according to St. John (London: SPCK,
1978), 106.
8
Günther Zunz (“Papiana,” ZNW [1991]: 258) refers to the old proposals of Renan
(1873) and Abbot (1895).
9
Ibid., 259.
10
Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SPCK, 1978), 107.
Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar aus den nachgelassenen
Manuskripten herausgegeben von Ulrich Busse (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1980), 11 pre-
30
There is no answer to why Papias could not inquire of the elders but needed
to talk to their followers. The followers were presumably younger than
the elders, but it is possible that the elders were still living and teaching
when Papias made his inquiries. The apostles clearly lay in the more dis-
tant past. One can only assume that there was half a generation between
the composition of Papias’s books and the activity of John the Elder. It
seems that the interval between the elders and the apostles was a mini-
mum of half a generation, but probably more.11 Historically speaking, if
Papias’s books are placed at A.D. 130, is it plausible that the generation of
the apostles came to an end at A.D. 100? Not really. It seems more plau-
sible that there was a generation between Papias’s books and the time
when the elders were speaking. But if we take into account the earliest
possible time for Papias’s work as about A.D. 110,12 the interval of one
generation between Papias’s books and the time when the elders were
teaching (say about A.D. 80) still seems to be possible. In that case, there
seems to be a short interval between the time when the elders were teach-
ing and the end of the lifetime of the apostles.
If there is no dittography and Aristion and John the Elder were not
“the disciples of the disciples of the Lord,” they probably were called “the
disciples of the Lord” in some symbolical sense. The disciples of the first
group, however, were not called elders. In that case, a certain John the
Elder, a “symbolic” disciple of the Lord who taught in about A.D. 100-110,
may have been accessible to Papias through his followers. This elder told
about the words of the Lord’s disciples whose era came to an end in about
A.D. 70-80. Papias did not tell where John the Elder lived. Hengel’s convic-
tion that the use of the singular o` presbu,teroj Iv wa,nnhj points to an almost
fixed title may be true in Papias’s case, but is not attested to in other
sources.13 So, if John the Elder taught in about A.D. 100, Hengel’s view
that he was an eyewitness of Jesus seems unlikely.
My scheme with regard to Fragment 2 of Papias, developed on the
basis of Barrett’s proposal, helps to show us that the apostles and John the
Elder belong to the groups that lived at different times. I cannot, however,
complement the scheme with chronological dates.
The Apostles, i.e., the disciples of the Lord: Andrew, Peter, etc.
an unknown interval
Aristion, the Elder John (and perhaps others)
sents his own solution: “Wir hätten dann mit folgender Traditionskette zu rechnen:
Jesus—Johannes—die Presbyter—deren Schüler—Papias.”
11
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5.36.2) does not refer to Papias or any other source, but says
that the presbyters are the disciples of the apostles.
12
Ulrich H. J. Körtner and Martin Leutzsch, “Papiasfragmente. Hirt des Hermas.”
Schriften des Urchristentums, Vol. 3 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1998), 30-31.
13
Hengel, 1993, 106f.

an unknown interval
parhkolouqhkw,j tij
an unknown interval
Papias
The lists of disciples in the Gospel of John (1:40, 43) and in the Fragment
of Papias begin with Andrew and run in parallel until Thomas. In John
21:2 the last disciples are the sons of Zebedee and the two unknown dis-
ciples. In Papias’s list, the last ones, who were likewise called the disciples
of the Lord, belonged to a later period that was close to the time of Papias
himself. Hengel concluded that Papias’s list is based on John and sug-
gested that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel.14 Similar lists of disciples in
two documents do not, however, in themselves prove literary dependence.
It is possible that both John and Papias independently attest to an Asian
tradition of the list of disciples.15
Hengel’s point concerning the location of John the Elder in the list
deserves attention. First, he explained how the first names on the list are
the most important.16 But then he explained the final place of John the
Elder in a similar way, with John’s significance in particular for Papias:
Dass bei Papias der “Presbyter Johannes,” dem er so viele

traditionen verdankt und den er nach der Notiz Eusebs häufig
zitiert, am Ende steht, ist daher kein Zufall. Er ist dem Autor am
nächsten und bildet gewissermassen die Brücke zu ihm.17
It is evident that Papias, who also had historical considerations in mind,

could not begin the list with John the Elder or place him among the first
disciples of the Lord. So the list of Papias should not be included among
the lists where the most important names are placed first.
Hengel used Fragment 2 of Papias in order to identify John the Elder
with the Elder of 2 and 3 John. Hengel’s sophisticated construction tried to
14
Hengel (1993, 86f.), Harnack (1897, 658), and Metzger (1987, 55) regard it as
probable that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel, 1 John, and the Apocalypse. Schmithals
(1992, 5) regards such opinions as uncertain.
15
Alan R. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 112.
16
Hengel (1993, 86) specifies: “Die Epistula Apostolorum (und ähnlich auch die
Apostolische Konstitutionen) setzen ihre Hauptfigur Johannes obenan, gefolgt von Tho-
mas, der im 2. Jahrhundert vielleicht mit unterstützung des Johannesevangeliums zu
einem wichtigen Offenbarungsempfänger, nicht zuletzt in gnostischen Kreisen, wurde.
Verwandt ist der Katalog aus der Apostolischen Kirchenordnung: Johannes, Matthäus
(!), Petrus, Andreas, Philippus, Simon, Jakobus, Nathanael, Thomas, Kephas,
Bartholomaios, Judas Jakobou, und fast gleichlautend jener aus der syrischen Didaskalie.”
17
Hengel 1993, 86.
32
show that John the Elder and not John the Apostle possessed the author-
ity that allowed ancient writers to regard him as the author of the Fourth
Gospel. Hengel also surmized that Eusebius perhaps ignored Papias’s ref-
erence to John the Elder having written the Fourth Gospel. In order to
substantiate his opinion, Hengel quoted the fifth-century author Philip of
Side, whose information about the sons of Zebedee in the books of Papias
are not found in Eusebius. Hengel supposed that Eusebius neglected the
information provided by Papias about the death of the sons of Zebedee.18
Among the sources used by Hengel, the text of Georgius Monachus
(Hamartolus) about the martyrdom of John deserves attention.19 Accord-
ing to Georgius, John the Apostle was the Evangelist, but was also later
martyred. Hengel here used later martyrologies that hint at the death of
John the Apostle. Though Hengel rejected the late dating of the martyr-
dom, he relied here on Georgius’ account of the fact of the death of John.
James H. Charlesworth had a quite different approach to the Johannine
question, but his aim—to unveil the identity of the Beloved Disciple—
places him beside Hengel. Charlesworth did not discuss Papias in detail,
but drew attention to the text of Eusebius (HE 3.1.1) that mentions Tho-
mas first.20 Charlesworth regarded it as self-evident that the important
names are listed first. In my view, however, Eusebius in this place seems
to have had geographical considerations in the forefront rather than com-
posing a ranking list of the disciples. Eusebius seems to have started his
description with the most remote places such as Parthia, then passed over
Scythia to Asia, and then at last to Rome. In short, his order follows the
route from the provinces to the capital. Among the Twelve, Peter stands
at the end!21
18
Hengel (1993, 88) specifies: “Eine besonders wichtige Notiz des Papias, die Euseb
ebenfalls übergeht, ist jener Bericht über den Tod der Söhne des Zebedäus ‘durch die
Juden,’ den wir nur aus einem Exzerpt kennen, das vermutlich der späteren
Kirchengeschichte des Philippus von Side entstammt...eine Epitome der zwischen 434
und 439 verfassten Kirchengeschichte des Philipp v. Side, die aus 7. Jahrhundert stammt:
Papias sagt in seinem zweiten Buch, dass Johannes, der Theologe, und Jakobus,
sein Bruder, von den Juden ums Leben gebracht worden seien.”
19
Hengel (1993, 89, n. 282) specifies: “Nach Domitian regierte Nerva ein Jahr: er rief
Johannes von der Insel zurück und liess ihn Aufenthalt nehmen in Ephesus. Als einziger
war dieser damals von den zwölf Jüngern noch am Leben und wurde nach Verfassen des
nach ihm benannten Evangeliums des Martyriums gewürdigt. Papias nämlich, Bishop
von Hierapolis, der ihn noch persönlich gesehen hatte, berichtet im zweiten Buch der
Worte über den Herrn, dass er von den Juden umgebracht worden sei....”
20
James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gos-
pel of John? (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 384: “...Eusebius lists
first among Jesus’ “holy apostles and disciples” Thomas; and “according to tradition he
obtained by lot Parthia” (qwma/j me,n w`j h` para,dosij perie,cei, th.n Parqi,an ei;lhcen, [HE 3.1.1.]).
Why did Eusebius, who was working in early fourth-century Caesarea, mention Thomas
first, and before such pillars of the church as Peter and Paul? Is it not conceivable that in
ancient Palestine Thomas was highly revered?”
21
HE 3.1.1 (trans. G. A. Williamson, ed. A. Louth, 1989, 65) reads as follows: “Tho-
mas, tradition tells us, was chosen for Parthia, Andrew for Scythia, John for Asia, where
he remained till his death at Ephesus. Peter seems to have preached in Pontus, Galatia,

Interestingly enough, Charlesworth did not analyze Fragment 2 of
Papias, but quickly came to a conclusion that is contrary to that of Hengel.
Charlesworth used sources that are later than the HE of Eusebius. On the
basis of his selected quotations, he concluded that, according to Papias,
John the son of Zebedee was the Beloved Disciple since Papias knew him
and heard him teach.22 Charlesworth put several sources together and
concluded that
if Papias was not only a student of John the Evangelist, but also
intimate with him, “the Beloved Disciple,” as Anastasius of Sinai
reported, then he would most likely advocate that this John, and
not others—whether John the Elder or Thomas—was Jesus’ Be-
loved Disciple. Although Papias never states clearly that John the
son of Zebedee is the Beloved Disciple, that tradition is associated
with him, and indeed a ninth-century Vatican manuscript refers to
Papias as one who knew that John wrote the Gospel John. It even
refers to Papias as “a beloved disciple of John.”23
Here Charlesworth, in fact, referred to sources that do not favor his view
that Thomas was the Beloved Disciple. He substantiated that Papias, an
early writer, regarded John the Apostle as the Beloved Disciple. Though
his use of the sources is partly unclear, his analysis slightly undermines
Hengel’s theory about the highly reputable position of John the Elder in
early Christian writings.
Other Questions with Regard to Papias
The importance of Papias for Hengel and Charlesworth is not limited

to Fragment 2. Both scholars, though with different views with regard to
the identity of the Beloved Disciple, are convinced that Papias referred in
his work to the martyr’s death of John.24 With regard to their theories,
two questions arise: (1) In what way did the martyrologies influence their
interpretation of Papias? (2) Is it altogether possible to find out what Papias
and Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia, to the Jews of the Dispersion. Finally, he came to
Rome where he was crucified, head downwards at his own request.”
22
Charlesworth (1995, 398) refers to the following sources: “Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.
5.33.4: Ioannis auditor; Jerome, De viris illustribus 18: Papias, Johannis auditor. Philip
of Side in his Historia christiana, Epitome in Codex Baroccianus 142: Papi,aj Ìerapo,lewj
evpi,skopoj, avkousth.j tou/ qeolo,gou Iv wa,nnou geno,menoj.”
23
Charlesworth (1995, 398) again refers to the record that marks Papias as the
disciple of John: “Ex codice Vaticano (olim Alexandrino, nunc Reginensi lat.) 14: discipulus
Iohannis carus.”
24
Then Charlesworth (1995, 240-241) refers to Philip Sidetes and Georgius
Hamartolus and argues that because of the martyrdom John the son of Zebedee is not a
good candidate for the Beloved Disciple. Thomas, not being martyred, is “a prime candi-
date for this figure.” For Hengel the martyr’s death of John facilitates the attribution of
the Fourth Gospel to John the Elder.
34
wrote about the apostle John, or John the Elder, or whom he regarded as
the author of the Fourth Gospel?
Scholars who discuss the martyrologies of John the son of Zebedee
refer to Papias as a “silent authority.” They try to find “lost passages” of
Papias’s works which might support one or another hypothesis. The his-
torical aspect of the question of the death of John exceeds the limits of my
work. I do not intend to discuss whether or not Mark 10:35ff. is vaticinium
ex eventu, but limit my study to what is important with regard to the two
questions above. The issue has its importance, since early martyrs were,
without doubt, honored in the early church, but they cannot have had
much authority with regard to the texts that were written considerably
later, especially when apostolicity was needed.
To begin with, if Papias testified to the death of the sons of Zebedee in
his books, Hengel’s supposition that Eusebius passed over these records
seems unlikely. The reference to John’s death could have been of good use
for Eusebius’s own explanation about two Johns in HE 3.39.5-6 immedi-
ately after the presentation of Papias’s fragment in 3.39.3-4. Eusebius still
found it necessary to distinguish between two Johns and to write several
times that John lived a long life (e.g., HE 3.3.4 and 3.18.1; in HE 3.23.1-2
he quoted Irenaeus’s Adv. Haer. 2.33.2). Mere emphasis on the apostle
John’s long life may have added trust in the writings that were associated
with the apostle John. If Papias really mentioned the death of John the
Apostle, it should have left echoes in the Christian literature of the second
and third centuries.25 Besides, one may expect to find attempts to harmo-
nize the two traditions—that John was the Evangelist, and that John was
martyred—much earlier than in Georgius Monachus.
The issue of the martyrdom of John is quite complicated. Authors such
as Jerome and Philip of Side wrote that Papias was a hearer of John, had
seen him, and even learned from him. They did not report that John, the
son of Zebedee, was killed. To suppose that they knew about his martyr-
dom means to expect from them an explanation that Papias was a hearer
of some other John than the apostle. Next, if Eusebius had found in Papias
a statement about the death of John, why did he only refer to Papias’s
reference that he was never a hearer or eyewitness of the apostles (HE
3.39.2), and why did he not explain, for the sake of clarity, that, according
to Papias, John the Apostle was killed? The opinion of M. Oberweis that
the message concerning the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee is one
of the best-attested details in the fragments of Papias seems at face value
to support Hengel’s view.26 But these texts that tell about Papias’s closeness
25
Opinions vary. G. Zunz (1991, 248-249) does not estimate Papias as highly as
Hengel and says that “Papias ist ein höchst fragwürdiger Zeuge für frühchristliche
Überlieferungen.” He claims that “Die erwähnte Aussage kann im Buch des Papias nicht
gestanden haben” and completes his analysis with the assertion that the doubtful citation
of Papias is worthless (Ibid., 254).
26
M. Oberweis (1996, 284), builds upon the excerpts from Georgius Hamartolus and
Codex baroccianus. His conclusion is: “Bevor sich die ephesische Johannes-Legende

to John the Apostle and those that tell about John’s martyrdom do not fit
well with each other and point in different directions: the first imply a long
life span for the apostle, while the second presuppose his relatively early
death.27 So it is not very probable that the works of Papias contained refer-
ences to the death of John the Apostle. In the lifetime of Papias, the tradi-
tions about John were in the initial stage. If Papias did not write about the
martyr’s death of John the Apostle, Hengel’s suggestion that John of
Ephesus was John the Elder, ceases to be the only option. John, the son of
Zebedee, may have been regarded as being John of Ephesus as well as
John the Elder.
It does not seem very probable that Papias wrote about the death of
John the Apostle or that he was himself a hearer of this John. But it is
possible that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel. If he did, the question be-
comes who Papias possibly regarded as the author of the Gospel. Hengel
supposed that Eusebius passed over in silence the reference of Papias to
John the Elder’s writing of the Fourth Gospel.28 Opinions diverge here. E.
Haenchen thought that Papias did not associate John, the son of Zebedee,
with the Gospel, but with the Apocalypse.29 On the other hand, W. Larfeld
concluded: “Es lässt sich somit als gewiss hinstellen, dass Papias das 4.
Evangelium nicht nur gekannt und als Stoffsammlung für sein
Kommentarwerk benutzt hat, sondern dass ihm auch die Autorschaft des
Apostels Johannes an demselben wohlvertraut war.”30
ausbildete, herrschte im kleinasiatischen Wirkungskreis des Papias offensichtlich die

Anschauung vor, der Apostel habe als Blutzeuge sein Leben gelassen” (Ibid., 295). This
leads to a complicated result. It is hard to imagine that at the time of Papias, John was
regarded as a martyr. At the end of the second century (Polycrates and Irenaeus) there
spread the view that John alone enjoyed long life until the time of Trajan. And then
again, in the following centuries, martyrologies appeared.
27
The martyrological views, based upon the note in Mark 10:35ff., often associate the
death of John with the death of James. Though Mark 10:35ff. in itself does not point to
the early death of John, the idea of martyrdom in itself suggests that one should not
attribute to John a very long life in contrast to James (Acts 12:1-2).
28
Hengel (1993, 88) finds the later source of Georgius Monachus acceptable and
writes: “Wir müssen also mit der Möglichkeit rechnen, dass Euseb bisweilen Nachrichten
verschleierte, die ihm unannehmbar erschienen, oder auch aus Sorglosigkeit überging.
Warum sollte er nicht eine—hypothetische—Notiz des Papias, dass der Presbyter Johannes
das vierte Evangelium geschrieben habe, einfach mit Stillschweigen übergangen haben?”
29
According to Haenchen (1980, 10), “Papias hat zwar den Zebedaiden Johannes als
Traditionsträger genannt, aber nichts davon gewusst, dass er ein Evangelium verfasst
habe”...“Wohl aber hielt er den Zebedaiden Johannes für den Autor der Apokalypse.”
30
The argument of Larfeld (1973, 381-401) runs as follows: Since Eusebius did not
give any clear account as to whom Papias regarded as the author of the Fourth Gospel,
there are two possibilities: (1) Eusebius did not find any remark about the authorship of
the Fourth Gospel in Papias’s work; (2) There was a reference, but Eusebius found it
superfluous to write about it to his readers. The first case is likely if (a) Papias thought it
unnecessary to recount to his readers a well-known matter of his own time. The second
case is likely if (b) Papias mentioned the apostle John as the author. In the time of
Eusebius apostolic authorship was the common opinion in the church, and Eusebius
simply did not mention it.
If the case (a) is true, there are again two possibilities: (1) Papias knew that the
36
Recent Opinions with Regard to Papias
Soon after Hengel’s book Die johanneische Frage, R. Bauckham pub-

lished a detailed study on the authors who used the works of Papias. He
defended Hengel’s analysis of Papias. In doing so he focused on Polycrates
of Ephesus, whose statement about the death of John at Ephesus was
based on local tradition.31
Bauckham referred to HE 3.39.15 where Papias’s comments on Mark
and Matthew are quoted. Both Gospels have two aspects in common. First,
Papias referred to the eyewitness authority of Peter in favor of the Gospel
of Mark, and of Matthew in favor of the Gospel of Matthew. Second, Papias
said that both Gospels are a little deficient. Mark lacked the correct order,
whereas Matthew’s Hebrew original had lost something through transla-
tion into Greek.32 According to Bauckham, the historical context of Papias’s
comments on Mark and Matthew was the discussion of the most obvious
differences between the Gospels that were generally accepted. The reason
for Papias’s argument was that “he knew another Gospel, also recording
eyewitness testimony, which in his view did arrange the logia of the Lord
in the correct order. This must be John.”33 In my opinion, it may be that
Papias’s list of disciples, which runs in parallel with the Johannine list up
to Matthew, indicates that Papias preferred the order of John. One should
not forget, however, that Papias’s words about the Gospel of John are
lacking from HE 3.39.15.
Bauckham’s argumentation is here close to that of Hengel. He sug-
gested that Papias must have said something so significant about the Fourth
Gospel that it could justify his own preference for its order. Bauckham
supposed that Papias probably ascribed the Fourth Gospel to John the
Elder, and Eusebius did not like this. Bauckham’s suggestion gives supple-
mentary evidence for the already discussed possibility that Papias knew
the Fourth Gospel. If so, Papias may have concluded by himself that the
Gospel transmits eyewitness testimony (21:24). Whether Papias regarded
author was John the Elder; (2) Papias knew the author was neither the Apostle nor the
Elder, but someone else. Larfeld concludes that it is inconceivable that Papias did not tell
his readers the real author if he knew that the author was not the apostle at the time
when the early church held the apostle John to be the author. Larfeld regards it as
impossible that if c. A.D. 125 the non-apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel was generally
known, about forty years later the Gospel was ascribed to the apostle John. So Larfeld is
of the opinion that Papias considered the apostle John to be the author of the Fourth
Gospel but did not mention it.
However, Larfeld does not give sufficient reasons for his view that in the time of
Papias the apostle John was regarded as the author of the Fourth Gospel by the early
church. We do not know this. But we know what Larfeld says a little later—that about
forty years after Papias, the Fourth Gospel was ascribed to the apostle John.
31
Richard Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,”
JTS, 1993a, 24-69.
32
Bauckham 1993a, 47.
33
Bauckham 1993a, 50.

the Johannine order of events as correct cannot be verified. There is still
no proof that Papias wrote something about the Fourth Gospel that may
reflect his preference for that Gospel. Besides, there is no proof that
Eusebius ignored the information given by Papias.
Conjectures as to what Papias might have said about the Gospel of
John presuppose that Papias left traces in the works of the writers who
knew him. Bauckham discovered that if the Canon Muratori’s (hereafter
CM) quotation (lines 26-34)34 from 1 John 1:1-4 and the conclusions drawn
from it about the Fourth Gospel truly follow Papias, the story of the Canon
Muratori about the origin of the Gospel is problematic.35 Bauckham was
bothered by the fact that in CM 14, Andrew is one of the apostles, and in
verse 9, John is one of the disciples, whereas in Papias, the members of
the Twelve and the Elders are both called “the disciples of the Lord.”
Bauckham proposed that the author of the CM distinguished between
“John, the member of the Twelve” and John who was not “a member of the
Twelve.” Then he noticed another problem. The CM presupposed that at
the time of the composition of the Gospel, Andrew and other disciples
were still alive; whereas, Papias clearly indicated that at the time when he
was collecting oral traditions, the disciples who belonged to the Twelve
were dead. This particular problem exists only because Bauckham, like
Hengel, suggested that Papias thought that John the Elder composed the
Fourth Gospel. But if Papias did not ascribe the Fourth Gospel to John the
Elder, the use of his fragment in the CM is not so problematic.36
34
Here I present verses 9-16 and 26-34 from the Canon Muratori [Schneemelcher,
ed; 1991, 34-35] and adhere to the line division of the source (line numbers in parenthe-
ses added).
The fourth of the Gospels, that of John, (one) of the disciples. (9)
When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him, (10)
he said: Fast with me from today for three days, and what (11)
will be revealed to each one (12)
let us relate to one another. In the same night it was (13)
revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, (14)
whilst all were to go over (it), John in his own name (15)
should write everything down. (16)
What (26)
wonder then if John, being thus always true to himself, (27)
adduces particular points in his epistles also, (28)
where he says of himself: What we have seen with our eyes (29)
and have heard with our ears and (30)
our hands have handled, that have we written to you. (31)
For so he confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, (32)
but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in (33)
order. (34)
35
Bauckham 1993a, 56. Note that the CM clearly holds that the author of 1 John is
an eyewitness of the Lord and the author of the Fourth Gospel too, who wrote the
marvels of the Lord “in order.”
36
In particular, the initial position of Andrew in Papias’s list and at the head of the
apostles in the CM speak for the use of Papias and the high estimation of the Gospel of
John by the author of the CM.
38
Bauckham also drew attention to the fact that two Johns are called
disciples by Papias, while only one John was designated so in the CM and
by Irenaeus. This unifying element points to the possible dependence of
the CM and Irenaeus on Papias. However, if we are to suppose that the
unspecified meaning of the word disciple in the Fourth Gospel also stands
in the background, the opportunity of drawing exact conclusions from the
use of the word disciple is less alluring.37 Likewise, Bauckham’s conclu-
sion, in support of Hengel, that Papias wrote that John the Elder, the
disciple of the Lord, composed the Fourth Gospel, remains hypothetical.
Discussion of the literary legacy of Papias continues. Charles E. Hill
proposed that Eusebius was not totally silent about Papias’s witness to the
Fourth Gospel and that “we in fact possess a paraphrase of that witness,
preserving much of the vocabulary of the original.”38 Hill based his view
upon the consideration that “if Papias did say something about the genesis
of John’s Gospel, we might possess some semblance of his report in the
words of those who had read him.”39 Hill’s “new” fragment of Papias is
located in HE 3.24.5-13, where Eusebius “gives us technically anonymous
tradition concerning both Matthew and John.”40 Let us remember that,
according to Bauckham, the passage HE 3.24.5-16 represents Eusebius’s
own point of view in contrast to the position of Papias.41
According to HE 3.24.5, Matthew and John recorded their recollec-
tions: “A record preserves (kate,cei lo,goj) that they took to writing out of
necessity (evpa,nagkhj).”42 Hill noted that when Eusebius usually introduced a
narrative with the words jklllllllllllllk , the document from which Eusebius
draws was either indicated in the context or may have been discovered
from his own work. He associated the references of Eusebius to Mark and
Matthew in HE 3.39.15f. with those in HE 3.24.5 to Matthew and John and
suggested that all of them are based on one written record of Papias. Hill
concluded that “the material which follows in 3.24 about John is also based
on this written record.”43
Similar to this consideration is the observation that there are words
and ideas common to this fragment and the other fragments of Papias on
the Gospels. According to HE 3.24.11, John was exhorted by his hearers to
37
In the Gospel of John the word disciple refers certainly to “the Twelve,” but its
meaning extends beyond these limits. In John 1:35-39 there is a disciple who remains
unnamed from the beginning of the Gospel. In John 9:27 the blind man asks if the
Pharisees want to become Jesus’ disciples, and in John 19:38 Joseph of Arimathaea is
called a disciple of Jesus.
38
Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John (and Luke).” JTS 1998, 583.
39
Ibid., 583. Hill regards that among the authors who may have been dependent
upon Papias’s traditions are Clement of Alexandria, the author of the Muratorian Frag-
ment, Origen, and very probably Victorinus of Pettau.
40
Hill 1998, 588.
41
Bauckham 1993a, 52.
42
Hill 1998, 588.
43
Hill 1998, 591.

write down what had previously remained unwritten. According to Clem-
ent (HE 2.15.1; cf. 6.14.6), Mark was urged to write what is known as the
Gospel according to Mark. In HE 2.15.1 Eusebius said that Clement was
supported by Papias.44 There seems to be a thematic unity with regard to
the origin of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, which gives support
to the view that Eusebius’s source for HE 3.24.5-13 was perhaps Papias’s
tradition.
Parallel motifs between the “new fragment of Papias” and the authors
who knew Papias’s works are striking. Hill pointed to the following cir-
cumstances in common: (a) writing by request; (b) order in the Gospels; (c)
the evangelists as “publishers,” and (d) the number and order of the Gos-
pels.45 The difference between the literary achievements of Mark and John,
according to the HE 3.39.15 and the Canon Muratori, is of importance.
According to Papias, Mark could not write his Gospel in order, for he had
not heard the Lord or been one of his followers. Of course, Mark should
not be blamed for being imprecise. The author of the Canon Muratori, on
the other hand, suggested that John was able to write in order, since he
was an eyewitness and hearer of the marvels of the Lord (vv. 32-34). It is
easy to imagine that one and the same author (or source) may have been
in the background of both records that point in the same direction. No
wonder that Hill could conclude: “Thus we also now have an explanation
for how Eusebius, when relating Papias’s tradition about Mark and Mat-
thew in 3.39.15-16, could have omitted his tradition about John. That is,
he had already given it in 3.24.5-13, though without citing Papias’s name.”46
According to Hill, if Papias’s source was John the Elder, then this John,
who was the subject of Papias’s hypothetical fragment in HE 3.24.5-13,
could only have been the apostle. In that text, John was likewise called
“the disciple of the Lord.” Because of his parallel presentation with Mat-
thew in HE 3.24.5, this title does not exclude him from being one of the
Twelve. Here is the strongest evidence in favor of the possibility that Papias
could have attributed the Fourth Gospel to John the Apostle.
44
This statement of Clement does not say that Clement is here dependent on Papias
but that Eusebius knew about similar statements in Clement and Papias.
45
Hill 1998, 596-606: (a) In HE 3.24.11 and the Canon Muratori (vv. 10-16) John is
urged to write; (b) Both texts, the passage in HE 3.24.5-13 and the Canon Muratori (vv.
32-34), seem to be aware of the differences between the narratives of John and the
Synoptics. They present John as the Evangelist who complements the previous records
and writes his account “in order”; (c) There is a resemblance between Papias’s description
of Mark and Matthew in HE 3.39.15 and Eusebius’s source in 3.24.5; (d) The fragment in
HE 3.24.7 and the writers dependent upon Papias place the Gospel of John chronologi-
cally in the last place among the four Gospels (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; the Canon Muratori;
Origen, quoted in HE 6.25.4-6; Clement, Hypotyposeis in HE 6.14.7).
46
Hill, 1998, 611.
40
Conclusion
In the second century, the time of the Gospel proclamation and oral
tradition continued. Both oral and written communication needed to be
related to each other and arranged among the authoritative sources. Jus-
tin knew the term gospel but mentions no evangelist by name. His use of
the word euvagge,lion in parallel with the designation “reminiscences of the
apostles” gives me ground to suppose that what the apostles were able to
recall about the words and deeds of the Lord was called euvagge,lion. Justin
associated the Gospels with the apostles.
Craving for the access to the apostolic words is clearly visible in Frag-
ment 2 of Papias. Papias was a man who wanted to be certain about the
authority of the sayings, the still living and abiding voice. The chain of
witnesses begins with the disciples of the Lord with the apostles in the
core of them. Hengel tried to provide John the Elder with authority equal
to the authority of the disciples of the Lord, though not with that of “the
Twelve.” Hengel ascribed to John the Elder near-apostolic standing by
saying that he was an eyewitness, which, of course, was an apostolic qual-
ity.
It is unclear whether Aristion and John the Elder were called “the
disciples of the Lord” by Papias in a certain symbolic sense, or whether
this designation was repeated through his own or by some copyist’s mis-
take. But Papias was not a hearer of the apostles. According to Papias’s
own words, his information about the apostles was mediated throught the
second grade authorities—the elders and the followers of the elders. Apos-
tolic authority of the abiding voice was passed on by the living church.
Papias knew 1 John, and probably the Fourth Gospel, too. It seems
that Papias did not write about the martyrdom of John the son of Zebedee
and did not attribute the Fourth Gospel to John the Elder. If there was any
information in Papias’s works about the author of the Fourth Gospel, it
could be John the Apostle, since Hill’s proposal concerning the origin of
HE 3.24.5-13 as coming from Papias has much to recommend it. Papias
also refers to the eyewitness authourity of Peter in favor of the Gospel of
Mark, and of Matthew in favor of the Gospel of Matthew.
Papias, the earliest writer who mentions John the Apostle and John
the Elder in one sentence, did not leave behing sufficiently exact refer-
ences that could help us in identifying the Beloved Disciple. The study of
the heritage of Papias does not favor the association of the Beloved Dis-
ciple with John the Elder who was not “a member of the Twelve.”
Charlesworth’s conclusion that, according to Papias, John the son of
Zebedee, was regarded as the Beloved Disciple, is better grounded.
Necessity to refer to the apostlic authority of the authoritative writ-
ings was essential to the early second century Christian writers. It is worth
remembering that according to Papias, Mark could not write his Gospel in
order, for he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers. Some

decades later, Canon Muratori lets one think that only the eyewitnesses
and hearers of the marvels of the Lord could do so.
42
A Translation and Analysis of
Martin Luther’s 1528 Catechetical Sermons
on the Lord’s Supper
Aaron Moldenhauer
Introduction
What is essential to the Lord’s Supper? That is, what does the simple
Christian need to know about the Sacrament of the Altar? Luther answers
this question in his two catechisms. In these works he puts forth his simple,
positive teaching of what the basics of the Lord’s Supper are. The theology
expressed in the catechisms was refined by Luther in three series of
catechetical sermons preached in May, September, and November-Decem-
ber of 1528. This paper examines the sermons on the Lord’s Supper from
these series.1
Only the third catechetical sermon series from 1528 is included in the
American Edition of Luther’s Works.2 Translations of the sermons from
the first two sermon series in 1528 make up the first part of this paper.
The second part of the paper examines the development of Luther’s thought
on the Lord’s Supper in his 1528 catechetical sermons and the catechisms.
The aim of this examination is to clarify what Luther considered to be the
essentials of the Lord’s Supper.
Translation
Translator’s Preface
The texts of Luther’s 1528 catechetical sermons are published in vol-

ume 30I of the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works, pages 1-122. The only
extant texts for the first two sermon series are Rörer’s copy of notes taken
during Luther’s sermons. Luther preached on the Lord’s Supper in two
sermons during the first series on May 29 and 30, 1528.3 One sermon from
1
Thanks are due to both Prof. Naomichi Masaki and Prof. Norman Nagel for their
encouragement and assistance with this work. Their invaluable criticisms and sugges-
tions have sharpened the translation and analysis. Responsibility for errors belongs, of
course, to the author alone.
2
Luther’s Works. American Edition. Vol. 51. Edited by J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and
H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 133-193 (hereafter LW.)
3
Luther, Martin. Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 30I (Weimar: Hermann
Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1910), 23-27 (hereafter WA).
Rev. Aaron Moldenhauer is Associate Pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in

Beecher, IL.

the second series deals with the Lord’s Supper, preached on September 25,
1528.4 English translations of these sermons follow.
May 29, 1528

Concerning the Lord’s Supper
This Sacrament is also founded in Scripture. Therefore, every Chris-

tian ought to know whence it comes, what it effects, in what way it is to be
used, and what it conveys. Let the teachers dispute, for they are answer-
able for this. But as for you, know that Christ Himself has instituted this
Sacrament. For thus Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul write about this
matter. [Here he recited the verba.] “This do” has also been contested, but
this is nothing to us. You have heard the words; therefore, you can say:
“this bread and this wine, which the Lord takes in His hands and blesses
and calls His body and blood, no man instituted that, but Christ Himself.”
If it were possible that it were only simple bread and wine, neverthe-
less you ought to say that it is other bread than that which is eaten. Water
is water, but when the institution comes to it, it is Baptism. Therefore, if
this were only bread, which it is not, nevertheless it would be a precious
enough treasure on account of the words, because the words, the mandate
of God makes it so precious. But Christ says that the bread which He takes
is body, and the wine [which He takes is blood].
You are to remain with the words. [They are your defense against the
fanatics,] who would argue you away and would lead you into their error.
Therefore, you are to know what the Sacrament is, namely, that where
the bread and wine are, there are the true body and blood. That is to say,
they are in the bread and in the wine by His dominical promise and man-
date. It would not be body and blood if not by the words. But since Christ,
who cannot lie, says so, it is the body and blood of Christ. This must be
given as an answer to those who blaspheme by asking, “Christ would not
descend on account of our breath, would He?” The devil is the author of
those blasphemies, who carries away the words from their ears and heart.
I could play their game back to them, [but let that be]. We do not make the
body from the bread. But the way they look at the matter, it is we who
make [the bread into the body]. It is His body and blood through His Word,
promise, mandate, and institution. But they will not see this, nor can you
bring them to see this.
Therefore, if you want to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood
of Christ, do so as with Baptism. There is water with the divine mandate,
Word, and promise. “The Word comes to the element [and it becomes a
Sacrament].”5 But indeed if the Word is removed from the element [there
is no Sacrament]. Thus, if you subtract the Word from the bread and wine,
they are what their names call them. Certainly man does not make the
4
Ibid., 52-56.
5
This is Augustine’s definition of a sacrament, frequently quoted by Luther.
44
body and the blood. They are not a human work. See, let Him who insti-
tutes it do it. “Christ,” it says, “took bread and said, [‘This is my body.’]” He
leads us in His taking and speaking. Indeed, you are not Christ. But it is
He who bids, “This do.” I do nothing to follow Him unless it is by His
bidding. Therefore, bind together the Word to the element; then the bread
becomes what the Word says that it becomes. If you believe the Word,
“whosoever has believed,” [then it is for you as in Mark 16:16]. That which
goes by the words happens. In this way you will have such bread and wine
as the words declare.
Therefore, do not consider the Sacrament merely according to nature,
for then reason immediately says, “What does a sprinkling of water ac-
complish, a bite of bread, a drink of wine?” That is how all those fellows
talk. Those who do so are rascals and not honest people. If anyone per-
verts His words to a man, etc., you must hold the bread and wine together
as Christ has done. This Christ has done by putting His Word there. I will
have both together, bread and body, as a Sacrament. Here Satan knows
that he has been conquered, so he defends himself and gives out that bread
is only bread. Shallow folk are drawn in by this deception. We also teach
that bread is of no use by itself. But bread comprehended with the Word is
no longer merely bread and is of benefit on account of the Word, because
He who says that it is His body is omnipotent, and He does not lie.
May 30, 1528 Which Was the Vigil of Pentecost
Let us conclude the sermon which was begun. You have heard about
two Sacraments, about Baptism and about the Sacrament of the Body and
the Blood. You have heard that you should, before all things, pay attention
to and mark the words, which are the ground and institution of this Sacra-
ment. From these words you know what this Sacrament is, namely, that it
is not only bread and wine, but the true body and blood. And not only that,
but also the Word put there together. There is the Word, the mandate, the
promise of God, bread, wine, blood, and body. All these together make the
Sacrament. And that is to know the Sacrament essentially, what it is. And
thus one can do away with the babblers. They receive one piece of the
bread, some one piece of it, some another.
Now let us see what it effects and is able to do. Here is a twofold eating
and nourishment. It is food nourishing not the body, but the new man, as
the words declare: “This is My body, which [is given for you].” If then you
were asked, “What does this Sacrament do? What fruits does it have?,”
respond, “Its fruit is not that I obey the pope, that I do good works. But it
profits by feeding and fortifying the new man or soul. Just as bread and
wine revive the natural body naturally, so also this Sacrament revives the
soul itself.”
Through Baptism we are reborn and we are given a new being. But
after Baptism the old Adam remains, and he is furious. There are still so

many dangers nearby from the flesh, the world, and the devil, that the
new man becomes weary and it becomes too difficult to lead him out of
these dangers. Therefore, this Sacrament has been given to him, that he
may recover. And when one comes into new life, one is to grow in faith and
charity. It may, however, go bitterly with him because the seduction of the
flesh is there. And it is hard for one to suffer all this from the devil, flesh,
and the world. The devil goes after your possessions, honor, body, and soul
without ceasing. For when he sees that one resists him, he creeps after
that one with deceitfulness, and he does not cease until that one is broken
by impatience, and he brings on some calamity. That is how it goes with a
Christian life. You cannot expect anything else. Against this, however,
comfort is given to us in the Sacrament, so that the heart, which experi-
ences temptations of this kind, namely, impatience, anger, and jealousy,
comes to the Sacrament and takes comfort. He drinks and eats, and so
grows stronger. Thus that food gives a brave heart and feeds faith, chas-
tity, patience, gentleness, charity, and everything which the new man has.
So when I have become weary, I may receive new strength there. When
the soul has thus been fed, then it also overflows into the body, because
the body senses it and is exhilarated. “A good disposition is [half of health],”6
as is it said. Thus from the soul it extends into the body, even though it
does not feed the body itself.
Therefore let the fanatics argue, “How can we eat a spiritual thing or
faith with the mouth?” Believe the simple words and let the smart asses go
on with their arguing. Why may I not eat the remission of sins, when I eat
His body and blood? Where there is the flesh and blood is there not there
the forgiveness of sins? John the Baptist says, “I saw the Holy Spirit in the
form of a dove.” Now any fanatic says, “Who is able to see the Holy Spirit,
since He is spiritual?” I let St. John answer that. Thus they say about
Baptism, “How is it possible for Baptism to be full of spirit and grace? I see
water.” But in the water is hidden the remission of sins and grace. In the
same way you heard in the festival of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit sat
upon them all. The fanatics say, “That is false; the Holy Spirit did not
touch them, because He is a spiritual substance.” Then say, “I remain with
the divine words, because I see flame, in which is the Holy Spirit.” Thus
here, let them be clever, “How did he touch the Holy Spirit?” But you
think thus: he who sees bread, sees the body of Christ; he who drinks the
wine, drinks His blood, although it is hidden. Christ walked on the earth
and was the Son of God. Who saw [that He was the Son of God]? No one.
However Scripture testifies concerning this and says that who saw Christ
saw the Son of God (John 4). That is, whoever speaks with you, if you wish
to master the Word of God in this manner, you are able even to say, “I see
nothing other than a man; therefore, he is not the Son of God. I do not see
6
The German proverb is “Guter Mut ist halber Leib.” See Ernst Thiele, Luthers
Sprichtwörtersammlung (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1900), 123.
46
that man has a soul; therefore, I do not see a man.”
Thus in the Sacrament you receive the New Testament, the remission
of sins, for mixed with one another are bread and body, blood and wine,
and the Word. So much then concerning fruit, namely, that it is the nour-
ishment of the new man, who has been born again through Baptism. When
he feels broken, let him run here and enliven his heart that he be renewed
in meekness, and so on.
Faith belongs here, as it also does in Baptism. And even if the one
baptized does not believe, nevertheless he is holy, and the water is holy in
which is the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Therefore, if I am con-
demned, it is the fault of my faithlessness, not of Baptism. So also here is
the true body and the true blood of Christ, and it is the food and strength
of the soul and of faith; it is your fault, however, if you do not get it, just as
if I placed before someone a table prepared for the finest feast [and he did
not partake of it]. Therefore, beyond this it is proper that you have faith
that God has ordained this, and that it is His work, not ours; likewise, that
in the same way He delivers the remission of sins to us. As I believe, thus
I have. “This do,” i.e., eat the body, drink the blood. I remain with the
words. Just as I spoke about faith in Baptism, so also here.
Just as Baptism signifies something, so also this Sacrament signifies
something. What it signifies among Christians is unity, love, and fellow-
ship. Thus the fathers have said that what follows is Christian, brotherly
love. They have also cited this signification in the grain and grapes. For
just as many grains are ground up with a millstone and become one form
and bread, and just as grapes also have their own bodies, and when they
are pressed out into juice they become a common body, thus Christians
should become together one single, true, spiritual body, as they have one
head, Christ, and are as a result His members.
In this way I have the same faith, doctrine, and Sacraments with you.
Likewise, I have the same weakness, folly, lack, poverty, etc., with you.
Therefore, if you are naked, so am I; that is, I do not rest until you have
been clothed. So also if you are hungry or thirsty. Thus we come also into
one loaf, and my bread is yours and your hunger and thirst are mine. Thus
if you are a sinner, so am I. If I am happy or strong, I come to your sadness
or weakness, and I do not cease until you are restored similar to me. Thus
my joy is also yours, and, vice versa, your sadness is mine. For that is
what one spirit and body means. Thus Christians should be one common
people, as we pray in the creed: “I believe the catholic church, the com-
munion of saints.” What one has, that the other also has, for no one allows
the other to suffer need. Although one has more than the other, neverthe-
less the one who has more has the more to give. That is also signified in
the eating.
When one eats the Sacrament, we “body” Christ into us and He “bod-
ies” Himself into us. I partake of Him. I am a sinner and come to Him, and
whatever evil is in me I offer to Him and let Him eat it. I receive from Him

faith and the desire for chastity, and I feed on these, because His treasures
become mine. Thus let me in turn eat and drink. This is the signification
in eating and drinking. Paul [writes], “Bear one another’s burdens” (Gal.
6). You hear the Law of Christians, that you [bear one another’s burdens].
We should do that when we have been born again through faith. The world
does otherwise. Whoever lets himself be borne, etc. If, however, you want
to be a rogue, then what you have coming to you is a judge. That goodness
is to be exercised toward those we have spoken of, those who are known to
us [in the fellowship]. We shall not let them suffer want in the Gospel,
body, possessions, and comfort.
Thus we eat the Sacrament bodily and spiritually to strengthen our
faith and thereafter to fulfill the signification. That is the signification,
which is called communion. Because when I receive the Sacrament of Christ,
it becomes a communion. I offer my sin and death to Christ; He gives
righteousness and eternal life. Thus I say to the neighbor, “If you are poor,
come to me, and you shall have bread, a coat, and so on; similarly if you
are ignorant of the faith.”
Thus you have the two Sacraments of Christ. See that you learn to
understand them rightly and respond simply. Let the smart asses work up
some answer to that, and then let them try to defend it. You hear in the
major sermons throughout the year the things that pertain here.
September 25
You have heard the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Our Fa-
ther, which every Christian ought to know in the simplest manner. In the
same way you have heard how Baptism is to be understood and treated
honorably. God instituted also another Sacrament, and it serves to the
same end toward which Baptism and the whole Gospel serve, that is, for
the remission of sins. For it is to be done so that we may be reconciled to
God and have the remission of sins. The Gospel, the passion of Christ, is
directed toward this: that sin is remitted. Where sin is, there is death,
devil, hell. This Sacrament, He says, is “the new testament in my blood for
the remission of sins.”
He wills to die for us and already makes his Seelgerät7 and remem-
brance and indicates what is to be done for us. We are to come together,
eat bread [and drink wine], which are My body and blood. Here we let the
learned go, who should fight against the fanatics. We are speaking for the
simple. There are two things for them to know: bread and wine, and the
Word with them. As in Baptism are water and the Word, from which the
Sacrament is made, so also this Sacrament has in it bread and wine. Just
as water belongs to the Sacrament of Baptism, so also bread and wine
7
A Seelgerät is a foundation for the salvation of a soul, which would support masses
for that soul, etc.
48
belong to this and therewith the Word. Augustine: “[The word] comes [to
the element and it becomes a sacrament].” Without the Word, water re-
mains water, bread remains bread, and wine remains wine. Therefore, I
have spoken in this way about Baptism: when water is without the Word,
it is as any other water. If the Word is added, it is water, just as is named
in the words, that is, saving. It saves not by the power of the water, but by
the power of the words. Therefore, there is the greatest difference be-
tween water which has the Word and water that does not have the Word,
as there is a difference between an empty jacket and the clothes in which
a king is dressed. Water is water, but when God uses it for His work and
adds the Word, it is divine water. It is the same if you consider bread as a
baker kneads it, or wine as it is in a cellar. But when God adds the Word,
these things are to be considered differently. For it is then bread of the
kind that the words name.
What kind? “It is my body.” Then the words make bread to be the body
of Christ given for us. Therefore, it is no longer bread, but the body of
Christ dressed in the bread, as the water of Baptism is not streams, but
that which the Holy Spirit has put on. Therefore, the bread is to be re-
garded as the words say, namely, “This is my body.” The cup and the wine
are not to be regarded as it comes from the vine, but as the kind that the
words name and make it. “This cup [is the new testament in my blood].”
Thus you are compelled to regard the bread as the body of Christ and [the
wine as the blood of Christ]. You must cling to the Word, which weighs
more than the bread. The mouth perceives the bread, but not the body;
however, the soul, because it grasps the words as they sound, receives the
body.
You must remain with this. However, if you consult your reason, it
would say that it is mere bread and would be troubled by the question of
how Christ descends and in what way such a great body is under such a
small morsel. You are to say, “I am to listen to what my God says, not to
my reason. If God had willed that I be ruled by my reason, that would be
that.” Genesis 1[:28] does say, “Have dominion....” Now, in fact, He has
come Himself and preached so that I believe whatever He has said. He
does not lead me astray; it is from reason you have lies.
What is the Sacrament of the Holy Altar and the Mass? Say, “The
Sacrament of the Altar has two parts: as the Sacrament of Baptism has the
water and the Word, so also this Sacrament has the bread, the wine, and
the Word. Just as in that Sacrament the Word comes to the water, so also
in this Sacrament the Word comes to the bread and the wine. What do the
words say in this Sacrament? “Take, [eat; this is My body which is given
for you].” These words in the Sacrament teach that bread is the body of my
Lord given for me. Do you believe this? I do believe it. How is this pos-
sible? I let him worry about that. I am to believe Him. How it takes place,
He knows better than I. He knows better than I how it comes about. So
also the words of the cup say, [“This cup is the new testament in My blood.”]

For that reason the wine is not to be regarded as simple wine, but as the
words declare. How can this happen? Christ speaks, and He cannot lie.
Thus you understand what makes the Sacrament whole, and what belongs
to it, namely, things God has created and His very own Word. Created
things, such as bread and wine, and Word—these are what make a Sacra-
ment.
From this it follows that no man is able to make a Sacrament, not the
pope or any other who claims to have the name of God. Even if the pope
consecrates water and it becomes holy water, still no Sacrament is made
from this because it is lacking the other part, namely, God’s Word. One can
not represent it to be another water than what it is, for it has no mandate.
But He, who is God, in Baptism and the Supper adds the Word; in that way
they are Sacraments. I admonish every one of you to remain in that sim-
plicity and not allow yourselves to make up an error about how it happens.
It is an incredible thing, that in the water of Baptism God is there with all
His power, for the Holy Spirit is in it. I cannot comprehend it. No matter;
it is not for you to comprehend how it happens. But God the Lord, who
instituted it, knows well enough. Here He says that from the bread He
makes the body given for us, [from the wine, the blood poured out for us].
Abide by that. He has indeed done even greater things than this and does
so even now.
You carry in your hand a fruit that has many seeds. If you throw a
single one into the ground, a tree of astonishing height grows from it. It
does not come from the ground; it cannot grow without the seed, but grows
from the seed. Then you can only say, “That tree does not come except
from the seed.” If the Lord is able to do this, why should He not be able to
bring His body in a piece of bread? Therefore, do not bow to your reason.
So you see then that we do indeed teach the use and worth of the
Sacrament, for what purpose it is instituted for us. The power of Baptism
is to save those who believe. In the same way the power of the Eucharist
consists in these words: “Given for you,” “Poured out [for you for the for-
giveness of sins].” In this Sacrament the sermon does its teaching in such
a way that the remission of sins is heard. Those words lay down the power
with which this Sacrament has been ordained, and for this purpose those
words are spoken to you in the Sacrament. The sectarians want to make
this Sacrament nothing but eating and drinking. But the words are spo-
ken. When they are now spoken, it is proper to believe them. Therefore,
this Sacrament has been instituted for the confirmation of your faith as
you apprehend the words which give the remission of sins to you.
The fanatics greatly mock us for teaching that through a morsel of
bread the remission of sins is given to us. And so if that is how it is, they
say, let us have a slug of wine, same as in a tavern, etc.8 They separate the
bread, the wine, and the water from the Word. Who has taught them this?
8
“Emam igitur, inquiunt, similam et vini haustum in taberna k.”
50
They themselves. Water is water. That I know already; yes, even my dog
knows that. How then? When water [is used] with the Word of God, out of
two things is made one thing. The Word says that the bread is the body
given for you. Should it then be nothing when the Word of God says, “Jesus
Christ, having died for you, takes up your sins into Himself, gives His body
and pours out His blood for you”? He has attached our greatest sermon to
this Sacrament. The sectarians, on the other hand, lose it all by dividing
things up. He who wills to look at bread and wine alone has just that.
And, nevertheless, a common fool willingly hears such things. Then
he says, “For that to be so, that is a thought I have never had before.”
Then he thinks that he is most wise. “If a morsel of bread remits sins, then
I would become a baker.” Carried away by such bursting thoughts, they
then think of themselves as the most learned of teachers. I know just as
well as you that bread is bread and an external thing is of no avail. I knew
this even as a boy. What I say is that the bread and the Word of God, the
two parts, belong together. Let the Sacrament remain whole: God’s Word
with bread or with water is a Sacrament.
They heard from us that a habit does not make a man blessed. They
say that just as a habit does not make a monk, so also bread does not make
a Sacrament. Habit, tonsure, etc., do not have the Word of God. It is vil-
lainy to compare these two Sacraments to those things. It is villainy to
compare that which has the Word of God with that which does not have
the Word of God. If you have established that the Word remains with the
bread, it follows directly that the power is then there. The water saves.
Thus the bread “is my body,” not simple bread. But if you remove the
Word, then you have bread. If, however, body and blood are recognized,
then these words lead you further, that this body has been given for you
into death and this blood [has been shed for you]. Then you have the pure
Gospel, just as elsewhere I am accustomed to preach apart from the Sacra-
ments. If you hear and believe this promise, salvation stands in the words.
If this happens outside the Sacrament, why not in the Sacrament, since
the same words of God are there? However, the fanatics themselves throw
the remission of sins out of the Sacrament and remove its power.
You have now the power of the Sacrament, how and for what it is to be
used. The bread is the body of Christ, placed there for me so that I believe,
just as the words say. This is the power of the Sacrament.
In addition to this, there remains an admonition for those engaged in
study. There are some of the best preachers that we have among the teachers
(Augustine excepted) who have fallen into similitudes: just as water washes
the body, just as bread feeds the body, etc. They have remained only in
similitudes and have put them above the words. Likewise, just as from
many grains one bread, from many grapes one drink, so also from many
Christians one body. This is not badly preached. However, they have taken
their stand on this and held this as the best. But so far the danger has been
that the words are silenced. Christ and Paul did not have much use for

such similitudes, but stuck to the words.
It is indeed true that things may be illustrated by way of similitudes as
above. But first, above all, is that the bread is one part, the Word another
part, which together make the Sacrament. And it is true bread, not figura-
tive: the Word produces faith; the similitude does not. But it is a fine art to
use similitudes appropriately. But the words, “This is My body [given for
you],” give faith and life, fight against sin and death, and conquer Satan.
The devil can well tolerate the similitudes mentioned above, for they do
not hold all the way through—they do not overcome death. It is indeed an
elegant way of speaking, but when I come to die, I may well forget that the
grains go into making the bread. Therefore, the simple words are to be
held to. They refute the devil because they evoke faith. I say this so that
the youth learn to speak about the Sacrament in a most simple manner.
The bread becomes the body of Christ, and the power in the fact that the
body stands for you before God—there you have the Sacrament itself, wine
and bread with their power. Now you have all the parts which a simple
man should know. We have done our office; if you are neglectful, look to
whether you have any excuse.
Analysis
There is a noticeable progression in Luther’s thought on the Lord’s

Supper as he preaches his 1528 catechetical sermons. The course of this
development helps us to understand what Luther saw as the essentials of
the Sacrament. In the first sermon series, preached in May, Luther in-
cludes the outline of what every Christian ought to know at the beginning
of the first sermon. Every Christian ought to know from where the Sacra-
ment comes, what it effects, how it is to be used, and what it signifies.
Luther begins with the source: Christ’s institution. It is Christ’s Word that
makes the Sacrament. Even if this Word were attached to ordinary bread
and wine (to bread and wine that was not Christ’s body and blood) the
Sacrament would still be a great treasure.9 Luther is clear that he is not
questioning that Christ’s body and blood are there in the Lord’s Supper.
Instead, he is emphasizing God’s Word as the source of the Sacrament.
This Word is more important than Christ’s body and blood, for this Word
gives value by itself.
Christians are then, Luther continues, to abide by the words, lest they
be led astray by the fanatics. Because Christ, who cannot lie, speaks, the
bread and wine are His body and blood. This is Luther’s answer to what
the Sacrament is.10 Such a definition of the Sacrament is in line with
Augustine’s dictum concerning a Sacrament: “The Word comes to the ele-
ment, and it becomes a Sacrament.” Without Christ’s institution, it would
9
WA 30I, 23:16-29.
10
Ibid., 23:30-35.
52
not be a Sacrament. With His Word, it is no longer ordinary bread and
wine, but His very body and blood. This is no human work, but the work of
Christ Himself. Therefore, we ought to consider the bread and wine not
according to our reason, but as Christ considered them: in the Word. They
are what Christ, who is omnipotent and does not lie, says that they are.11
At this point Luther breaks for the day. When he picks up the sermon
again on May 30, he summarizes what he has said so far: before all things,
you should pay attention to the words. From these you know that the
Sacrament is not only bread and wine, but also Christ’s body and blood.
Here we have what the Sacrament is: bread, wine, body, blood, and God’s
Word, promise, and mandate.12 Again, Luther emphasizes the Word first.
This is primary; Christ’s body and blood—derived from the Word—are sec-
ondary. Luther’s discussion of the Sacrament up to this point flows directly
from the verba.
Luther now turns to what the Sacrament effects and does. His central
thought is that the Sacrament is nourishment for the new man. It strength-
ens the new man, born in Baptism, to face the many dangers and trials
that confront him. The beleaguered heart finds comfort in the Sacrament;
the new man is strengthened in faith, chastity, patience, gentleness, char-
ity, and anything that the new man has.13
Luther next treats the remission of sins that is received in the Sacra-
ment. He briefly argues against the fanatics’ argument that the remission
of sins cannot be received with the mouth. However, since Christ’s body
and blood are in the Sacrament, one receives the remission of sins in the
Sacrament. He concludes the section with a summary: the fruit of the
Sacrament is that it feeds the new man.14 Luther here sees the benefit of
the Sacrament primarily as food and sustenance for the new man in his
daily struggles. It bears fruit as it strengthens the new man and the vir-
tues that he exercises. Luther also lists the remission of sins as a benefit
in this Sacrament, but forgiveness is in the background; the Sacrament as
food for the new man is primary.
Following a brief paragraph on receiving the benefits of this Sacra-
ment through faith,15 Luther turns to the final section on what the Sacra-
ment of the Altar signifies. It signifies that in Christianity are unity, love,
and fellowship. For this reason the fathers could use the image of many
grains being combined into one loaf, or grapes becoming one drink. Those
who eat of the Sacrament are in communion with one another; they share
all things in common. In the same way, those who eat of the Sacrament
enter into communion with Christ. Christ partakes of what is ours, taking
our sin and evil death (up)on Himself. We partake of Christ and all His
11
Ibid., 24:5-24.
12
Ibid., 24:25-33.
13
Ibid., 24:35-25:23.
14
Ibid., 25:33-26:12.
15
Ibid., 26:18-22.

treasures, obtaining from Him righteousness and eternal life.16
Whereas the initial part of this sermon answered the question of what
the Sacrament is from the verba, the latter part of the sermon moves
away from the Words of Institution. The benefit of the Sacrament is seen
primarily as the food for the new man. A lengthy section treats the signifi-
cance of the Sacrament as communion with one another and with Christ.
These thoughts and images are not drawn directly from the verba.
When, in September, Luther returns to the subject of the Lord’s Sup-
per in the second sermon series, the emphases in his sermon have shifted.
This September sermon begins with the Gospel. Like Baptism and the
whole Gospel, the Sacrament of the Altar serves for the remission of sins.
This is seen in the verba, for this Sacrament is “the new testament in My
blood in the remission of sins.”17 This indicates a shift in emphasis from
Luther’s May sermons. The benefit is now defined directly from the Words
of Institution. The remission of sins is the primary benefit of the Sacra-
ment, supplanting the image of food for the soul.
Luther next turns to the general concept of a Sacrament. Augustine is
quoted again, showing that a Sacrament is made from the Word joined to
the element. Thus, when the Word is added to bread and wine, it is no
longer ordinary bread and wine. Instead it is what the words declare: the
body and blood of Christ, clothed in bread and wine. Though the mouth
perceives bread, the soul receives Christ’s body, for it grasps the words.
God, who cannot lie, has spoken thus.18
From these thoughts on the Gospel and the nature of a Sacrament,
Luther draws out the explicit question: What is the Sacrament of the Al-
tar? The Sacrament has two parts: bread and wine, and the Word of God.
These words teach that the bread is the body of Christ. How this is done is
left to God; that it is done is believed in faith, for Christ speaks, who can-
not lie. We are to abide by the words of God, knowing that He has done
greater things than this.19 As in the first sermon, Luther points to God’s
power and faithfulness as reasons to believe that the bread and wine are
Christ’s body and blood.
After this section, Luther preaches the purpose and value of the Sac-
rament. Its power lies in the words, “For you.” These show that the Sacra-
ment has been instituted for the confirmation of your faith as you receive
the remission of sins in it. This is nonsense to the fanatics because they
divide the Word from the elements. Luther agrees that common food can-
not give the remission of sins but notes that the Sacrament is more than
mere bread and wine. Luther summarizes the power of the Sacrament
and how it is to be used: the bread is the body of Christ, placed before me
so that I believe what the words declare.20
16
Ibid., 26:22-27:21.
17
Ibid., 52:38-53:5.
18
Ibid., 53:9-54:1.
19
Ibid., 54:1-25.
20
Ibid., 54:32-55:36.
54
Finally, Luther has an admonition for those who will one day preach.
He notes that most preachers use the similitudes of many grains being
baked into one loaf, or many grapes being squeezed into one cup. These
similitudes are good and useful, but they cannot be allowed to overshadow
the words themselves. The simple words produce faith and conquer Satan;
the comparisons do not.21
Luther’s approach in this sermon is different from that of the first
sermon series. In May he began with the source of the Sacrament and
emphasized the words above the body and blood. Here, he begins with the
Gospel and the general nature of a Sacrament. From these he derives
what the Sacrament is. While the Words of Institution are present through-
out this opening section, they are not as prominent as in the first sermon.
The broader concepts of the Gospel and the nature of Sacraments play a
larger role than the Words of Institution. Yet, while the verba are less
prominent in the section on what the Sacrament is, they are more promi-
nent when Luther addresses the question of what the Sacrament does
than they were in the first sermon series. Here Luther defines the benefit
from the verba: the remission of sins. This is a noteworthy change from
the May sermon, when the benefit was defined as food for the new man,
something not drawn from the verba.
Luther also changes the way that faith is discussed in this sermon. He
does not preach a separate section on faith. Rather, the role of faith is
interspersed throughout the sermon. God has spoken, and we are to abide
by His Word and believe Him. With this approach, Luther emphasizes the
object of faith, God and His Word, more than the act of faith on the part of
the believer.
Finally, Luther’s approach to what the Sacrament of the Altar signifies
is changed in this sermon. This section is addressed not to the common
person, but to those who are studying and, presumably, will one day preach.
Whereas in the first sermon Luther used images directly in preaching,
here he only describes them. While Luther does not reject such simili-
tudes completely, he does caution that they be used appropriately and not
silence or overshadow the words themselves. This represents a move away
from the “communion” aspects of the Lord’s Supper. As Luther refines his
presentation on the Lord’s Supper, those ideas that are not an integral
part of the verba fade to the background.
Luther preached on the Lord’s Supper in the third series on December
19, 1528. He begins this sermon by treating God’s mandate and institution
of the Sacrament. The primary thing in the Sacrament is God’s Word and
mandate.22 This approach is similar to the first sermon series. Here Luther
goes directly to the verba rather than approaching them through the more
general talk of Gospel and Sacrament.
21
Ibid., 55:36-56:15.
22
WA 30I, 116:9-17; 117:1-9; LW 51:188.

Luther quickly moves to the question: What is the Sacrament of the
Altar? It is God’s Word attached to the bread and wine, so that bread, wine,
body, and blood are all present. Augustine’s familiar quotation is again
cited, this time identified as the best thing Augustine ever said. The Word
is to be believed because it is the Word of God, who has more wisdom in
one little hair than a hundred thousand learned men have in themselves.23
While God’s faithfulness is here implied, Luther does not explicitly ground
faith in God’s omnipotence or the fact that God cannot lie, as he did in the
first two sermons. Instead, God’s wisdom is contrasted with man’s wisdom
to silence the objections of reason.
The next question addressed is this: What is the use or fruit of this
Sacrament? The benefit is found in the words, “given for you...poured out
for you.” These show that the Sacrament is used for the forgiveness of my
sins and is to be received in faith.24 This closely follows the thought of
Luther’s September sermon on the Lord’s Supper. The benefit of the Sac-
rament is found within the Words of Institution, not from external ideas
such as the food of the soul or communion with Christ. The demand of
faith for receiving the benefits is mentioned, but the emphasis lies on God
and His gifts, not man and his faith.
Luther can summarize the sermon up to this point as follows:
When the Sacrament is rightly administered, one should preach,

first, that the Sacrament is the body and blood of the Lord under
the bread and wine, as the words declare. Its benefit: it avails for
the remission of sins, because the words say, “poured out for the
remission of sins.”25
Luther has completed his treatment of what the Sacrament is and what
benefits it gives. The remainder of the sermon is an admonition to prepare
properly for and make frequent use of the Sacrament.
The admonition to come to the Sacrament is twofold. On the one hand,
the Sacrament has such great benefits that it ought not be despised. In the
Sacrament God stands and offers His body and blood, broken and poured
out for you. He does not compel you, but lovingly invites you to come.
Luther directs the congregation to the words, “for the remission of sin.”
Those who despise such great gifts are not Christians. On the other hand,
the great needs of the Christian ought to incite him to come to the Sacra-
ment. He sees his weakness and infirmity; he sees that sin, the devil, and
death are always present. In the Sacrament is the antidote and medicine
for those in temptation: the forgiveness of sins.26
23
WA 30I, 117:9-20; 118:19-21; LW 51:189.
24
WA 30I, 118:10-15; LW 51:190.
25
WA 30I, 119:13-17, translation mine. Cf. LW 51:190 for another translation.
26
WA 30I, 119:17-122:11; LW 51:190-193.
56
Luther concludes his sermon with a summary of what he has preached:
(1) “The Sacrament is the body and blood in bread and wine comprehended
in the Word”; (2) “Its use: the remission of sins. In this the need and the
benefit are comprehended”; (3) “Let those who believe come.”27 In this
brief summary one can see the outline of the Small Catechism taking
shape. It is also apparent from this that Christ’s body and blood have in-
creased in prominence from the first sermon series. In that series the
Word was so elevated that the body and blood were nearly irrelevant. Here
the body and blood are comprehended in the Word, but valuable enough in
their own right to be mentioned first in Luther’s summary of the Sacra-
ment.
The largest developments in this sermon, however, revolve around
what the Sacrament signifies. In this sermon Luther drops his discussion
of the significance of the Sacrament. The symbolism of being one body in
communion with one another and with Christ is not used to explain the
Sacrament, as in the first sermon series, nor discussed as a homiletical
aid, as in the second sermon series. Luther seems to be following the
advice he gave in the second series, emphasizing the words and not allow-
ing the imagery to silence or dominate them. The one image that he uses
in this sermon flows directly from the verba. The remission of sins offered
in the Sacrament is pictured as a medicine or an antidote. While the im-
age is not in the Words of Institution, the object that it illustrates, the
remission of sins, is. Accordingly, this image expounds the verba rather
than supplanting them.
In place of any discussions on the significance of the Sacrament, Luther
attaches an admonition to receive the Lord’s Supper often. Rather than
preach in beautiful images that may be helpful but do not arouse faith or
provide strength in the face of Satan and death, Luther addresses the
practical issue of receiving the Supper worthily. This section is based in
the verba. Luther encourages frequent reception of the Sacrament be-
cause of the words, “For you,” and the remission of sins offered in the
Words of Institution.
A careful examination of Luther’s 1528 catechetical sermons helps to
shed light on the final form that his confession of the Lord’s Supper takes
in the Small and Large Catechisms. The brief summary of the Small Cat-
echism is the end result of Luther’s process of distilling the core of the
Lord’s Supper. Luther here employs the pattern of questions worked out
in the sermons: What is the Sacrament? What are its benefits? Who re-
ceives it worthily? These questions are evident in Luther’s final summary
of his December sermon, cited above.
In the Small Catechism Luther does not move from the general cat-
egory of Sacrament, nor does he trace out the source of the Sacrament.
Rather, he begins by stating that the Lord’s Supper is Christ’s body and
27
WA 30I, 122:11-13, translation mine. Cf. LW 51:193 for another translation.

blood for us to eat, instituted by Christ. The Word and institution are
important, but their role does not overshadow Christ’s body and blood.
Luther’s description of the benefits of the Sacrament flow directly from
the verba. The Sacrament gives the remission of sins, and where this is,
there also are life and salvation. Here Luther does not use any imagery—
whether of food, medicine, or communion—to define the benefit of the
Sacrament. Rather he sticks to the verba, a development in his thought
that we have traced out in his 1528 sermons.
The third question answers the objections of the fanatics without ac-
knowledging them. This question does not deviate from Luther’s three-
question outline noted above, but it is a clarification of the second ques-
tion. Luther writes that the words make the Sacrament what it is, does,
and gives. Yet Luther still does not allow the words to dominate the body
and blood. The words, “Given for you,” and, “Poured out for the forgive-
ness of sins,” are the chief thing in the Sacrament along with the eating
and drinking.28 He also includes faith in the clear form it takes in the
second and third sermon series, that is, mentioned as the counterpart of
the verba: whoever believes these words has what they say, the forgive-
ness of sins. In this way Luther acknowledges that this is no ordinary
eating and drinking, but eating and drinking instituted by Christ and re-
ceived in faith.
Luther’s fourth question addresses the worthy eating of this Sacra-
ment. While the form of this question is not found in the 1528 sermons,
the content is. Luther has slightly modified the question of who should
receive the Sacrament, phrasing the question in Scriptural terms. Such
eating is done worthily by those who have faith in the words, “Given and
shed for you for the remission of sins.” Again, it is not faith that makes the
Sacrament, but the words, “For you,” call for believing hearts. In other
words, Luther answers this question by returning to the verba.
The Large Catechism follows the same three-point outline. Here Luther
notes that all three questions are grounded in the verba. It is the institu-
tion of Christ that makes the Sacrament.29 Once again, Luther starts with
Christ’s own words rather than broader considerations. A discussion of
what a Sacrament is follows his consideration of the verba, as Luther again
includes Augustine’s dictum, praising it as one of the best things August-
ine ever said.30
God’s Word allows us to strengthen our conscience. No matter who
28
The English translations vary on the translation of this passage. Luther writes that
the words are the chief thing “neben” the eating and drinking. This preposition may mean
either beside (next to) or besides (with the exception of). The 1943 catechism of the LCMS
translates it as “besides;” the 1986 catechism changes it to “along with.” The Kolb-Wengert
edition translates it as “when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking.” Regard-
less of which translation one prefers, the preposition makes it clear that the eating and
drinking and the word belong together; one cannot be without the other.
29
Ibid., §1-6.
30
Ibid., §10.
58
objects, God is wiser in His little finger than all scholars and spirits to-
gether. We remain with the words not only because of God’s greater wis-
dom and omnipotence, but also because Christ, who speaks them, can
never lie or deceive.31 Luther selects the attributes of God that best sup-
port his position. God’s attributes are included only to reinforce Luther’s
argument, which flows from the verba. These attributes underscore that
the God who speaks these words cannot lie and has the power and wisdom
to bring about what He says.
Luther bases his discussion of the benefits of the Sacrament on the
verba. In the Sacrament we obtain the forgiveness of sins. It is on this
account that it is called a food of the soul.32 While Luther does include the
image of food for the soul, which dominated the discussion of the benefits
of the Sacrament in the first sermon series, here the imagery is second-
ary. The remission of sins is primary; only when this has been established
from the verba does Luther bring in the imagery of food and nourishment.
As Luther next addresses the objection that bread and wine cannot
forgive sins or strengthen faith, he shows that the body and blood are
important in their own right. Christ’s body and blood cannot be an unfruit-
ful, vain thing. While they are comprehended in the Word and so adminis-
tered to us, they have value by themselves.33
Luther then turns his attention to the third question: who receives
this power and benefit? He answers this question, as he did in the Small
Catechism, by examining the verba. These words are spoken not to wood
or stone, but to those who hear them. The Sacrament, then, is received
with benefit by those who believe the words.34 Again, faith’s resultant role
is clearly stated without overshadowing the words of Christ.
Luther, having covered what the Sacrament is and what it benefits,
now turns his attention to an admonition to make frequent use of the
Sacrament. After noting that many people despise this Sacrament, Luther
begins his admonition by returning to the verba. “As often as you drink
this” implies that we should do it often. Although this does not compel
anyone, it does not mean that we are left free so that we may despise it.
God invites and allures you to the Sacrament. Luther continues this sec-
tion, basing it on God’s mandate in the verba, by encouraging the readers
to examine themselves, searching not for their own inherent worthiness
but rather their desire for worthiness.35
In addition to this, God’s promise in the verba, “Given and poured out
for you,” also incites the Christian to come to the Sacrament. In the Sacra-
ment Jesus offers to you all the treasures of heaven. Here Luther briefly
touches on the image of the Sacrament as a remedy or an antidote. The
31
Ibid., §12-14.
32
Ibid., §23-26.
33
Ibid., §28-30.
34
Ibid., §33-35.
35
Ibid., §42-62.

antidote for our weakness is receiving from Christ the forgiveness of sins,
for this brings with it God’s gifts and protection.36 On God’s part, Luther
finds the admonition to frequent use of the Sacrament in the verba, in the
command and the promise.
In addition to this, there is great need for the Sacrament on our part.
For those who feel no need, Luther directs them to the dangers of their
own flesh, the world, and the devil. These ought to lead one to hunger for
the Sacrament.37 This again alludes to the Sacrament as food for the new
man, but in no way overshadows the clear benefits derived from the Words
of Institution.
What is striking in both catechisms’ confession of the Lord’s Supper is
Luther’s reliance on the verba. Luther begins his answer to every ques-
tion by citing the verba. His increasing reliance on the Words of Institu-
tion can be traced out through the sermons examined here. While the
verba play an integral role in all of these sermons, their normative func-
tion grows as Luther proceeds through the sermons. Those images and
thoughts that are not directly derived from the verba slip into the back-
ground or are dropped altogether.
Luther’s increasingly clearer confession of the Lord’s Supper places
its emphasis on Christ’s body and blood, which are there in the Sacrament
due to Christ’s Word. The chief benefit is the remission of sins, which
brings with it all of Christ’s treasures and blessings. These benefits are
received in faith. Comparisons may be used to describe the gifts here of-
fered, but only in a secondary sense; they dare not silence the words or
dominate the discussion. These benefits are the core of the Sacrament, in
Luther’s confession, that every Christian is to know.
36
Ibid., §64-70.
37
Ibid., §71-84.
60
Grammarian’s Corner
Participles, Part IV
The two previous “Grammarian’s Corner” installments dealt with par-

ticiples in the attributive position and discussed issues related to their
(purported) equivalence to relative clauses. With this GC, we turn to par-
ticiples in predicate position.
Participles in the predicate position, as noted in the April, 2006 GC, do
not occur directly after an article and are the equivalent of predicate adjec-
tives when the verb “to be” provides the main verb of the sentence:1
1. o` avnh.r h=n avgaqo,j.

2. o` avnh.r h=n le,gwn
wn.
We noted there that, as sentence 1 can be translated “The man was good,”
so sentence 2 can be translated “The man was speaking.” Thus, the adjec-
tive characteristics of participles are displayed. We also noted, however,
that participles, unlike simple adjectives, contain a verbal component, as
well.2 We can now say that this feature displays itself most clearly when a
predicate position participle occurs in the company of a verb other than
the verb “to be.” Consider the following example:
3. ble,pw to.n a;dra evrco,menon

enon.
In this sentence, the participle describes the man who is the object of the
main verb, but the participle’s verbal component, i.e., the action it con-
veys, is also part of the object of the main verb of seeing. It means, in
essence, “I see the man, and I see him in the act of coming.” Thus, it can
be translated rather simply as: “I see the man coming.” This is, in fact,
called a “supplementary participle,”3 and it illustrates well both the adjec-
tival and verbal characteristics of this type of form. Clear New Testament
examples are:
4. Mark 1:16: …e=den Si,mwna kai. Av nde,an to.n avdelfo.n Si,mwnoj avmfiba,llontaj
evn th/| qala,ssh|. (“…he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon
throwing a two-man net in the lake.”)
5. Matthew 24:30: …kai. o;yontai to.n uiòn. tou/ avnqrw,pou evrco,menon evpi
tw/n nefelw/n tou/ ouvranou/ (“…and they will see the son of man com-
ing on the clouds of heaven….)
1
See “Grammarian’s Corner,” Concordia Journal (2006) 32:211-212.
2
Ibid., 212.
3
James W. Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar, 2nd edition (St. Louis: Concordia,
1993), 279.

6. Matthew 21:15 (variant mss. C K W D f 1, f 13 565, 579, 892, ): ivdo,ntej de. oi
readings
avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j ta. qaumasi,a…kai. tou.j pai a, j kra,zontaj evn
tw|/ ièrw/|.... (“And the chief priests and scribes, upon seeing the won-
ders and the children crying out in the temple….)4
Supplementary participles normally occur after a main verb of sense per-

ception, especially one of seeing and hearing, and they refer to and modify
the object of a finite verb, so they are normally in the accusative case.5
A similar construction occurs in the nominative case, under certain
circumstances, referring to and modifying the subject of the main verb.
Consider example 7:
7. Ò maqhth/j peria,gei khru,sswn

swn.
This means, “The disciple is going around, and he is preaching, as well.”

This can be translated, “The disciple is going around preaching,” i.e., it can
be rendered in a way very similar to a supplementary participle. This is
called a participle of “attendant circumstance.”6 Clear New Testament ex-
amples are:
8. Matthew 3:1: evn de. tai/j h`me,aij evkei,naij paragi,netai Iv wannhj o` baptisth.j
khru,sswn evn th/| evrh,mw| th/j Iv oudai,aj. (“And in those days John the
Baptist appears/appeared preaching in the desert of Judea.”)
9. John 20:11: Mari,a de. ei`sth,kei pro/j tw/| mnhmei,w| e;xw klai,ousausa. (“Mary
was standing facing the tomb outside weeping.”)
10. John 20:6: e;rcetai ou=n kai. Si,mwn Pe,toj avkolou,qwn auvtw/|… (“Then
also Simon Peter comes following him….”)
Attendant circumstance participles normally occur under the following set

conditions: the main verb is a verb of motion/anti-motion,7 the participle is
in the nominative, it is in the predicate position, and it occurs in its physi-
cal positioning after the main verb. It can be observed that in each in-
stance above (sentences 8-10), all four conditions are met.
In the next installment of GC, we will consider more—and in many
ways more common—participles in predicate position.
James W. Voelz
4
Notes that in the July 2006 “Grammarian’s Corner” (312-313) we used the same
passage but followed the reading of the “better” mss (such as and B) by including the
article tou,j before the participle. That reading puts the participle in the attributive posi-
tion.
5
Note that we have chosen only present tense participles as illustrations. Tense
issues with participles will be handled in future installments.
6
Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar, 135-136.
7
By “anti-motion” I mean concepts such as sitting, standing, remaining, etc. Sen-
tence 9 is a good example.
62
Homiletical Helps on LW Series C
—Old Testament
Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany

Isaiah 6:1-8 (9-13)
February 4, 2007
The prophet Isaiah had a vision in which there was a manifestation of God
enthroned in His holy temple, huge and clothed in a robe which filled the edifice.
Fiery angels flew over Him, declaring His holiness and His glory. When we hear and
join in these same words (the Sanctus) in our worship services, we are elated with
adoration and joy. But Isaiah was not. He felt like the temple doorposts he saw
shaking in the vision. His alarm leads us to consider how we should feel.
In the Presence of the Holy God
I. Humble Confession.
The revelation of God’s holiness causes alarm to sinners who recognize
their unholiness (Lev.19:2; Ps. 130:3; Luke 5:8). This is underscored by the
curse that no one may see God’s face and live (Ex. 33:20), which came to Isaiah’s
mind. He lived among a people of unclean lips (v. 5), which for him was an
indicator of the whole range of their sin and unholiness (Is. 3:8; 59:2-7). Even
a man of God like Isaiah was not free of such uncleanness. Nor, we must
confess, are we. How can we stand before the Lord, join the holy angels in their
song of praise, or admonish the unclean lips all around us, if we, too, are
unclean?
II. Forgiveness.
The Lord has provided for the purging of guilt and atonement for sin.
Divine intervention could avert the curse, as in the cases of Hagar (Gen. 16:13),
Jacob (Gen. 32:30), and the High Priest of Israel (Lev.16:12-13). Wanting Isaiah
to live and prophesy in His name, God sent an angel with a burning coal (also
used in the Lev. 16 ritual) to apply it to the “unclean lips” and all his sins.
Later in his book, Isaiah would prophesy the coming of the wonderful Servant,
who would offer Himself as the atoning sacrifice for sin, which was foreshad-
owed by all the atoning sacrifices of the Old Testament period (Is. 52:3-53:10).
This servant would be the Messiah and the offspring of Abraham through
whom all the nations of the world would be blessed (Gen. 22:18; 1 John 2:2). By
this promised sacrifice, Isaiah (and all of us who trust in this Messiah) could
receive forgiveness.
III. A Message to Share.
A. By divine inspiration Isaiah proclaimed a message which enlarged upon
the points of sin and grace and of Law and Gospel, which appear in today’s
pericope and showed their place in God’s plan for His people. Forgiven and
thankful to the Lord, he devoted himself to the task of testimony for which
God had sent him. He would continue to call the “people of unclean lips” to
repentance and faith. Some would respond as desired, but many others
would be stubborn and hard of heart (vv. 9-13). Prophecy after prophecy
spoke of coming punishment and captivity. But Isaiah’s prophecies are

also rich in comfort for all who would listen in faith. They speak of atone-
ment and forgiveness, which had blessed Isaiah himself, as we have seen.
They speak of the coming of the virgin’s Son (7:14), who would be Immanuel
(“God with us”), the Prince of Peace who will rule forever (9:6-7), and the
Servant of the Lord who will save, deliver, and bring righteousness (chaps.
42, 49-57). Israel will be restored and walk in the Way of Holiness (35:8-
10), serve the Lord (41:8-10), and give Him witness and praise (43:10).
The Servant will also be a Light for the Gentiles, so that they may serve
the Lord (42:6; 56:3, 8-9).
B. Like Isaiah we too have a message to share. In fact, it is the same mes-
sage, for Isaiah belongs to the foundation of the prophets and apostles, on
which our Christian church is built (Eph. 2:19-20). We too have forgive-
ness through the atoning sacrifice of the great Servant, and we too can
hear and use the Sanctus with joy and confidence. We can admonish the
“people of unclean lips” and invite them to receive the same cleansing
that we have found in the presence of the holy God. We rejoice in the
fulfillments of Isaiah’s prophecies. We are the New Israel, to whom He
also says, “I am the Lord who makes you holy” (Lev. 20:8), enabling us to
devote ourselves to whatever He sends us to do.
Thomas Manteufel
Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany

Jeremiah 17:5-8
February 11, 2007
Textual considerations: The text in the Hebrew includes one unit, Jeremiah
17:5-6, and part of a second unit, Jeremiah 17:7-10.
Verse 5 begins with a statement that what follows is the word of YHWH and
not something Jeremiah dreamed up.
The message itself begins with the Hebrew word rWra (’arur, “cursed”). This is
the same word that YHWH ELOHIM used (Gen. 3:14) as He cursed the serpent in
the Garden. This is also the word that appears in the “curse/blessing” sections of
Deuteronomy 27 and 28.
The person who is “cursed” is described as one “who trusts in man,” “makes
flesh his strength,” and has a heart/mind that “turns away from the LORD” (ESV).
The person who is “cursed” is compared to a “shrub” (ESV)/“bush” (NIV) in the
“desert” (ESV and many other versions)/“wastelands” (NIV). No good will come to
him. The NLT has “with no hope for the future.” “He shall dwell in the parched
places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land” (ESV).
The person who is “blessed” (((%wrBwrB, baruk) is described as one “who trusts in
YHWH” and for whom YHWH is the source and object of trust. He is compared to
a tree that has been “planted”/“transplanted” (lWtv lWtv
lWtv, shatul) beside water. The tree/
person is nourished and sustained in all seasons. That he has an eternal future is
signaled by the Hebrew word !n[r!n[r, raànan, translated “green.” A similar compari-
son occurs in Psalm 1:3.
It should be noted that the Hebrew for the words “cursed,” “blessed,” and
“planted”/“transplanted” is passive. The subject is acted on by YHWH.
The person who has been “blessed” will continue “to bear/produce fruit.”
Application: Due to original/birth sin (Ps. 51:5, English; cf. NIV, NRSV) all
64
people born into this world are under the curse of God. They are like bushes/shrubs
in the desert/wilderness. They have no real hope for their lives.
Believers have received new life by the activity of the Holy Spirit through the
water and the Word of Holy Baptism (Rom. 6) and/or through the proclamation of
Law and Gospel. In Baptism believers have been “transplanted” into the kingdom
of the Lord from the kingdom of Satan. They have been “planted” in green pastures
(Ps. 23) where the LORD feeds and nourishes them with spiritual food—Word and
Sacrament—and where they already possess the gift of eternal life (1 John 5:11,
12).
Liturgical considerations: The Epistle for the day, 1 Corinthians 15:(1-11) 12-
20, is from St. Paul’s great resurrection chapter.
The Gospel for the day, Luke 6:17-26, is a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain
with His reference to those who are “blessed” and those who are subject to “woes.”
Suggested outline:
From Death to Life
I. Due to original/birth sin (Ps. 51:5, cf. NIV, NRSV) all people born into this
world are cursed.
A. They are compared to bushes/shrubs in the desert/wilderness.
B. They have “no hope for the future” (NLT).
II. People born by the Spirit through water and the Word are the “blessed.”
A. They have been “transplanted” into the kingdom of God from Satan’s
kingdom.
B. They have been “planted” where they are watered by the Word and nour-
ished by the body and blood of the risen Christ.
C. They have a glorious future prepared for God’s people through the perfect
life, sacrificial suffering, crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of
Jesus Christ.
D. Meanwhile the “blessed” will continue in their attempt to live fruitful
lives to the glory and praise of their gracious God through Jesus Christ
their Redeemer, Victor, and Mediator.
Arthur F. Graudin
The Transfiguration of Our Lord

Last Sunday after the Epiphany
Deuteronomy 34:1-12
February 18, 2007
Liturgical considerations: The assigned Gospel for the day, Luke 9:28-36, re-
ports the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mountain where Jesus had taken
His disciples to pray.
The Epistle for the day, Hebrews 3:1-6, declares that Jesus was “counted
worthy of more glory than Moses.”
Textual considerations: Deuteronomy 34:1-12 refers to Moses’ final moments,
his death and his burial by YHWH. The text also provides an assessment of Moses’
career.
In verse 5 Moses is referred to as hwhy db[ (‘ebed YHWH)—“the servant of
YHWH.” This single reference in the Pentateuch is followed by more than a dozen

such references to Moses in the remaining books of the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, Matthew 12:18 refers to Isaiah 42:1 and points to
Jesus as God’s servant: “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in
whom I am well pleased” (ESV). According to Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “For even the
Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many” (ESV). Luke also refers to Jesus as God’s servant in Acts 3:13; 3:26; 4:27,
30.
Verse 10 states that up to that time there had been no other prophet like
Moses. YHWH knew him ~ynp la ~ynp (paniym’el-paniym)—“face to face.”
The Hebrew verb “to know”—[dy [dy (yad‘a)—in this verse implies that Moses had
a personal relationship with YHWH. This understanding is reinforced by the ex-
pression “face to face.” Exodus 33:11 states, “Thus the LORD used to speak to
Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (ESV) (cf. Ex. 7:1). In a similar
way, in Numbers 12:7-8, YHWH said of Moses, “He is faithful in all my house. With
him I speak mouth to mouth” (ESV).
In the Septuagint the word translated by “faithful” in Numbers 12:7 is
The same word appears in verses 5 and 6 of the Epistle for the day. “Now Moses
was faithful in all God’s house as a servant,...but Christ is faithful over God’s house
as a son.”
Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 18:15, “The LORD your God will raise up for you
a prophet like me from among your brothers,” and in Deuteronomy 18:18, “I will
raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers” (ESV). These
verses are regarded as Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ (cf.
Matt. 21:11; Luke 7:16; 24:19; John 4:19; 6:14; Acts 3:22ff.).
Suggested outline:
I. Moses was the servant and the prophet of the LORD.

II. Moses was in a personal relationship with the LORD.
III. Through Moses the LORD predicted the coming of the Messianic prophet,
Jesus Christ, who is one with the Father and came as Servant and Prophet.
IV. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Moses, together with Elijah, spoke about
Jesus’ “departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke
9:31).
V. Jesus Christ fulfilled His mission by dying on the cross, conquering death, and
ascending into heaven.
VI. Jesus Christ desires and deserves our praise through our worship and wit-
ness.
Arthur F. Graudin
First Sunday in Lent

Deuteronomy 26:1-10
February 25, 2007
The setting of the book of Deuteronomy is important to remember. As

Deuteronomy 1:1-5 records, Moses spoke to God’s covenant people in the wilder-
ness east of the Jordan River. His role as the leader of the people was about to end.
Verse 3 states that “in the fortieth year on the first day of the eleventh month,
Moses told the people of Israel all that God ordered him to tell them.”
He told them that they were to take the land of Canaan to be their own and live
66
in it as His covenant people in grace.
Deuteronomy 26:lff. records that when living there, they were to bring the first
fruits of the crops they were growing in a basket and bring them to the priest at the
tabernacle and tell him, “I declare today to the LORD God that I have come into the
land the LORD swore to our fathers to give us!” The priest would then take the
basket and set it in front of the altar of the LORD your God.
Verses 5ff. record what they were to tell the Lord of their past history. Jacob,
their ancestor, was the father of the twelve tribes of the people of Israel. He went to
Egypt as a foreigner and in time became the father of a great nation that came
under the mistreatment of the Egyptians. They made them suffer and work hard
as their servants. God saw their serious problems and used Moses to bring them
out of Egypt (Ex. 1:11-22; 2:23) to the land of Canaan with its fertile land and
precious produce. Say to the Lord, I have done what You have told me to do as You
ordered me to do. Please, look down from heaven, Your dwelling, and bless Your
people Israel and the prosperous land You have given them.
Verses 16-19 stress that the people of Israel were to live very carefully, faith-
fully, and thoughtfully as His covenant people. “He will then place you high above
all the other nations He made, in honor, renown, and glory, and you will be a holy
people to the Lord your God as He has promised.”
In this chapter Moses stressed to the Israelites, God’s covenant people, that
they were always to remember and, through His Holy Spirit, strive to live as His
people in their faith and life. This is true also of us. Through the Holy Spirit’s work
in our hearts, we remember that through His gifts of faith in Him as our God and
His Son as our Savior we are always to strive to faithfully live our faith and share
it effectively with others.
Erich H. Kiehl
Second Sunday in Lent

Jeremiah 26:8-15
March 4, 2007
Context of the Sunday: The Epistle (Phil. 3:17-4:1) warns that the enemies of
the cross face destruction, much the same warning given by Jeremiah to his hear-
ers. This day’s Gospel (Luke 13:31-35) tells of the Pharisees coming to Jesus to
warn Him of Herod’s aim to kill Him. Jesus laments the killing of the prophets of
God and simply states that the house of those who kill the prophets is forsaken.
Textual context: We probably know more of the life and personality of Jeremiah
than of any prophet other than Moses. The purpose of Jeremiah’s prophetic minis-
try was to summon the people of Judah to repentance and, thus, back to faith in the
one true God. The Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, and it put him through the
wringer. Though hesitant to be a prophet, Jeremiah was made one by the Word of
God. It was that Word he was to proclaim (26:2).
Textual notes: Verse 8: “All that the Lord had commanded him to speak” refers
back to 26:2, where a warning not to “omit a word” is given. This was not Jeremiah’s
word but God’s. This responsibility is echoed by Paul in Acts 20:20, 26-27. See
Jeremiah 7 for a parallel sermon preached by the prophet.
Verses 8, 11: “the priests and the prophets and all the people” and “the priests
and the prophets said to the officials and to all the people.” In the first instance,
the three groups act together. In the second, the prophets and priests are the

leaders of the people.
Verse 9: “Shiloh” was the site of the tabernacle/ark of the covenant from the
time of Joshua to that of Samuel. The people developed a false sense of security,
treating the tabernacle/ark as a magical guarantee of God’s blessings and assis-
tance as long as the rituals were observed, no matter how sinful and disobedient
they were. By the time of Jeremiah, Shiloh was desolate and deserted. Psalm
78:56-64 provides the lessons that should have been learned from the abandon-
ment of Shiloh.
Verse 10: “The New Gate” was built by Jotham (2 Kings 15:35) and was by the
inner court of the temple (Jer. 36:10).
Verse 11: “The sentence of death” is to be given to those who blaspheme God
(Lev. 24:16) or to the prophet who presumes to speak in God’s name anything not
commanded by God (Deut. 18:20). Blasphemy and false teaching are assumed here
under the charge of treason (“against this city”).
Verses 12-13: “The LORD sent me to prophesy” is Jeremiah’s defense (cf. 26:2,
8). Jeremiah’s warning will have one of two outcomes: repentance or rejection ( cf.
18:7-10).
Verse 14-15: Jeremiah continues his defense that highlights his desire to
escape execution, not so much to preserve his own life as to save the people from the
physical and spiritual damage they would be doing to themselves by putting him
to death. Thus the prophet’s life and word are bound together in witness to the
Lord.
The life and ministry of Jeremiah foreshadow to a degree the life and ministry
of our Lord Christ. The word of warning proclaimed by Jeremiah intruded into the
life of his hearers and pointed to the Incarnate Word who intruded into our world.
Both Jeremiah’s and our Lord’s ministries challenged the religious leaders and the
people in their false security in their heritage and works. Both were brought up on
charges of blasphemy and deemed worthy of death (26:11; Matt. 26:65-66). In both
cases innocent blood would be brought on the people (26:15; Matt. 27:24-25). If
Jeremiah had been executed, the innocent blood would bring condemnation. Be-
cause Jesus was crucified and died, His innocent blood, suffering, and death bring
forgiveness, life, and salvation.
While Jeremiah’s situation may highlight present-day situations where the
pastor seems to be persecuted and even executed (fired) for simply proclaiming the
Word of the Lord, comfort and courage can be taken from this text because it is the
Word of the Lord that he proclaims and not his own. The congregation may benefit
from further exploration of this topic.
In the season of Lent, as with all the seasons of life, repentance—dealing with
our sin—is an ever-present need.
Suggested outline:
I. Repentance is coming face to face with our sin, our unfaithfulness to God, and
our disobedience against His will (Jer. 26:1-7, 8-9; Luke 13:34).
II. Repentance is reformation of the heart or, better, a new heart (Jer. 26:13; Ps.
51:10). This requirement can be brought about only by God’s Spirit working in
our hearts (Jer. 31:18).
III. Repentance is receiving God’s forgiveness for Christ’s sake (Jer. 26:15; Matt.
27:24-25). See the above paragraph on the parallels between Jeremiah and
Jesus.
Henry V. Gerike
68
Third Sunday in Lent
Ezekiel 33:7-20
March 11, 2007
Context of the Sunday: The Epistle (1 Cor. 10:1-13) shows ancient Israel as a
warning. Although it had experienced God’s grace, Israel fell and provoked the
judgment of God. The warning: “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands
take heed lest he fall.” Luke 13:1-9, the Gospel, highlights violence, calamity, and
disaster as previews or tokens of God’s judgment. Yet God’s love is still at work to
move His people to repentance.
Textual context: The first portion of the book of Ezekiel, especially the last
eight chapters, has been a proclamation to the pagan nations of severe judgment.
Yet throughout these opening chapters there is the promise of God restoring His
people. The verses that form the assigned text detail the calling of Ezekiel to speak
to his people. Verses 21 and 22 bring news of the long-threatened fall of Jerusalem
now fulfilled (26:1). The remainder of the chapter focuses on Ezekiel’s proclama-
tion of the restoration of the fallen kingdom of God, words that would give confi-
dence and consolation to those despairing of their salvation.
Textual notes: Verses 7-9: While the house of Israel was in exile, becoming
accustomed to (and enjoying) its new surroundings, it is easy to see how Ezekiel
could question his concern for the fall of Jerusalem and his role as watchman,
especially when false prophets proclaimed long life for Jerusalem. God answers
Ezekiel’s doubts by renewing his call to be the watchman with the responsibility to
warn sinners of the danger in which their sin places them. This recommissioning is
a slightly expanded version of 3:17-21. The watchman has the responsibility to
warn the people of impending danger. If the people fail to act accordingly to the
warning, the watchman is not held responsible. If, however, the watchman fails to
warn the people, he is held responsible for their death.
Verse 10: Ezekiel, throughout his ministry, had proclaimed the consequences
of the sins of the people and their ancestors (Lev. 26:39; Ezek. 4:17; 6:9; 23:32-35).
Yet, here in this verse is the first time in Ezekiel that the exiles acknowledge their
sin, taking responsibility for their sin instead of blaming their fathers or God (see
18:2, 19, 25). The consequence of sin (death) is implied in the question, “How then
can we live?” Despair takes it toll here, as the people give up hope of ever having
their exilic situation changed. The people take the attitude that if the warnings are
true, God will punish them—and what hope is there in that?
Verse 11: What was a question in 18:23 is now a statement of fact. God’s
desire is life for all of His creation, including His people. God’s promise of life for
His people—a promise proclaimed by Ezekiel—is for each sinner. To turn back
from sin is repentance, repentance that leads to life (see 2 Pet. 3:9). This Gospel
message’s urgency is accompanied by God’s oath: “As I live, declares the Lord
GOD.” It is a message that brings life and hope to the hearts of those despairing
because of their sin.
Verses 12-13: Compare these verses with 18:21-29. The righteous, believers,
can never trust in their own righteousness. They can still fall into temptation, into
sin; thus caution is needed, because “anyone who thinks that he stands [should]
take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor.10:12). The fall into sin leads to death, obliterating
any attempts at righteousness.
Verses 14-16: When the wicked, sinners, turn from their sin (repentance), their
sin falls under God’s forgiveness that is total. “Statutes of life” (see 20:11, 13; Lev.

18:5). The Law was the way of life for the redeemed, not a way of salvation for the
lost (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12).
Verses 17-20: Those who come under judgment because of their sin often claim
that the judge is not fair. While they overlook their own sin, they, in reality, are the
guilty ones, the unfair ones, the ones responsible for sin.
While this text has much that would support a sermon for ordination/office of
the ministry, on this third Sunday in Lent, the pastor needs to carry out the office
he has been given—proclaiming Law and Gospel, both in evident in this text.
Suggested outline:
Theme: Turn and Live
Goal: That the hearers believe that God’s promise of forgiveness is for them.
Malady: Our guilt and sin can so overwhelm us and keep us from hearing God’s
promise of forgiveness. Our situation in life as well as our sin can cause us to doubt
the fairness of God.
Means: God wants us to live. He forgives our sin because of the life, death, and
resurrection of His Son.
I. Our sin and guilt can overwhelm and cause us to despair (v. 10).
A. We are all sinners, whether we consider ourselves righteous or wicked.
B. We may think that God is not fair because He judges us.
C. We can think that God only wants to see us punished and put to death.
II. Yet God’s desire for us is life (v. 11).
A. God wants us to repent, to turn from our sin (v. 11).
B. God’s plea for our repentance is urgent (33:11)—He does not desire our
death.
C. Death, the punishment and consequence of our sin, was dealt with by His
Son’s death and resurrection.
D. According to Ezekiel 18:31, God gets at the heart of the matter, our hearts,
by giving us new hearts (see Ps. 51:10; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26).
E. If God is unfair in all of this, it is only because He shows us mercy.
Henry V. Gerike
Fourth Sunday in Lent

Isaiah 12:1-6
March 18, 2007
This ad once appeared in a newspaper: “Wanted: an elderly man to live in;

must be a Christian; cheerful if possible.” Indeed, it is possible for a Christian, any
Christian, to be cheerful. The reading from Isaiah 12 sets forth reasons to have joy
in the Lord.
Drawing with Joy from the Wells of Salvation
I. The Lord comforts the distressed sinner (v. 1).

A. A person troubled by knowledge of his sins and God’s wrath over them is
not cheerful. Even a believer can feel as though the Lord has shot arrows
into him (Ps. 38:1-2). Atheists and skeptics also have shuddered at the
70
thought that their divine Judge might exist.
B. We will praise the Lord, who in His kindness and grace does not want the
sinner to perish and has sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to atone for
transgressors (1 John 4:9-10). The redeeming work of His Son melts away
His anger and brings comfort and joy to the sinner.
II. The believer can say, “The Lord is my Salvation, my Strength, and my Song” (v.
2).
A. Christians rejoice that their Lord has saved them from the curse of sin
and delivered then from the power and bondage of the devil, who rules,
leads, and brings to ruin in the darkness of lives without faith in Christ
(Heb. 2:14-15; Acts 26:16-18; 1 John 3:18). For this purpose, to redeem
people and lead them into eternal life, Christ was born, lived, died, rose,
ascended into heaven, and will come again.
B. The Incarnate Lord strengthens His people through His Holy Spirit (John
15:26; Rom. 8:9-16). In His kingdom there is strength and armor to win
victories over the devil and all his rulers of darkness (Col. 1:9-13; Eph.
6:10-17).
C. The saving Lord is the theme of our joyful songs, as we give Him the glory
for all He has done and still does. Paul Gerhardt, called the “prince of
German hymnists” because he poured out his faith and adoration in many
hymns, cried out:
O Lord, I sing with lips and heart,

Joy of my soul, to Thee,
To earth Thy knowledge I impart,
Made known by Thee to me!
III. The believer draws with joy from the wells of salvation (vv. 3-6).
A. The Old Testament people of God were fortified with the promise of a
“day” of joy, the time of the messianic Root of Jesse (Is. 11:10-11; 12:1, 4).
We who live in New Testament times can have great delight in knowing
the Messiah, who brings the water of life, which is peace with God and
eternal life (1 Pet. 1:8-9; John 4:10-13). Those who have fellowship with
the Lord can rejoice in having a blessed source of help in all their afflic-
tions and troubles, as Psalm 34:15-19 points out. The water of life also
includes the new life of the Spirit, given to those who are reconciled to the
Lord (John 7:37-39).
B. The believer also is to call out to others to see these wells of salvation and
draw from them for themselves with joy. “Make known among the nations
what He has done and proclaim that His name is exalted.... Let this be
known to all the world.” Like Paul Gerhardt the believer will want to sing
of it to all the earth if they consider that it is a hope and a joy worth
sharing. Opportunities arise and should not be lost for speaking of our
hope of victory over sin and death and evil (1 Pet. 3:15). A celebrity who
was in the news because of a chess tournament underwent a religious
conversion, and when a reporter asked him about it, he said he did not
want to talk about it. What an opportunity lost for putting the name of
Christ in the newspapers and TV and praising Him for His grace! We
think also of the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:
11-31), who stands for all who completely forget the joy of God’s salvation.

He was cheerless, resenting his father’s merriment over his brother’s re-
turn. It is easy for church members to forget what the Christian faith is all
about: that the Heavenly Father has a deep love for sinners and takes
pleasure in their repentance. Yet this thing that makes God happy does
not make them happy. In fact, it is good for all of us to meditate more
deeply on the message of Scripture, to be immersed more deeply in the
water of life, to realize that the Lord is delighted that we and our fellow
Christians are His children, and to want to share in His joy by finding joy
ourselves in bringing others to the wells of salvation.
This is also God’s desire: “Wanted: a Christian, cheerful if possible.” He gives

us faith, which makes the good cheer possible, and from which it flows.
Thomas Manteufel
Fifth Sunday in Lent

Isaiah 43:16-21
March 25, 2007
In verse 1 Isaiah stresses that God is the Creator of His chosen people. Their
great ancestor was Jacob, followed by his descendants known as Israel, the true
destiny of his descendants as God’s chosen people. In the following verses Isaiah
stresses God’s ongoing and loving care of them despite all they had gone through
and were going through at that time.
In verse 13 Isaiah stresses that from eternity God has been God. He is in
charge and in control of the universe. No one can deliver anyone from Him!
In verse 14 Isaiah states that the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, is your Re-
deemer and the Holy One of Israel. He alone is God. His holiness demands just
punishment of sin. He goes on to mention Babylon, the center of power at that time.
In verse 15 he reminds his readers that the Holy Lord is their Creator and
King.
In verses 16-21 Isaiah points to God’s redemption in the past times: for ex-
ample, the Exodus event, when He parted the waters of the Red Sea to enable the
Israelites as God’s covenant people to pass through the Red Sea. God caused the
army of the great Pharaoh of Egypt to perish in the sea. [He uses the example of
smoking flax to be completely extinguished. At that time Egypt was a very power-
ful nation in the Middle East.]
In verse 19 God used the Hebrew term for “behold” to call attention to what He
was about to do in His plan for His covenant people. He was going to prepare a way
through the Wilderness of Sinai to deliver them from the mighty power of Egypt as
part of His plan for their exodus.
Now God’s promise of long ago is in action to be completed through the coming
redemptive work of Jesus as the true Savior when He as Christ would die on the
cross for our sins, was buried, rose again, and ascended into heaven.
Isaiah used important illustrations of what God would do for them in the dry
wilderness; He would supply abundant water to meet the urgent needs of His
covenant people. For His readers, these were very important and striking illustra-
tions of God’s ongoing loving and gracious care for His believers then and for us
today!
Erich H. Kiehl
72
Palm Sunday
Sunday of the Passion
Deuteronomy 32:36-39
April 1, 2007
Which Rock Is Your Rock?
Which rock is your rock? Here lies a question within the threads of our text
which must be answered in all seriousness, for the outcome is certainly serious,
depending upon which “rock” you claim as your own. In the verses leading up to our
lesson, we learn one fact of great significance: “Their rock is not like our Rock” (v.
31). With this fact well understood, we clearly see the stark differences between
their rock and our Rock, the true Rock, the true God, the only God. In this song of
Moses, Moses ascribes greatness to our Rock. He says, “He is the Rock, His work is
perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of Truth and without injustice; righteous
and upright is He. This Rock of justice, uprightness, and greatness is also the Rock
of salvation (v. 15) who has begotten us. What about this other rock? The best we
can say of this rock is that it cannot be counted on. The Lord in His judgment says,
“Where are their gods, the rock in which they sought refuge?” This rock offers
nothing to those who desire to put their trust in it. It offers no justice. It offers no
comfort. It offers no righteousness. It certainly offers no salvation. Nothing is all it
has to offer. Nothing is all it can provide to those flocking for protection in its
hollowness.
And so the Rock says of this rock, “Let them rise and help you, and be your
refuge” (v. 38). How long they will desire this help! How long they will wait!
In verse 39 the Lord, the Rock, does everything to direct Israel’s attention
away from any other rock, any crumbling block of sandstone, to Him alone. “Now
see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I
wound and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.” There is no
pebble, no rock, that will ascend against this Rock and crush Him. “There is no god
besides Me!” No one can deliver from His hand, and He alone can deliver.
Deliverance is the exact thing His people need; it is the thing they always need.
The Lord looks upon those who have tried their own way out, chased after their own
gods, built their confidence upon their own ramparts, and are now laid low. They
have slipped, their gods have worn out on them, and they are left in need of compas-
sion. They are in need of deliverance. So the Lord offers: “For the LORD will judge
His people and have compassion on His servants, when He sees that their power is
gone, and there is no one remaining bond or free” (v. 36). Those rock gods did not
work out so well for them: a god of gold rock was crushed and digested in their
stomachs. Not much for hope or salvation or anything.
So which rock is your rock? Who is your source of hope? To whom do you turn for
deliverance? Even with a good understanding of the temporary nature of the rocks
in which we often seek refuge, we often look to them. Deliverance is a need with
which we are all too familiar. Watch one half-hour of the daily news, or read one
page of the daily newspaper, or listen one hour to a friend who has fallen on “ob-
stacle ridden” times, or look back at your week, and you will be clearly and power-
fully and woefully reminded of the deserts, the wastelands, the howling wilder-
nesses of the world in which you live. The gods of this age offer no direction in this
wasteland. The rocks of this time offer to you no shelter from the eroding winds of
the troubles that haunt you. All that you trust to rescue you from these deserts

looks back at you with hollowed-out eyes, dead to offer any more hope than the
wilderness itself. “Let them rise and help you, let them be your refuge”—but they
never will.
But your cry is still as loud. Your need is as great. You feel the stressors of time,
pain, losses, sickness, and past mistakes weighing down upon you. You traverse
through this wilderness on your own mission to discover a source of pleasure that
can mask the pain, maybe for even a little while, yet this journey leaves you further
in the desert, further from any oasis of hope.
“Let them rise and help you, and be your refuge?” No, it will never be. But back
to verse 39: “now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me.” No
other deliverance, no other hope, no other comfort, no other One who will have
compassion to the point of salvation.
Notice closely the cry of the people as Jesus enters Jerusalem: “Hosanna,
hosanna. Save us, please.” Save, please, from who we are. Save, please, from that
to which we are imprisoned. Save, please, from eternal destruction. Notice that
even when the Pharisees demand that Jesus quiet the request, Jesus details the
importance of this request by explaining that if the crowds are silent, the rocks will
cry out. Even the stones will cry out! And what exactly would they cry, if the crowd’s
plea had been extinguished?
Have you ever thought about that? What would the stones cry if they had to
cry? What would they cry if no one else did? “Hosanna! Hosanna!” The need for
deliverance from the wilderness into which sin, death, and the power of the devil
cast us is so great that even the stones will cry out for deliverance.
The cries are heard. The groanings of all creation are heard. The Lord keeps
His promise to those He has chosen and to deliver. And by what a way! The Rock of
Ages enters in, the Rock of Ages is numbered among the transgressors, and the
Rock of Ages has come not to be delivered, but to deliver. “Father, if it is Your will,
remove this cup from Me: nevertheless not My will, but Your will be done” (Luke
22:42).
And so it is that the God who can kill and make alive, who can wound and heal,
lays on the Lamb the iniquity of us all. That which had fallen on the shoulders of
the people, smitten and healed, time and time again, now came crashing down
upon the shoulders of the One who would be smitten for all, once and for all, and on
the third day be brought back to life, victorious over that which had caused His
people to be smitten so severely.
So this message is the one for us today: that punishment which we so truly
deserve has bruised the heel, torn His flesh, and killed Him. And just as He rises
from the dead, so too we are healed to live a new life in Him. Certainly, the Lord
says it all when He says, “Nor is there any who can deliver from my hand.” For as
St. Paul says, “I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor princi-
palities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor
any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:37-39). No one can reverse what He has done or
stop what He continues to do.
So which rock is your rock? Who is the one to whom you turn for deliverance?
Easy answer: the One who has turned to you, the One who has claimed you, the One
who delivered you before it even occurred to you to ask.
Kyle D. Castens
74
The Resurrection of our Lord
Isaiah 65:17-25
April 8, 2007
When the Newness Wears Off
Easter Sunday brings out a whole lot of “new.” Just look around you. New
dresses, new suits, new hats, new shoes, new haircuts, new flowers. Putting on the
“new” leads to much excitement. I still remember the excitement that a new blue
suit and new clip-on tie offered me when I was a child. There was nothing like
wearing that suit for the first time, feeling proud, feeling grown up, all ready for
Easter.
Who in this world does not develop some degree of excitement over something
new? That excitement may differ depending on the stature of the new item. One
most certainly is ecstatic over the newness of a new car with its new car smell and
its new car feel and its new car drive, while one may just be merely well pleased
with a new blue suit and clip-on tie. New is great because new is, well, new. Gone is
the old, the tarnished, the rusted, the torn, the dull, the exhausted. Out with the
old, in with the new and all of its excitement. However, there lies before you one
inevitable fact: new becomes old.
Given time, the bright will become dull, the solid will become weak, the excit-
ing will become ordinary, the suits will wear thin, the shoes will scuff. This fact is
one you just have to live with. You must grin and bear it. You must acknowledge
that what you hold in all pride—the very epitome of newness—will someday be old.
As we dive into our text for today, our attention is immediately grabbed by the
first word: “Behold.” Behold, pay attention, something’s up here. “Behold, I will
create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered nor
will they come to mind” (v. 17). Certainly, out with the old, in with the new, to the
highest extent! This “new” will be a delight, a joy, a “new” where people will not toil
in vain, a “new” where children will not be doomed to misfortune, a “new” where
people will eat the fruits of their labors and dwell in that which they have built.
This “new,” however, is not in the near future for the people of Israel. The days
are coming when their time will be spent in a land that is not theirs, among a
people whose tongue is not theirs, who worship a god that is not theirs. Their
homes will be abandoned and empty; their Jerusalem will be filled with anguish
and tears. They will be taken from that which they know and love to live in a foreign
place. This rebellious nation, this rebellious people, will follow the path of the
kingdom to the north. This “brood of evil doers, children given to corruption” (Is.
1:4) will be judged for their ways, and this woeful nation will be led into imprison-
ment.
And your life? What does it often feel like to you? Does it feel like the “new”
that is filled with rejoicing and delight? Does it feel like the “new” where all your
toil is not in vain? Or does your life often feel like you are lost in captivity? Or does
it feel sometimes more like you are imprisoned? You long for something new, some
relief, some hope. You are held by sins that will just not let you go, not let you move
forward, not let you free. Here there is no room for rejoicing, there is no room to be
glad, and all you know is that there must be a way out. Where around you do you see
a wolf even dreaming to feed with a lamb? Not here. “That’s not my world,” you say.
But right when we see Isaiah 65 as an incredible impossibility, the words of
the angel ring loudly in your ears: “He is not here, He is risen! Remember how He

told you, while He was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of man must be delivered
into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and on the third day be raised again.’ ” On
Friday, there was no apparent reason to rejoice, on Saturday there was no apparent
reason to rejoice, on this first day of the week there was no apparent reason to
rejoice. The morning walk of Joanna and the two Marys was not intended to take
them to hope, but rather to anoint a dead body. But in the very midst of their sorrow,
in the midst of their loss, in the midst of the lost hope, these women are confronted
by the “new.” They expect to find death, but “Why do you look for the living amongst
the dead?,” the angels ask.
And what about the walk to Emmaus? Another walk of hopelessness! Or so
they thought! “The chief priests and our rulers handed Him over to be sentenced to
death, and they crucified Him; but we had hoped He was the One who was going to
redeem Israel” (Luke 24:20-21). The Stranger walking along side of them would
give them something new: understanding. All that needed to be fulfilled has been
fulfilled. All Scripture has come down to this moment.
But wait a minute! The Romans are still here. Caesar is still Caesar. Pilate
still governs. Herod still sits on his throne. Tell me, what is so new about this? The
two on the way to Emmaus had hoped the redemption would be the redemption
from Rome. The disciples at the Ascension asked, “Lord, are you at this time going
to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Tell me what has changed!
Jesus plainly tells Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36a).
Although the people of Israel have Babylon on their near horizon, although the
disciples still render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, although we often anchor our
memories to a past filled with sin, one fact stands out beyond all others: if anyone
is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17).
Beyond the Babylonian captivity were rescue and restoration and redemption,
people brought back to the promised land, brought to their own, to live a life in
response to the rescue. Today, this very day, this very moment in time, now you are
a new creation. You have new life in Him, rescued, restored, redeemed, and every
day when you wake from sleep you awaken “new.” Every day the “new” the Lord
gives comes to you by your Baptism. “We were therefore buried with Him through
Baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Rom. 6:4). And your tomorrow?
What will it be like? Well, it may be a good day. It may be a bad day. In Christ, it will
be a new day, filled with new life, new blessings, great and small. And one day, one
tomorrow, because of the “new” the Lord has ushered in, you will live, I will live
where the wolf and the lamb lie together, where there is always rejoicing and never
sadness, where the sound of weeping and crying will be heard no more. No more.
This new will never wear thin or pass away, but will be ours forever. Now that is a
“new” we can truly be excited about, for we need never have the fear that this “new”
will ever grow old.
Kyle D. Castens
Second Sunday of Easter

Acts 5:12-20 (21-32)
April 15, 2007
Church year context: Beginning with the Second Sunday of Easter and
continuing each Sunday through the Seventh Sunday of Easter, the first lesson,
76
usually taken from the Old Testament, comes instead from the Acts of the
Apostles. The appropriateness of this series of readings from Acts is not hard to
see. Just as the fifty days of Easter form one continuous celebration of our Lord’s
resurrection, so also does the book of Acts continue to tell us the story of Jesus,
now the Crucified and Risen One, who is still present in and with His church. Just
as “Easter” does not come to a sudden conclusion at midnight Easter Sunday
evening, so also the story of His rising continues in the lives of His people, raised
with Him in the waters of Baptism and given new life by His Spirit.
Grist for the homiletical mill: 1. Unfortunately, when we begin our reading at
Acts 5, we cannot see the patterns that Luke so artfully develops in Acts 2-7. The
preacher, therefore, should begin his preparation by reading from Acts 3 through
to the end of Acts 5 (and notice that a reading from Acts 3 is appointed for the
Wednesday following Easter Day). He will then see that there is a pattern of
increasing tension as we work from the arrest of Peter and John in Acts 3-4 to
that of the apostles in Acts 5. This pattern reaches its climax in the arrest and—
not release but—execution of Stephen in Acts 7. A helpful resource for tracing the
outlines of these patterns is the second volume of Robert C. Tannehill’s The
Narrative Unity of Luke—Acts (Fortress Press, 1990). See, especially, pages 63
and following.
2. Also worth noting, is the pattern of prophecy/promise and fulfillment
between the words of Jesus spoken before His passion and the events that
transpire in the opening chapters of Acts. Who can fail to see the fulfillment here
of our Lord’s prophecies that the disciples would be seized and dragged before
rulers, that this would prove to be for them an opportunity to give testimony to
their Lord and that the Holy Spirit would enable them to speak boldly in these
life-and-death situations? The good preacher, however, assumes nothing, and it
would be both wise and helpful to point out these connections for our people.
3. Note also that in Luke’s Gospel (22:33) we hear Peter assuring Jesus,
“Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison!” Now, Luke tells us of a time when
Peter does finally go to prison “with his Lord.”
4. Of even more significance for preaching, perhaps, is the pattern of similarity
between what happened to Jesus in His passion and what is now happening to
His disciples as they carry out their commission. This pattern seems richly laden
with preachable treasures, and I would like to spend a few moments developing
it.
5. Peter’s speeches in Acts 1-5 are filled with references to our Lord’s passion.
As we read through these opening chapters, we have constant reminders of the
death and resurrection of Jesus not only in Peter’s words but also in the settings
and even in the actors themselves. We have not left Jerusalem. We are still in the
Temple environs. We are still confronting the same prosecuting attorneys and
jurors who condemned and executed Jesus.
6. Some of these reminders are almost verbal repetitions from Luke’s Gospel.
Compare, for example, Luke 20:2 with Acts 4:7. Surely even the “rulers, elders,
and scribes” must have thought this felt and sounded eerily familiar!
7. Looking more closely at our text, we can see that being “Easter People,”
living in the hope of the resurrection, does not mean that only signs and wonders
will follow (v. 12). The high priest “takes action,” the Good News will not be
proclaimed unchallenged. The apostles are arrested and thrown into prison.
8. It is at this point in the story that we see one of the most fascinating
connections to the story of Jesus. It has not been long since we watched as soldiers

sought to keep another prisoner “in custody,” only to find all their attempts to be
in vain. Empty tomb. Empty cell. Defensive guards. Puzzled priests. Can there be
any doubt that the same power is at work in both cases?
9. In addition to Peter’s allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, two words from
his speech here merit special mention. Peter refers to Jesus as avrchgo.n (and
savior) in verse 31. The word avrchgo,j is used four times in the New Testament,
twice in Acts (both times in speeches of Peter) and twice in Hebrews, all four
times in reference to Christ. Its etymology suggests a combination of the ideas of
“first” and “leader,” and it is often translated as “pioneer” or “founder” or even
“prince.” A comparison of our verse with Hebrews 2:10 is illuminating. Peter’s
phrase seems to describe Jesus as the one who leads us to a salvation that He
Himself provides, blazing the trail to the salvation that He Himself has won for
those who follow Him.
10. The word Peter uses here for “obey” is also interesting, and it also draws
from two ideas to give us its meaning. Peiqarce,w combines ideas of “persuasion”
and “authority.” It would be pushing etymology too far to say that the word always
suggests a willing obedience, but Peter’s statement does seem to convey the idea:
“It is God’s authority of which we have been convinced, and we shall obey Him.”
In summary, we could say that Thomas’s “My Lord and my God,” finds
expression in the words and actions of these apostles. Convinced that He will
lead them through suffering and death to salvation, they hear and obey His word
with no fear of consequences. With what can human authorities threaten them? If
the gates of Hell cannot prevail against this church, how can the bars of earthly
prisons stop them? And yet, the message is always and ever a call to repentance
and a promise of forgiveness—even to those who killed the Lord. There is in
Peter’s words neither denial of the bloodguilt nor the longing for vengeance, only
the call to join the apostles in following Him. Even—especially—in their
preaching, the apostles remain obedient to the word of the Lord.
Jeffrey A. Oschwald
Third Sunday of Easter

Acts 9:1-22
April 22, 2007
Here we have the account of the conversion of Saul, but what might be better
called two conversions: one of Saul and the other of the closed-minded Ananias.
In Saul’s case we have a zealot who is interested in pursuing what he sees as
the truth. He believes that he is prosecuting the Lord of Israel’s cause in rounding
up Christians and in his zeal even moves beyond his ordinary circle of persecutions
to round up Christians in Damascus. It is a dramatic conversion of an unwittingly
oppressive person who nevertheless is trying very hard to do the right thing. God
has another plan for the life of Saul and intervenes dramatically in his life. There
is a light and a voice, not necessarily friendly in tone. “Saul, Saul, why do you
persecute Me?” Saul does not understand, so Jesus continues, “I am Jesus whom
you are persecuting.” Then, there is the command to go and Saul’s blindness.
The second conversion comes with Ananias, who must be convinced that Saul
is usable. His attitude is one of the believer with a preconceived notion of what
should be happening. God is predictable and should not be accepting one such as
Saul. Ananias reminds God of all the trouble Saul has caused, as though God
78
lacked the information. Here is the conversion of a man who is judging by his own
standards and appearances to a man who is able to move forward and accept that
God, indeed, knows best and that our human standards do not stand up in the face
of His priorities.
In preaching this text, one might bear in mind that the believer finds himself
in both predicaments and requires both kinds of conversion. Often we are well
intentioned and proceed down a wrong path, hopefully not to the degree Saul did,
but nevertheless a wrong way. It might also be pointed out that God also intervenes
in our lives, usually not in such a dramatic way as the conversion of Saul, but
through His gifts of Word and Sacrament. We also often fall victim to the problem
of preconceived notions and trying to tell God what would be best for the work of
His kingdom. In these cases God uses His Word to correct and guide our actions
through the work of the Holy Spirit.
As to where and how the Gospel can be applied from the text, it is important to
emphasize that for the Sauls and Ananiases of this world Jesus Christ has a plan
that involves His work of converting the heart through the work of His death and
resurrection. This is good news for us as sinners who often stray from His righteous
standards. Furthermore, God has worked in our lives to bring us to the point of
Baptism, to raise us to new life in the New Adam, and He has paid for us at the
cross. This same God both converts and reforms those He chooses to save and gives
us new lives to live in Him by His work on the cross.
There has been a good deal of exegetical stretching that has occurred with this
text in the past in order to ensure that it was the Word and not direct revelation
that taught Saul the Gospel. Some prominent individuals in Lutheran history
have said that it was Ananias who taught Saul what he needed to know. This
reader, although possible, does not consider the text of Galatians where Paul pro-
tests, “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something
that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I
received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12). We must be careful,
therefore, in battling those who would use the text to promote enthusiastic tenden-
cies, who would add to the text meanings not clearly derived from it for the sake of
conclusions it does not really support. This would constitute a form of eisagesis.
Instead, it would be better to declare that we have God’s Word, revealed in the
Scriptures, and that these kinds of dramatic interventions never occurred with
frequency, not even during New Testament times. In other words, Saul was a spe-
cial case where things occurred more directly than they do with most individuals.
This makes sense with the text, as God calls Saul a chosen instrument to carry His
name to the Gentiles. “Chosen,” here, entails a meaning not regular or ordinary,
but exceptional.
Timothy P. Dost
Fourth Sunday of Easter

Acts 20:17-35
April 29, 2007
Paul, in his mature ministry, deals with the Ephesian elders. His predictions
for the church at Ephesus provide a pattern for many of the problems and issues we
face in the church today. The solution to these problems is the love and power of the
work of Christ on the cross to bring us daily life and salvation and the strength for

victory despite the problems around us—a victory not on the world’s terms, but on
the terms of the kingdom of God.
First, we find that in the priesthood of all believers, all believers are ministers
of Jesus Christ, although all are not called to the office of pastor. This would be a
useful way to involve the people in a text that is also about leadership. As minis-
ters we all face some of these issues. Ministry is not all fun and games; rather, it is
hard work. Here we have Paul describing ministry as a race that he has to run to
the finish. He also details the difficulties he will face as he goes off to Jerusalem.
But he has decided that regardless of the cost, he will be faithful to the task
provided for him by Jesus Christ. Here a good application of the Law would be that
we are not always called to do what is pleasant and fun for us, but rather what God
has called us to do, we are to do faithfully for Him. This is not a matter of justifica-
tion, which should be made clear; rather, it is a matter of Christian maturation, a
process that often involves difficult and time-consuming work—not a work to be-
come saved, but a work that the saved do because they are new in Christ Jesus.
Another matter of note about this text is the response of the elders. They are
highly concerned for Paul, but not so much for his safety and for the continuation of
his ministry as for the fact that he has stated they will not see him again. This
bespeaks a kind of fellowship and harmony that is rare in the church. They did not
want to see their fellowship with Paul end, and that is what disturbed them,
rather than the issues of persecution and false teaching that Paul has predicted
will come to them.
In this text it will be necessary to import the Gospel. A good handle would be
something along the lines of a discussion of the power and support that these men
found in the message of Christ they had received from Paul. From this handle it
will be possible to discuss the implications of the cross and resurrection in the life
of the believer, and how this empowers and comforts the believer through the work
of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel might be discussed early in the sermon, following the
application of the Law, so that time might be devoted to the theme of Christian
maturity and the response the Gospel engenders in the believer. It needs to be
made clear that this response arises out of the knowledge that as sinners we are
unworthy, but Christ renews us, gives us His good name and reputation, and ex-
pects us to go as renewed people into the callings He has prepared. Some useful
parallels to this text would be Joseph’s reluctance at being sold into slavery, the
reluctance of Hosea marry a prostitute, the reluctance of Jonah in his ministry to
Ninevah, and Jesus’ own prayers at the Garden of Gethsemane. In all these cases,
God used the unwilling to further His work in mighty ways. It was not their mood
that proved their faithfulness, but their activity as already believing people. Now
Jesus would constitute something of an exception in that He was God and man, but
He remained steadfast through prayer in the Garden, nonetheless, and was there
on the cross for us that next afternoon.
Timothy P. Dost
80
“On the reading of many books...”
FOOD FOR LIFE: The Spirituality and Ethics of Eating. By L. Shannon Jung.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. 167pages. Paper. $15.00.
Everyone who prays the Lord’s Prayer with its petition “Give us today our
daily bread” knows there is a spiritual dimension to food. In this petition “bread”
signifies every need, as Luther’s Large Catechism rightly says: “our life requires not
only food and clothing and other necessities for our body, but also peace and concord
in our daily business and in associations of every description with the people
among whom we live and move.” The author of Food for Life, however, has a nar-
rower scope when he treats the spirituality and ethics of “eating.”
L. Shannon Jung, a Presbyterian, who directs the Center for Theology and
Land and is professor of rural ministry at the University of Dubuque and Wartburg
Theological Seminary (a seminary of the ELCA) discusses food and spirituality
under three subtopics: God’s purposes for eating, eating and food system disorders,
and eating for life. The central thought is this: each of us hungers not only for
nourishment in food and drink but also for a life, purpose, and acceptance. Accord-
ing to Jung, if we explore our “hungers,” we have clues to our real “needs”—and our
deepest need is for God’s “authentic creative love.” The Bible teaches us that God
is among us, letting us “delight” in His gifts and giving us opportunity for “sharing”
them. So Christian people will say grace, fast, feast, and avoid gluttony—and with
God’s help will deal with disorders of overeating, under-eating, and compulsive
eating. Moreover, says Jung, since human sinfulness impacts the global food sys-
tem, Christians will also work to remove social injustice and damage to the envi-
ronment.
Jung finds two central Biblical poles for his spiritual observations: delighting
in God’s goodness and being hospitable (sharing them with others). God’s purpose
for eating is rooted in the “created goodness” of eating and the fact that all meals
are blessings of God. So Jesus enjoins His disciples to put their trust in God’s
goodness and not to worry about food and other necessities, gifts that are to be
received with thanksgiving. In Eucharistic eating and drinking, Jung sees “a deep-
ening of the meaning of the everyday grace of God,” even “the apex of eating and
drinking” for God “invites us to feast in appreciation” and to make “covenant re-
newal” as disciples remember God’s grace and recommit themselves. Further-
more, he says that the corporate nature of this feasting should be recaptured by
today’s church. Here Jung’s Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper as an act
of remembering, giving thanks, and recommitting to right living focuses too much
on what a believer does and not enough on what God does. How much greater if he
could have said: the hunger for a right relationship with God is fulfilled through the
mercy of God as the body and blood of Jesus Christ are received in the oral eating
and drinking and God gives forgiveness and new life! Instead of just our remember-
ing and our thanksgiving and our trying harder, in the sacramental eating and
drinking of one who has faith in God’s promises God actually enters, energizes, and
enlivens us. Sadly, there is a stronger food image here than our author acknowl-
edges. A similar complaint can be made about his view that the Lord’s Supper is
integrally tied to outreach (hospitality to strangers).
Jung rightly analyzes eating disorders as sins which destroy enjoyment and
can lead to gluttony, self-contempt, consumerism (greed), rejection of grace, lack of

empathy for others and finally blasphemy (no thankfulness for what is received).
This is clearly the heart of his book. He is not so convincing when he attempts to
convict us of complicity and perversity for being “caught in systems” (government
support programs and intercontinental distribution institutions) that allow hun-
ger and starvation to exist or a search for the lowest price of production and export
subsidizing policies (agribusiness) which contribute to new pockets of poverty and
to environmental damage. The way out of these disorders, says Jung, is to become
aware of these sins, to recall God’s grace and blessing, and to realize that “eating
food is the miracle by which we take the world into ourselves” and use its nourish-
ment in service of others. “Genuine repentance and confession” will lead us to
“resolve to move Godward” and over time we will “develop habits that begin to
change our way of living,” e.g., praying before meals, fasting (testing what is deep in
our hearts), seeking attitudes of contentment and of generosity, and engaging in
the joys of gardening and cooking.
While Jung’s book seems to have stretched too far in expecting the church to be
an agent for promoting a fair and just global food distribution system and viewing
the Lord’s Supper as a tool of hospitality for outsiders, his accent on delighting in
the gifts of God, receiving them with thanksgiving and freely sharing from God’s
bounty is thoughtfully expounded. Indeed, a nation of obese people is surely in need
of God’s mercy and a deeper understanding of “daily bread” and of eating. This
book is a good start toward becoming more aware of how food intersects with
spiritual life. We are wise, however, to turn to Luther’s catechisms for a more
reliable road map to the theology of Word, Supper, bread, and Christian thanksgiv-
ing.
James L. Brauer
MARK: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. By C. Clifton Black. Minneapolis: For-

tress, 2001, 327 pages. Paper. $20.00.
This volume is not a new work, having appeared originally in 1994. It has been
republished in Fortress Press’s “Studies on Personalities of the New Testament”
series. Black seeks evidence for what we can learn about Mark in Acts, in writings
linked to Peter and Paul in the second century, and in Western and Eastern Chris-
tianity during the third and fourth centuries. He then examines the relationship of
the second Gospel to its evangelist, seeking to locate the author and target audi-
ence (Rome!) geographically. One travels with Black on an interesting journey.
The maximalist view of what we can learn about Mark includes depicting him
as the young man who runs away naked. The present-tense style in Mark is attrib-
uted to his acquaintance with Peter (Mark = John Mark). Having been rejected by
Paul at the onset of the second missionary journey, he reconnects with Paul and
probably dies at the hands of Nero soon after Paul does (which may even explain
the sudden ending of the Gospel!).
The minimalist view notes that Mark is not mentioned in the second Gospel,
and no other New Testament passage links him to the Gospel. Geographical oddi-
ties in the Gospel cast doubt on the author being a native of Palestine. The
minimalists refuse to use Peter’s sermons in Acts and the two Petrine letters to
help flesh out the narrative about Mark. Critical scholarship has followed the
latter course in recent times. Knowing the author of the Gospel by name is not
considered crucial in valuing the work itself. According to many scholars, the early
82
church fathers, especially Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexander, used slen-
der bits of evidence and inference and are of limited value in knowing Mark and
linking John Mark to the Mark of this Gospel.
Black opts for the principle of “honest uncertainty” (10) and is unwilling to
dismiss early traditions out of hand, though he cautions against filling in the gaps
to make those traditions say more than is warranted. Those who minimize a role
for John Mark as the author have suggested radically different views about author,
purpose, and time of composition for the Gospel and have thus solved nothing.
Black reexamines the scattered references to Mark and the Gospel in Scrip-
ture and in early church history. The person Mark is rather obscure and is generally
portrayed negatively in Acts, since the Spirit gets the mission going in spite of
some, like Mark, who were hesitant. His mention as a coworker is more positive
when mentioned in the conclusions of three Pauline letters, and Mark seems to be
a bridge who can unite different groups of Christians. A third portrayal, at the end
of 1 Peter, suggests he is a faithful son who can encourage those who are persecuted
or culturally disaffected (such as in Rome).
Papias’s comment about Mark being Peter’s interpreter comes to us through
Eusebius, whom Black considers to be most concerned about apostolic succession
(84). But was he a “literary” interpreter in Papias’s mind? Is Papias suggesting
that the rather rough organizational structure is due to Mark carefully writing
everything down as Peter would have been delivering it orally? Different aspects of
the four Gospels led Tatian to merge all four together in the Diatessaron (in the
Syrian region), whereas the Muratorian Canon contends that the four diverse ways
to tell the story of Jesus is acceptable since each author was an apostle!
Space prohibits anything more than hints about how Christians in different
regions of the empire viewed Mark in the third and fourth centuries: Rome thought
of Mark as stumpy-fingered but apostolic; North Africa treated him as a defender
of the faith or as an obedient epitomizer (Tertullian teaches that this is really
Peter’s gospel); Alexandria viewed him as an attendant to the apostles (conveying
Peter’s teachings in Rome); Syria, by contrast, considered him to be a collaborator
with Paul (Chrysostom is more intrigued with the text, not the person); and Pales-
tine (an imperfect marriage) considered him rather unimportant (Eusebius sim-
ply depicts Mark as someone in the apostolic succession). Black summarizes the
patristic era by noting that Mark is a literary figure, connected with Peter, con-
cerned mainly with the veracity of the story about Jesus, and is usually linked to
activity in Rome (Eastern Christendom, by contrast, links him with Egypt).
How does the Gospel relate to the purported author? Black notes that there
were struggles about Peter himself in the first two centuries and thus about a
gospel connected with him. Black springs what to me was a surprise at the end by
suggesting that all roads lead to Rome as the focus of the Gospel (which many
others obviously still question). He follows John H. Elliott in linking Peter to Rome
and Mark to Rome. Black believes Mark gives us evidence of the historical, socio-
logical, theological, and religious questions faced in first-century Rome.
Black writes this book like a detective novel, teasing out insights that reject a
simplistic listing of references to Mark. He is most instructive in looking at the
contexts in which the Gospel and Mark himself are mentioned and suggests rea-
sons why. The book flows well and is stimulating in thinking about the early church,
its significant personages, and their links to the written record of Scripture.
Thomas H. Trapp
St. Paul, MN

1 CORINTHIANS INTERPRETED BY EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMENTATORS.
By JUDITH L. KOVACS. Editor and Translator. THE CHURCH’S BIBLE.
Edited by Robert Louis Wilken. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. xxix+340
pages. Cloth. $35.00.
For more than one hundred years, most pastors had access to the fathers only
through the Ante-Nicene and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers sets. Although using
superseded editions as the basis for translation and at times even translating
inaccurately, they have been valuable for providing access to early Christian think-
ing. However, this series provided only a glimpse into the exegesis of the fathers.
We were offered what was preserved of Origen’s commentaries on Matthew and
John, five volumes of Chrysostom’s homilies, Marius Victorinus’ commentary on
the Apocalypse, and a few of Augustine’s homilies and discussions of key passages
(e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). Since this material was not conveniently indexed,
it was difficult, perhaps impossible, to use these resources for sermon and Bible
study preparation. This lack is now being supplied by two resources that provide
not only book-by-book but even verse-by-verse discussions from fathers whom we
barely remember—or perhaps never even heard of—from our early church history
class at the seminary.
The Ancient Christian Commentary (ACC) series has been in progress since
1998 (and now the volumes thus far published have been released in a CD-ROM
version), with some sixteen volumes now or soon to be available. We should be
proud that the fathers never disappeared entirely from us, as attested by scholars
from our midst serving as editors (Joel Elowsky as an editor, and Luke by Art Just,
Revelation by Bill Weinrich, and Psalms 51-150 by Quentin Wesselschmidt). Nev-
ertheless, I have not been able to find this series helpful. The selections from the
individual fathers are extremely brief and often deal not with the text per se, but
what we would label “theologizing” on the text. It gives us a picture of how some
fathers used the Scriptures to make theological arguments, but it does not often
provide us with “exegesis” or “application,” the explaining and elucidating of the
Scriptural text for the edification of its hearers. A larger concern is that dissonant
interests and voices are presented as if there were a single, harmonious “meaning”
of the text that was universally shared by all the fathers. We are given a paragraph
that melts the unique contributions of each writer (albeit only a selection) into a
single “voice.” While I am not imputing a covert agenda to “cover up” the messiness
of the early church’s theology (though some reviewers have), I have found that these
represent one person’s attempt to weave authors from disparate contexts, loca-
tions, and indeed centuries into a unity—and nothing more. Others might have
woven the comments together differently. And one is always left with the nagging
feeling that there is more to the fathers than what was said—that we are being
offered a smoothie of frozen berries that has been run through the blender rather
than fresh strawberries and blueberries.
A new series attempts to offer more fruit from the fathers: The Church’s Bible
(TCB). Ironically, as the subtitle to this volume suggests, “ancient Christian com-
mentary” more accurately applies to this series rather than the other, for the TCB
“draws extensively on the ancient commentaries, not only on random comments
drawn from theological treatises, sermons, or devotional works. Its volumes will,
in the main, offer fairly lengthy excerpts from the ancient commentaries and from
series of sermons on specific books” (viii). The stated goal is that “through a deeper
immersion in the ancient sources can contemporary readers enter into the inex-
84
haustible spiritual and theological world of the early church and hence of the Bible”
(viii). This means that we are provided with what can at least be labeled “inten-
tional exegesis” from the fathers. I believe that, in the case of the volume on 1
Corinthians, the editors have succeeded in their goals. I suspect that the average
pastor will find the TCB far more helpful for his week-to-week study, preaching,
and teaching of the Scriptures than he has found the ACC.
What the fathers provide for us is a pre-critical perspective on the Scriptures.
For example, they are not interested in partition theories or removing this passage
or another as an interpolation. There are no questions of authorship or alleged
pseudepigraphy or post-Pauline circles. At the same time, they are not always
helpful in explaining the background of the text. This is especially problematic for
1 Corinthians, certainly the Pauline letter that most requires familiarity with
Roman culture and practice. It may seem logical that a writer like Chrysostom,
being far closer to Paul’s Corinth both geographically and chronologically, would
have remarkable insight into this letter. However, as helpful as Chrysostom is in
pointing out the structure and rhetoric of Paul, he has less insight than do we into
Corinth’s Roman context and the social pressures being brought to bear on that
congregation. For example, for all the sympathy with which we might listen to his
call for moderation in his application of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (194), we miss the
argument that Paul actually makes: that the unity created by Christ in the Supper
is not to be destroyed by the observance of class divisions in the congregation. In
the discussion of 1 Corinthians 8-10 this is particularly obvious. While offering
many helpful observations on some of the weightier “theological” passages, there
is little that is offered in the way of application, or how Paul’s instructions to the
Corinthians have any connection to a world which no longer had “temple dining
rooms” or marketplaces that sold food that may have come from “idol sacrifices.”
In these cases, because of the advances in historical and archeological study both
in Biblical scholarship and Greco-Roman studies, we simply know more than even
the earliest fathers about what situations Paul and the Corinthians encountered.
And we are therefore often better equipped to discuss—and more importantly
make application of—this letter. This volume cannot serve as the pastor’s sole
commentary on 1 Corinthians, nor is it intended to serve that function.
Whom do we meet? Mostly eastern fathers. Chrysostom is the most promi-
nently featured, followed by Origen, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil, and
Gregory of Nyssa, the latter four of whom did not write commentaries. Theodoret
and Ambrosiaster, who did write commentaries, are heard from less frequently. We
are given several helpings of John of Damascus, but nothing from the massive
commentary of his rough contemporary on the other side of the continent, Sedulius
Scottus. Pelagius continues to stand in the margins. Even though his commentary
was monumentally influential in the West (especially through Cassiodorus, who
often borrowed wholesale), we find only two innocuous samples, one on “deceiving
oneself” (3:18) and the other on Paul’s detour through Macedonia (16:5). We are
given a passing reference to one of his examples of what the world considers folly in
the summary of chapter 3 (48). It is, therefore perhaps appropriate that the page
reference to his brief biography in the appendix is incorrect (297, not 296). While
the editors are obligated to select the material that they believe will be most
useful to their audience, the virtual obliteration of Pelagius from the pages of
church history, except as villain, is akin to what some did to Origen’s work long
after his death. A reader who consults this volume might be trusted to possess the
tools necessary to sift Pelagius’s error from what is helpful. We might thereby be

reminded that even well-intentioned Christians can read the Scriptures incor-
rectly. In the same vein, Cassiodorus’s commentary receives even less notice: one
paragraph on 3:12. In any event, all this means that we still have only an incom-
plete picture of the commentaries and homilies of the early fathers.
Some of the material is already available elsewhere. Chrysostom’s homilies
on 1 Corinthians were translated in the late nineteenth century in the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers series, vol. 12. In fact, these are freely available on the web:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/. Others are difficult to locate, even in the original. K.
Staab’s work on the catenae manuscripts (see xxiii) is frequently consulted. This is
appropriate in that the catenae manuscripts did precisely what this volume does:
provide brief discussions from early fathers on specific portions of text. There
remains, however, the question of attribution. Particularly the material attrib-
uted to Origen cannot be done so unquestionably, an issue not noted in this volume.
Nevertheless, so wide a range of previously untranslated material is welcome.
The translation work serves the purposes of the volume. It untangles the
messy classical syntax by moving clauses closer to their referent but also loses
some of the many particles that guide the reader through the text. For the sake of
an example, a translation from Ambrosiaster reads (on 11:1, “Be imitators of me,
as I am of Christ”):
Paul’s statement that we should be imitators of the teacher given us by

God is an accommodation to human limitation. If the apostle, a human
being, is the imitator of God, should we not imitate this man? God the
Father sent Christ as teacher and author of life; but because we were not
able to be imitators of Christ, he sent apostles to us that we could imitate
them.
A literal, clause-by-clause translation would read:
It is a concession to humans that he says that we should be imitators of

him, who is a teacher from God to us. For if this one is an imitator of God,
why not we of a man? Because just as God the Father sent Christ as
teacher and author of life, so also Christ sent the apostles as teachers to
us, so that we might be imitators of them, because we are not able to [be
imitators] of Him.
We might quibble that the emphasis that Ambrosiaster puts on “teacher”

(magister) is lost, especially since he explicitly connects Paul as “teacher to us from
God,” Jesus as “teacher,” and the apostles as “teachers to us.” We also miss the
“just as...so also” connection between Jesus and the apostles. Where English tends
to prefer asyndeton, some might prefer the precision offered by the effusive use of
conjunctions in Latin and Greek. However, in either translation, one is protected
from a “what would Jesus do?” approach, let alone a “what would Paul do?”
Another issue is the fact that the Biblical texts used by the fathers do not
always agree with our modern, standard text (the RSV is used in this edition).
Chrysostom and Theodoret typically follow the “Byzantine” text, which is not often
significantly different from the standard text. However, the pre-Vulgate Latin tra-
dition varies considerably. For example, at 6:20 every non-Vulgate witness reads
“glorify and carry God in your body.” “And carry” (arate) for “therefore” (arage, itself
a substitution for dh) is the result of a simple copyist error in the Greek, which was
86
then taken up into Latin. So our Latin fathers struggle to explain what “carrying
God in your body” would look like. Not surprisingly, this volume does not offer any
Latin comments on this passage. The same issue occurs with the earlier Greek
fathers, especially Clement of Alexandria and Origen. For example, Clement’s text
of 1 Corinthians 8:3, matched by -46, reads very differently from the standard text.
While Clement and -46 are almost certainly correct here, we do not hear from him
at this place in this volume. It does not seem to be too much to ask that the fathers
are allowed to comment using the actual Scriptural text which was, for them,
authoritative.
A few features of these volumes are noteworthy. Series editor Robert Louis
Wilken offers a nine-page introduction to “Interpreting the New Testament,” which
offers an apologetic for reading the Scriptures as the early fathers did. He is guilty
of over-praising the fathers and over-criticizing modern interpreters, and it can
hardly be said that all fathers of all ages shared the perspective which he de-
scribes. Nonetheless, there is much here to which we would be inclined, especially
the Christological focus of the Christian message, recognizing both the proclaimed
and written Word, and emphasizing that the act of reading takes place in a com-
munity shaped by its worship life and centered in the Sacraments. It is better read
as a “I wish it were so” than a “this is how it happened all the time” treatise, and
it is none the worse for that. Following this, an “Introduction to 1 Corinthians”
provides a summary of the contents of the letter followed by a discussion of the
extant patristic literature on 1 Corinthians. This is unfortunately far too limiting;
Pelagius and Cassiodorus are barely mentioned, for example. The now-lost and
extremely influential commentary by Marius Victorinus is not mentioned at all.
Its impact on Augustine, for example, cannot be overstated, and in Galatians,
which is still preserved, Ambrosiaster shows acquaintance. The editor, Judith
Kovacs, mentions in the “Acknowledgments” that someone else translated the
excerpts from the Latin fathers; the lack of familiarity with them is evident through-
out the volume. Three appendices offer additional helps: a brief notice on each of
the fathers cited, bibliographic data for each excerpt, and a glossary of twelve
“proper names” (Arius, Celsus, Pneumatomachians, etc.). The volume is indexed
by name, subject, and Scriptural reference.
To date, only Song of Songs and 1 Corinthians have been published—interest-
ingly, two books which required very different approaches from the fathers. I hope
that in the future we see more than two volumes in three years. This volume is a
helpful step forward from previous efforts, and will serve pastors well. But what
we await is the day when a publisher undertakes a series of translations of the
early commentaries so that we may consult Marius and Ambrosiaster alongside
Thiselton, Schrage, and Lockwood. And through them be shaped, and shape God’s
people, as we continue to encounter Christ in His Word.
Jeffrey Kloha
PREACHING AND TEACHING FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT: A Guide for the
Church. By Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. 222
pages. Paper. $19.95.
In this book Walter Kaiser—a well-known evangelical Old Testament (hereaf-

ter OT) scholar—builds upon his epochal Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978). Kaiser is a “voice crying in the wilderness” because

there is a distressing absence of OT preaching in the church—even when it repre-
sents over three-fourths of what the Lord has to say to us. The demons of Marcion
(condemned for his heretical views on the OT by the Edict of Constantine in the
fourth century), Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Adolph Harnack (nineteenth-cen-
tury scholars who arrived at similar conclusions as that of Marcion) haunt many
ministries.
As Kaiser sees it, “All too few have noticed the organic unity of the total
argument, often settling for much less by picking up a verse here or there in an
abstract and random manner” (21). This unity between the OT and New Testa-
ment is located in what Kaiser calls “the promise-plan of God.” The plan begins in
earnest in Genesis 12:3 which reads in part, “In you all the nations of the earth
shall be blessed.” New Testament writers chose to designate this plan by the
single word promise (evpaggeli,a). Paul summarizes this plan in Acts 13:32-33 and
again in Acts 26:6 where he states before King Agrippa, “And now I stand here
because of my hope in the promise (evpaggeli,aj).” According to Kaiser, the four most
important moments in this promise-plan are Genesis 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Samuel 7;
and Jeremiah 31:31-34. But while Kaiser believes the heart of the promise-plan is
Chistocentric, he does not want it to be what he labels “Christoexclusivistic.” Most
readers of this journal will debate this hermeneutical approach to the OT. Because
he does not want to be Christoexclusivistic, Kaiser not only misses many opportu-
nities to see Christ in the OT (cf. Luke 24:44) but also His cross (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2, 4;
15:3).
On another note, Kaiser advocates an expository approach to preaching the
OT. He defines this as a sermon that “takes a minimum of a full paragraph (a scene
in a narrative or a strophe in poetry) and allows the biblical text to supply both the
shape and the content of the message or lesson from that text itself ” (49). The
expository preacher locates the focal point of the pericope which will create coher-
ence and unity. The next step is to employ one of the six interrogatives: Who?,
What?, When?, Where?, Why?, and How? “Who” points to persons; “what” points to
truths; “why” to reasons; “where” to places; “when” to times; and “how” points to
ways or approaches. Expository preachers ask of the text, “Is it a how, a what, a
where, a when, a why, or a how that is being talked about?” (57).
In the next section, the author argues that with such a multitude of genres in
the OT there is no reason that they should all be brought together into one preach-
ing mold. The goal in preaching on a specific OT genre is to allow the genre’s shape
of the text to form the sermon, as opposed to letting Greek rhetorical style shape
every message.
Because narrative makes up about half of the OT, Kaiser spends considerable
time to demonstrate how to preach in this genre. He builds upon the work of Robert
Altar (The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981) who highlights
the narrative’s central elements. They are (1) scene, (2) plot, (3) point of view, (4)
characterization, (5) setting, (6) dialogue, (7) key words, (8) structure, and (9) sty-
listic and rhetorical devices. Kaiser provides an illustration of preaching a narra-
tive text from 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1a. In fact, at the end of each chapter on how to
preach in specific OT genres he provides full-length sermons. One of the best comes
from Psalm 77 and is an excellent example of how to preach from an OT lament.
Kaiser’s discussion on the genre of wisdom demonstrates his hesitation to
embrace a full Christocentric reading of the OT. For example, in discussing how to
preach from wisdom books like Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes he doesn’t allow 1
Corinthians 1:18–25 into the discussion. In this pericope, Paul teaches that real
88
wisdom is in the foolishness of Christ crucified. It is this kind of connection with
the New Testament that is lacking, not only in his chapter on the wisdom genre,
but also in his chapters on prophets, laments, Torah, praise, and apocalyptic.
If this is a weakness in the book, then one of its strengths is the author’s
emphasis on preaching that has as its focus application. Kaiser writes, “The world-
wide demand for seminars on the family, on marriage, and on managing our fi-
nances proves that this may well be one of the most neglected areas in our preach-
ing mission and that is probably tied directly to our failure to preach as often as we
should from the OT” (41). Application is also his goal when he notes that the
preacher can pay too much attention on a text’s historical and social contexts to the
degree that the message of the text itself, along with its import for later genera-
tions, is never heard. “It will be of little use in our day if the Bible is proven to be
authoritative but not applicable to any of our issues” (176). Throughout the book
Kaiser prompts preachers to move from what the text meant to what the text
means.
This book is a clarion call to preach the whole counsel of God (cf. Acts 20:27)
which, of course, includes the OT. And balanced preaching from the OT will include
legal, proverbial, historical, eschatological, doctrinal, ethical, prophetic, wisdom,
and apocalyptic texts. In my fourth-year homiletics class entitled “Problems in
Preaching,” I encourage students that as pastors they will want to read a homileti-
cal book once a year. If this is your ministerial habit—and I hope it is—if you select
Kaiser’s book as your “read for the year” you will not be disappointed.
Reed Lessing
NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY: Exposition of the Book of Revelation. By

Simon J. Kistemaker. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. 635 pages. Cloth. $39.99.
The Left Behind series has for some time now created an interest in the book of
Revelation and the end times that still has not abated. Pastors and teachers
continue to be asked by parishioners and students various questions of interpreta-
tion and events concerning the end of the world. An obvious place to turn in Scrip-
ture for answers is to the Book of Revelation. This commentary which completes
Baker’s New Testament Commentary series provides a conservative, unapologetically
Reformed evangelical approach to Revelation. The author, Simon Kistemaker, is
emeritus professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Or-
lando, and he has also written four other volumes for this series: Hebrews, James
and 1-3 John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians.
Kistemaker has a refreshingly sympathetic approach to the divine inspiration
of the text. His extensive introduction deals with a number of the interpretive
conundrums in the Revelation’s interpretation. He notes and explains many of the
different numbers and figurative expressions throughout the book but also cau-
tions that “not every detail is symbolic and in need of interpretation” (16). The
context and the central message of the passage will determine whether or not every
detail needs to be plumbed for its significance. When he does delve into the signifi-
cance of such symbols and numbers, he offers their traditional interpretation,
although his explanation is not always as nuanced as it could be. He categorizes
the numbers seven and ten, for instance, as numbers for “completeness,” but then
also includes the number twelve in the same category, missing out on the rich

connections of this number with Israel, both old and new, in the twelve tribes and
twelve apostles who are there together in heaven as a united Israel in the vision
John has of the twenty-four elders seated around the throne. And, while the major-
ity of interpreters would agree that much of Revelation is symbolic, the author’s
reformed bias also extends the symbolic imagery a bit too far in including Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper as symbols which “symbolize that the believer is forgiven,
reconciled to God, and a partaker of eternal riches and glory” (13). There is also a
Reformed emphasis on God’s sovereignty and victory in Christ, although no one
would deny these are also prominent themes in the book itself. On the whole, none
of this should detract the reader from the many valuable contributions this com-
mentary makes to the interpretation of Revelation.
The isagogical material presented conservatively favors authorship by John,
the disciple during the last decade of the first century, although alternative author-
ship by John the Elder is also explored with extensive reference to early Christian
texts. There is a helpful excursus on Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius of
Caesarea’s objections to the disciple John’s authorship. He engages the type of
modern scholarship that rejects apostolic authorship long enough to expose its
inherent weakness (25), and then moves on to bolster his argument for a date of
composition in the last decade of the first century from the time when Domitian’s
rule ended (38).
The strength of the introduction is that it doesn’t get bogged down in argu-
ments with higher criticism, instead focusing its energies on engagement with
much substantive issues such as the patristic tradition and an exploration of the
hermeneutical approach to Revelation—key to any engagement with the text.
Kistemaker approaches the interpretation of Revelation solidly as an
amillennialist, but provides a sympathetic ear for some of the premillennial con-
cerns too. His discussions are not overly technical, leaving in-depth examinations
of these (as well as postmillennial and dispensational interpretations) to articles
referenced in the footnotes. Most important, especially in light of popular notions
regarding Revelation’s interpretation, Kistemaker does not see the history of the
end times recorded in Revelation as linear, i.e., as though the Revelation was
depicting a step-by-step sequence of events leading up to the end. Rather, he cor-
rectly interprets John’s account of the end times in a very Hebraic, what he terms
“cyclical,” approach to its structure, one “which evinces progressive parallelism in
each successive cycle and reveals...different perspectives of the same teaching that
finally results in a definitive climax (65). Each perspective intensifies as the seven
visions spiral down towards the final defeat of Satan and the emergence of the new
heaven and earth in the final chapters.
The structure of the commentary provides a new translation of each pericope,
followed with line-by-line commentary, and concluded by a brief section on “Greek
Words, Phrases, and Constructions.” Kistemaker understands the prominent Jew-
ish influence on John’s account of the Revelation (252), convincingly countering
critics who implausibly contend Revelation has little to do with the Old Testament
(17). The author notes not only are there some five hundred allusions to the Old
Testament in Revelation but that these allusions come from nearly every book in
the Old Testament canon. These connections are identified throughout the com-
mentary as Scriptural background for Johannine allusions and are one of the chief
strengths of the commentary as a whole. The other strength is his insistence on the
inspired text “...[as a] divinely constructed volume in which God shows his handi-
90
work” (3). This commentary lets that handiwork show through and will serve as a
helpful complement to one’s study of Revelation.
Joel Elowsky
Madison, NJ
EERDMANS COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE. Edited by James D. G. Dunn.

Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003. 1,629 pages. Cloth. $75.00.
Despite its age and massive secondary literature, the field of Biblical studies
is a fast-moving discipline with new discoveries, angles of approach, and insights
constantly calling for fresh assessment of older assumptions simply taken for
granted, whether at a fine-detail or whole-picture level. It is essential, therefore,
that each new generation of Bible readers have a guide enabling them to see the
forest without getting lost in the trees. And since the Bible too easily becomes the
province only of technical experts, it is incumbent that a single volume sum up the
best of modern scholarship and direct interested readers to appropriate further
reading. All of this, and more, comes by means of the Eerdmans Commentary on the
Bible (ECB).
Comprehensive and ecumenical in scope and reader-friendly in format, the
ECB is the finest, most up-to-date single-volume Bible handbook now available.
Written by well-known scholars, the ECB encapsulates in nontechnical language
the cutting edge of modern scholarship on the sixty-six Biblical books plus the
Apocrypha. This makes it the only one-volume Bible commentary to cover all the
texts (even including 1 Enoch) regarded by one or more Christian churches as
canonical.
The primary objective of this work is to clarify the meaning of each section of
the Bible, but rather than attempt a verse-by-verse analysis (obviously impos-
sible in a one-volume work), the ECB focuses on principle units of meaning—
narrative, parable, prophetic oracle, and so on—highlighting their
interconnectedness with the rest of the Biblical text. The volume also addresses
and answers major interpretive issues confronting each book and often offers a
range of possible explanations. At the end of each study, authors refer readers to
further study by means of extensive bibliographic information.
The sixty-seven contributors to the ECB come from a wide variety of back-
grounds and are acknowledged leaders in the field of Biblical studies in the En-
glish-speaking world. Old Testament scholars include Ronald Clements (Prov-
erbs), Lester Grabbe (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Tobit), and Gordon Wenham (Genesis).
New Testament scholars include Beverly Gaventa (Galatians), I. Howard Marshall
(Ephesians), and Anthony Thiselton (Hebrews).
With the translation of choice being the New Revised Standard Version, many
of the contributors also offer their own translations of the original Hebrew or
Greek. Major attention is given to the Bible’s literary, historical, and theological
dimensions, with the primary objective being to clarify the meaning (or possible
meanings) of each unit. ECB avoids the problems (common in many commentar-
ies) either of losing the reader in massive amounts of diachronic detail or of simply
rephrasing what the text itself says.
Beyond providing informative commentary, ECB also includes thirteen intro-
ductory articles on the Biblical documents. This facet makes the volume of even
greater worth. Essays are entitled “The History of the Tradition: Old Testament

and Apocrypha” (John Rogerson), “Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern in Old
Testament Study” (John Goldingay), “Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archeology”
(Deborah Appler and Julye Bidmead), “The Pentateuch” (David Noel Freedman),
“Introduction to Prophetic Literature” (Paul Redditt), “Introduction to the
Pseudepigrapha” (James Mueller), “The Hebrew Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls”
(Daniel Harlow), “The History of the Tradition: New Testament” (James Dunn),
“Hermeneutical Approaches to the New Testament Tradition” (Joel Green), “In-
troduction to the Gospels” (Christopher Tuckett), “Letters in the New Testament”
(Victor Furnish), “The New Testament Apocrypha” (Robert Van Voorst), and “The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament” (Daniel Harlow). These essays discuss
current critical issues with depth and clarity that will be appreciated by both
novice and seasoned scholar alike. For example, readers are introduced to the
scholarship of W. F. Albright and G. von Rad, the impact of the Qumran discoveries,
the Pentateuchal documents J, E, D, and P, a wide array of ancient Near Eastern,
Roman, and Greek literature, as well as narrative and rhetorical reading strate-
gies employed by New Testament scholars.
Literary sensitivity to texts is a methodology that runs throughout each
scholar’s analysis of their respective book(s). For example, in the discussion on the
Flood it is noted that the phrase “God remembered Noah” (Gen. 8:1) is situated in
the middle of eight references to time, thus highlighting God’s act of grace in the life
of Noah. Another reference to this technique called “palistrophe” occurs in the
discourse on Genesis 18:1-19:38 where Sodom’s destruction is foretold (Gen. 19:12-
13). “But it is not just the structure of these chapters that recalls the flood story;
their topic is similar too. Both are tales of universal judgment from which only one
man and his family survive” (52). J. Martin Scott’s commentary on John is likewise
sensitive to what he terms “intertextual echoes” that alert the reader to a variety
of subtle connections. He then notes that many of these echoes are crucial for
understanding the Christological proclamation of the Gospel. Finally, Willem
Prinsloo’s commentary on the Psalter not only includes substantial comments on
most of the psalms, but he does so by employing literary strategies that engage
each psalm in light of the current research that holds there is a purposeful place-
ment and arrangement of many psalms.
Many commentaries of this kind are written in an overly simplistic manner,
neither wrestling with the complexities of many texts, nor penetrating very far into
the profundity of others, nor showing awareness of the diversity of possible inter-
pretations. In this light, the EBC stands as a virtual Goliath among midgets. The
succinct analysis of Biblical literature will be helpful to scholars, students, pas-
tors, and general readers alike. And since many of these people do not own a
commentary on every book of the Bible (much less the Apocrypha), the ECB is a
must “one stop” guide.
Reed Lessing
FEAR, ANOMALY, AND UNCERTAINTY IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK. ATLA

Monograph Series, No. 47. By Douglas W. Geyer. Lanham, MD and London:
The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2002. 340 pages. Cloth. $58.00.
Geyer seeks to relate Jesus’ “utter abjection through state-sanctioned violent

death” (2) to healings and miracles performed earlier. The stories in Mark 4:35-
6:56 are treated as presenting a “cycle of uncertainty” that supposedly leaves one
92
with “perplexing uncertainty and fear” on purpose, as “anomalously frightful” events
are reported (19). “[R]edaction analysis” is used to “correlate blessing with vio-
lence, safety with terror, and certainty with uncertainty,” with an invitation “to feel
alien” (4-6). He contends that Mark’s readers are supposed to be left puzzled, in
awe, and bewildered by the strange events in the cycle, apparently as a way to draw
attention to Jesus as a very different type of person (65).
Geyer’s study probes every possible nook and cranny in the ancient literature
to find parallel situations that are anomalous and leave one frightened. He con-
sults Hebrew Scriptures, ancient Near Eastern literature, and rabbinic literature
for any story that reminds one of those found in the selected Markan cycle. But
most of the effort is expended on parallels in Greek and Latin literature. Geyer
proposes reasons why stories are told elsewhere. For example, he cites Gerd
Theissen’s analysis of thirty-three motifs typically found in miracle stories to
explain why epiphany stories are told (31). “I seek to discover possible ways to read
texts like Mark, texts that not only report the anomalous frightful but intend to
stir up that very response in readers” (41). Almost half of the book provides de-
tailed background on the many topics discussed in the form of footnotes and ap-
pendices. It has been, quite frankly, an exhausting “read,” though stimulating in
terms of the many tangents that one might pursue when noting events that are
similar to Biblical narratives.
Major stories in the Mark 4:35—6:56 cycle include Jesus stilling the danger-
ous storm, the demoniac legion, the women with a uterine affliction and death of a
maiden, being without honor in his own homeland and traveling among the homes
of others, Herod Antipas and John the Baptist with the fear of retaliation due to
violent death, the temporary largesse in the desert, and Jesus walking on the
ocean (!) and appearing to be a ghost. The story of Jesus’ being without honor in his
own homeland and traveling to the homes of others is interrupted by the story of
John, which is really not about Jesus at all but sends shock waves about what
happens to the forerunner. An important part of this cycle is thus not really like the
material before and after it.
A few observations from one chapter can give a sense of Geyer’s methodology.
The healing of the woman with a hemorrhage and raising the daughter starts with
a discussion of the many parallels in the stories:
both are called daughter, both are healed, both the woman and Jairus
come to Jesus when he is in a crowd, faith is a condition for healing, Jesus’
touch is efficacious, both the father and woman fall before Jesus, Jesus
speaks a command to both women, the disciples witness both, and many
participles link the two narratives (161).
He cites J. D. M. Derrett, who sees the two daughters as a collective for the
“Daughters of Jerusalem,” even though he is not sure whether such a “rabbinic”
approach is valid. The woman’s twelve-year flow of blood is seen as a scourge, a
pollution, an assault. He then suggests that the bleeding is emblematic of a “wider
sensibility about women and the roles they play in ancient society” (162). The
“anomalous frightful” is seen when the two women are taken together to see unfor-
tunate outcomes in role expectations, that of disease or early death. A link is cited
with Jephthah’s daughter and her untimely death. Geyer includes many other
references in ancient literature to untimely deaths, horrible assaults, lamenta-
tions, ways to escape defilement, and connections with the dangerous Hekate (who

appears under various names), and much more. But he goes on to say, “It is not said
in Mark that any of these beliefs or fears are or are not held by Jairus or anyone
else” (169). He is surprised that Jesus, unlike other wonder workers, just goes on
his way with no further ado. Such behavior is to lead to strange reactions, leaving
one feeling “extremely awkward and uncanny” (172). Many other stories are de-
scribed throughout the book, but the connection to the specifics of this narrative
are left very loose or rejected in the end.
I am left in awe at the research that went into this study. It would seem that
most every stone is turned over in ancient literature to get at aspects of strange
events. Every possible connection is sought. Hundreds of terms are cited to seek
specific verbal connections. But phrases such as the “anomalous frightful” are
repeated so frequently that it seems Geyer tries to force the texts into a mold that
does not fit. Mark is certainly puzzling at times. But I am not convinced that Mark
tells these stories to show that people were left frightened and bewildered in
Jesus’ presence and that such was Mark’s intended purpose. I do not believe we can
take a variety of reactions elsewhere in literature to impose meaning on these
texts. Jesus is showing victory over sickness and disease and is showing Himself to
be in charge, not leaving people puzzled on purpose.
Thomas H. Trapp
St. Paul, MN
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS CHAPTERS 1-15: The New International Commen-

tary on the Old Testament. By Bruce K. Waltke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004. 729 Pages. Cloth. $50.00.
THE BOOK OF PROVERBS CHAPTERS 15-31: The New International Commen-

tary on the Old Testament. By Bruce K. Waltke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005. 589 pages. Cloth. $50.00.
Professor emeritus at Regent College (Vancouver, BC), Bruce Waltke has been
a widely respected Evangelical scholar of the Old Testament, best known perhaps
for his lifelong study of the language of the Old Testament, particularly in his
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax and his Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (editor). Other projects he may have in hand notwithstanding, the study
of Proverbs here reviewed certainly represents a capstone of that productive devo-
tion to both language and theology of the Old Testament. The fact that this capstone
focuses on a wisdom writing reflects (intentionally or not) a recovery of the legiti-
macy of wisdom after a former era of “Biblical theology” focused rather on God’s
mighty deeds in history—which was itself a recovery, given its own historical con-
text.
Where commentaries on Proverbs in other series tend to be unexceptional in
terms of length and sometimes even sparse, this is a major project. The two vol-
umes reviewed here total upwards of 1,300 pages. Thorough, therefore, and me-
ticulous are understatements to describe Waltke’s work. His detailed knowledge
of the languages and literature of the wider Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context is
applied to every verse (and most words). Likewise, his conversation with Biblical
scholars of a wide range of eras, languages, and theological backgrounds is remark-
able. One is not surprised, therefore, that, on average, one quarter of each of those
1,300 pages is given over to footnoted references and excurses.
94
In terms of structure, Waltke follows the pattern of the NICOT series. There is
an initial section devoted to introductory issues (texts and versions, structure of
the book, overview of ANE context, authorship, forms, theology, bibliography); at
170 pages, this is already book-length. Each pericope begins with Waltke’s own
translation, ample textual comments (relegated to footnotes), an introductory pre-
sentation of form and structure of the pericope, detailed comment on each verse
(and word). Theological reflection and application are scattered throughout the
comments, though there is usually a summary paragraph or two for each pericope.
Among issues Waltke raises in his introductory section, several seem particu-
larly noteworthy, and in some cases confusing. One confusing matter concerns au-
thorship, admittedly a strange word to apply to a book that acknowledges several
hands. On the one hand, Waltke affirms not only that “Solomon composed and
compiled Proverbs 1-24 (Vol. I, 34),” but also that he is the “creator of 10:1-22:16”
(I, 32). This is taken further to deny “that he received his wisdom by tradition” (I,
88). On the other hand, when speaking of ANE context, Waltke says that “Proverbs
shows a heavy dependence on Egyptian instructions” (I, 106), and he suggests that
the superscription at 22:17 introduces “a distinct anthology of wisdom sayings”
(II, 217). Independent of the matter of ANE overlap, this reviewer finds it strange
not to recognize the inherently folk character of proverbs. If, in other words, what
we have in Proverbs are (in part) observations about life that rise from the well-
springs of a (every) people’s culture, one wonders how appropriate the category
“creator” is. As with the traditions collected in the composition of the Gospels,
disparate origins of building blocks do not negate or even address how the Spirit
breathes them into inspired Word.
Another critical matter, more pertinent for the first volume than the second,
concerns the identity of personified Wisdom. Waltke reviews a long history of pro-
posals, ranging from the church fathers, especially the Christological debates cen-
tered on Arius and Athanasius, to feminist theologies. His conclusion is that
“Woman Wisdom is a personification of the father’s revealed wisdom as taught in
the book of Proverbs” (54), more specifically “Solomon’s inspired wisdom” (106).
This “unencumbered” view of Wisdom is consistent with his “unencumbered” view
of the “valiant wife” in 31:10-21 as a typical, though model wise person rather than
a symbolical recasting of Woman Wisdom, thus providing an inclusio for the book.
It should be noted also that Waltke departs from many other conservative ex-
egetes by downplaying a Christological interpretation of the Wisdom figure. Waltke
feels that not only does such an interpretation gloss over varieties of imagery and
emphasis, but it minimizes the New Testament emphasis on the overriding supe-
riority of the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Given the importance of the Wisdom figure, one pericope by which to judge the
competence and insight of a Proverbs commentary is the Wisdom poem in 8:22-31.
Difficulties abound, triggered by certain key words that defy clear understanding:
hnq, tyviare, !Ama
!Ama. Though some may disagree with details of Waltke’s comments and/
or with his conclusions about the Wisdom figure, they will be helped by his thor-
ough analysis of issues and options in this pivotal text. Just for teasers, Waltke
concludes that hnq is best understood as “bring forth,” tyviare in chronological rather
than qualitative terms, and !Am !AmaaI as “constantly” (from the verb !ma
!ma, rather than
more commonly proposed options “craftsman” or “child”).
Clearly Waltke’s strength and legacy in this commentary is his focus on vo-
cabulary and semantics. His distinguishing what may seem tediously overlapping
words in 1:2-6 illustrates his attention to detail. That same quality also gives a

somewhat ponderous character to the exhaustive nature of Waltke’s work. For one
thing, the anthological nature of the proverbs means inevitable repetition. For
another, those footnotes! Still another, Waltke is meticulous in discussing virtu-
ally every word and every grammatical and literary construction, with full refer-
ence to (transliterated) Hebrew and cognate languages. While that may seem
cumbersome or even inaccessible to some, that is also a treasure to those whose
exegetical training prepares them for these issues.
As exhaustive as Waltke’s commentary is, this reviewer did not find him as
theologically articulate or reflective as other recent commentaries by Murphy
(WORD) or Clifford (OTL). That, however, simply illustrates the reality that no one
commentary on any book can touch all bases. Biblical comment is still a communal
task. Happily, Waltke does a monumental job, along with Murphy, Clifford, and
others, in resurrecting the Book of Proverbs and wisdom generally to its rightful
place in the exegetical and theological heritage of the church, even if its place in the
liturgical tradition is still marginal. Given the decline of social morality, even
within Christian circles, wisdom is an underutilized gift from God.
(With these volumes, NICOT commentaries on about two-thirds of the Old
Testament books have already appeared, which represents impressive and steady
progress by this generally conservative and quite helpful series).
Henry Rowold
LUTHER ON WOMEN: A Sourcebook. By Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E.

Wiesner-Hanks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 246 pages.
Paper. $20.99.
The views of Martin Luther have influenced Christian perceptions on many

issues for centuries, particularly as he articulated those perspectives from the
Biblical texts in his lectures and commentaries. Historians in recent years have
explored many areas of Luther’s life, yet no one has prepared a comprehensive
study of Luther’s views of women. Drs. Karant-Nunn (University of Arizona) and
Wiesner-Hanks (University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee) collaborated for over eight
years to produce not only a commendable resource but also a highly useful study.
This book addresses the scholarly need in the area of women’s studies and, in
addition, provides several insights into Luther himself—as a Biblical theologian,
a Gospel-motivated reformer, and an early modern male.
In ten well-developed chapters, Karant-Nunn and Wiesner-Hanks present
Luther’s views clearly and methodically, exploring and exemplifying, through care-
fully selected excerpts of Luther’s writing, his numerous statements on the role
and activity of women. Beginning with a helpful “Introduction,” the authors articu-
late their approach—the selection process, the translation usage, and ultimately
the arrangement (topical, rather than chronologically or by writing genre). Chapter
two, “Eve and the Nature of Women,” presents Luther’s understanding of the origi-
nal equality which was lost after the fall, along with over a dozen comments from
his Table Talks about the consequences of sin. The next chapter, simply titled,
“Mary,” elucidates Luther’s honor and respect for the mother of God, particularly
her faith (49), while avoiding the prevalent papal abuses of his age. “Biblical
Women, Other Than Eve and Mary” describes the content of chapter four with
quotations by Luther about Judith, Esther, Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel,
Dinah, Mary Magdalene, Philip’s prophetess daughters, to mention several.
96
Many of Luther’s ideas reflect his medieval and early modern context, yet they
are balanced by his reading of the Biblical sources. “Sexuality” (chap. 6) provides
several interesting quotations from Luther, particularly on the necessity of mar-
riage to avoid sexual misuse—whether through fornication, adultery, whore mon-
gering, or same-sex relations, which he called “Italian marriage” (167). Chapter 7
on “Childbirth” illustrates Luther’s medieval “scientific” understandings, which
are almost humorous to the modern reader, yet which simultaneously elevate moth-
erhood to a high vocation. Chapter 9, “Luther and Other Contemporary Women,”
allows us to see the mutual respect Luther held for various women with whom he
corresponded, including his mother. “Witchcraft and Magic,” the final chapter, is
probably the most disappointing in the prefatory remarks; although Luther’s own
views are strikingly superstitious, they reflect his concern for clear Gospel procla-
mation (237).
Of special interest to parish pastors are Luther’s comments on “Marriage and
the family” (chap. 5), by far the longest chapter, and chapter 8, “Katharina von
Bora, Luther’s Wife.” Luther’s emphasis upon marriage and family life is in marked
contrast to the Roman church’s elevation of celibacy, with its concomitant abuses.
The love between a husband and wife is modeled by mutual respect and care. At
one point Luther states, “This gift [of marriage] is next to an understanding of the
gospel” in importance (126). Luther’s letters sent to Katharina, along with his
Table Talk comments, serve as the major sources of pertinent information avail-
able regarding Luther’s dear and beloved wife. They are worthy of several readings.
The compilers have maintained a scholarly and objective perspective through-
out this book, devoid of any radical feminist bias (which they are not). When Luther
spoke a hard word from a contemporary twenty-first-century perspective, based
upon Scripture, his words were heeded and noted by the compilers. For example,
while Luther rejected women preachers, he did highlight Biblical examples of women
preaching in dire times or unique situations (58). The women at the tomb, accord-
ing to Luther, were the first humans to preach the resurrection (82), yet even that
was because of male weakness.
Historians will appreciate the approach taken by the editors, particularly in
their attempt to provide the medieval or early modern context for Luther’s quota-
tions. Each of the chapters begins with a two- to five-page overview, placing the
topic in its historical setting, often providing additional guidance (through foot-
notes) to more in-depth background material. Recognizing the sometimes contra-
dictory statements made by Luther, the historical situations can be ascertained
fairly easily by citations of sources.
Younger scholars (female and male) will particularly benefit from this valu-
able sourcebook. Not only does this work provide easy access to many Luther
quotations, often in well-executed original translations, but it also provides imme-
diate direction for further research. Helpful also are the notes indicating the sources
of the quotations in Luther’s Works (American Edition) or for the translations from
the Weimar Ausgabe. A three-plus page bibliography of related books and articles
relating to Luther’s views, along with a five-page index, makes this work a wealth
of accessible information.
Merry Weisner-Hanks and Susan Karent-Nunn are to be commended for their
evenhanded selection and translation of Luther’s ideas on women. This is more
than a careful and objective research report, but a work of exemplary research and
scholarly rhetoric. I highly commend seminarians, deaconesses, and pastors to

pick up this book and enjoy a conversation about women with “the good doctor,
Martin Luther.”
Timothy Maschke
Mequon, WI
SHOW ME GOD: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us about God. By Fred
Heeren. Olanthe: Day Star Publications, 2004. 404 pages. Cloth. $24.95.
The evidence for what has been named “Intelligent Design” in nature has
received increasing attention during the last decade. Recent scientific research,
especially in micro-biology and biochemistry has increasingly demonstrated that
life forms are far too complex for their existence to be reasonably explained by
Darwin’s theory of chance and natural selection. As Michael Behe put it in his 1996
volume Darwin’s Black Box, “The simplicity that was once expected to be the foun-
dation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead systems of horrendous, irreduc-
ible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by
an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to
thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws” (252).
This increasing realization of the importance of Intelligent Design has sparked
an increase in the number and strength of the calls throughout the country for
information about Intelligent Design to be included in the curriculum of public
school science classes. This has resulted in absolute panic among those committed
to naturalism and its product, the theory of evolution. Science publications are
bound by the unspoken, unwritten, but absolute rule that one must always rule out
the supernatural. And Intelligent Design violates that rule.
Now Fred Heeren’s revised and expanded book on the structure of the universe
comes upon the scene to further advance the cause of Intelligent Design. Heeren is
a prominent science journalist who spent seven years in research for his book. He
states that he interviewed Nobel prize winners in astronomy and astrophysics,
NASA team leaders, and other scientists. Those he interviewed are quoted in
detail. His book, Show Me God, describes what scientists who have explored the
outer reaches of the universe have found. Heeren reports that in space there is also
clear evidence of Intelligent Design. He writes “The more we discover about how
the universe works, the more we understand that our universe’s laws are set within
very narrow, very critical parameters…. Even unbelieving scientists have come to
agree with the Bible’s assertion that our universe has been very precisely prepared
for us as they routinely tell us that the universe’s conditions were very carefully
‘chosen,’ ‘adjusted,’ ‘fine-tuned,’ or as physicist Freeman Dyson says, that the uni-
verse ‘in some sense must have known we were coming’” (199).
Heeren lists many examples of this fine tuning. One is that the ratio of the
mass of a proton to the mass of an electron is 1,836 to 1. This number does not
seem particularly important until the physicists and chemists tell us that if the
ratio were even a little bit different, then the molecules that make up all matter
would not form, and there would be no chemistry, no life, and no human beings
(208). Similarly, if the rate of expansion of the universe after the Big Bang had been
smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe
would have recollapsed before it reached its present state (213).
The scientists Heeren interviewed have some interesting observations. For
instance, George Smoot in discussing the “ripples” he discovered in cosmic micro-
98
wave radiation referred to his findings as evidence of a “finely tuned creation
event.” He called the ripples in radiation “The fingerprints from the Maker” (394).
Heeren’s book provides an abundance of examples of what the Scriptures mean
when they speak of the natural knowledge of God. For example, Psalm 19:1: “The
heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Also,
Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—His
eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from
what has been made.” Indeed, Heeren in the latter part of the book includes an
interesting discussion of the linkage between the findings of science and Biblical
statements. He also includes a brief reference to the warping of space time and
time dilation. Another feature is a chapter devoted to a listing and description of
“Fifty Believers Who Led the Way in Science.”
Heeren closes with a statement on the importance of faith and the acceptance
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who “became one of us and died in our place.” He
follows with a quotation from Isaiah 53:5-6 (396-397).
Show Me God presents the scientific findings in simple terms. It is well docu-
mented and worth reading by anyone interested in learning more about Intelligent
Design.
Paul A. Zimmerman
Traverse City, MI
THE GOD YOU HAVE: Politics and the First Commandment. By Patrick D. Miller.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. 84 pages. Paper. $6.00.
Patrick D. Miller, Professor of Old Testament theology at Princeton Theologi-

cal Seminary, has written a brief but incisive book that deals with the much de-
bated subject of the use of the Ten Commandments in modern politics.
Miller deals particularly with the First Commandment. He starts off with a
quote from Karl Barth, the renowned Swiss theologian, who called the First Com-
mandment an “Axiom of Theology,” by which he meant that the First Command-
ment is the “starting point for all further inferences and arguments in both theol-
ogy and politics.” Though Miller is well aware of the fact that Barth wrote just as
Hitler was coming to power, Miller believes that Barth’s insight about the rel-
evance of the First Commandment is still valid.
The First Commandment was originally given to ancient Israel who lived in a
polytheistic environment, that is, most Israelites worshipped many gods at that
time, and there were few, if any, atheists. Nevertheless, because many people were
indifferent to God and other gods, there were many “pragmatic atheists.” There-
fore, Miller states that the real question is not if people believe in God or one god,
but “What do you do with the god you have?”
The First Commandment assumes that “before you have God, God has you.”
This can be inferred from Exodus 20 where, before the First Commandment was
given to Israel, He gave them a prologue to the Commandments where He re-
minded them of how He had brought them out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.
All the Commandments are addressed to “you,” that is, not just those Israelites
who heard them spoken at Sinai, but their descendants and all those who accept
the basic principles of the covenant made by God with ancient Israel. The prologue
to the Commandments and the second table of the Commandments (which speaks
about the love of neighbor) frame the First Commandment and remind us that

property and wealth, which come from God, can become another god that one is at
risk of trusting instead of the true God.
The First Commandment requires “obedience” to the one God; the Fifth (Fourth
in Lutheran enumeration) requires “loyalty” to one’s parents and, by implication,
one’s government. God is to be feared and worshipped and governmental authori-
ties are to be treated with honor. The Christian claim that “Jesus is Lord…in the
light of the resurrection,” corresponds to the First Commandment and frees us
from all restraints against the critique of less powers in this world. “Discipleship
and obedience are rendered to the Lord your God. Various loyalties, including loy-
alty to one’s land and country compete for our sincere response. Such loyalties are
real…and they matter. But they are penultimate. You can have only one God and
Lord” (44).
Miller goes on to discuss “positive” meanings of the First Commandment.
Regarding the question, “What do you do with the God you have?,” Miller says there
are at least four responses, namely: trust, reverence, conscience, and praise. He
points to Psalm 62 as a particularly apt description of trust in the Lord, and
Deuteronomy 13:4 explicates reverence for God. For the description of “conscience,”
Miller points to the Westminster Confession of Faith that explains that there is no
contradiction between “the power which God ordained” (that is, political power)
and “the liberty which Christ has purchased.” Therefore, Christian freedom is not
to be regarded as license for civil disobedience. Finally, Miller cites Ephesians
1:11-12 to show that the “end” of the First Commandment is the praise of God.
In his final chapter, Miller makes explicit what he has merely suggested up to
this point, namely, that the First Commandment is inextricably connected to the
entire first table of the Decalogue. He summarizes this way: The First Command-
ment is instruction to take the Lord your God with ultimate seriousness; the Sec-
ond (which Lutherans consider part of the First) is about not taking anything else
too seriously; the Third (Lutheran Second Commandment) is instruction not to
take the Lord your God too lightly; and the Fourth (Lutheran Third Command-
ment) is there to help us take God seriously and ourselves lightly. Miller agrees
with the rabbinical view that the Sabbath provides a glimpse of the world to come.
Miller ends by saying that “there are no principles here, only a divine com-
mand and a conversation about the axiomatic character and how it addresses the
question, ‘What do you do with the God you have?’” He then directs the reader to
follow this discussion through the “stories” of the Old Testament.
All in all, Miller has written a very worthwhile and penetrating book in which
he carefully follows his thesis through from beginning to end.
Merlin Rehm
Scarsdale, NY
JEREMIAH. By Louis Stulman. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. xxii + 400 pages.

Paper. $39.00.
Many commentaries on the book of Jeremiah have been published since Rob-
ert P. Carroll’s groundbreaking volume in the Old Testament Library series in
1986. Several of them have been historically oriented, while others go in the direc-
tion of a more theological orientation, and thus an orientation toward literary
studies as well. This very fine commentary belongs to the latter group. Louis
Stulman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Findlay, Ohio, pre-
100
sents in his one-volume commentary an up-to-date critical and theological reading
of the book of Jeremiah, based on the understanding of the composition of Jeremiah,
which he presented in his 1998 monograph, Order amid Chaos: Jeremiah as a
Symbolic Tapestry (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Each volume in this series begins with an introduction that considers the book
as a whole, its theological themes, structure, genre, historical background, and
ethical significance. The commentary proper then analyzes textual units by means
of their literary, exegetical, and theological thrusts. Noticeably absent are any
sustained discussions about any pericope’s original historical setting.
In the first commentary on Jeremiah to give the prose sections such a promi-
nent interpretive role, Stulman’s thesis is as follows: (1) the book of Jeremiah
reflects a meaningful literary and theological message, that is to say, “Judah’s
social world is as fragmented as the text that presents it” (115), (2) there are
textual clues that assist in order to navigate through the apparent hodgepodge
(key chapters are 25, 26, 36, and 45), (3) the book presents a literary reenactment
of the death of one world (Jer. 1-25) in order to prepare for the resurrection of
another (Jer. 26-52). In making this point Stulman, like Walther Brueggemann (A
Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998]),
bases his understanding of the composition of the book upon Yahweh’s action of
plucking up and breaking down as well as also building and planting (Jer 1:10). All
this is to say that Jeremiah is an artistic tapestry held together by prose seams.
From the outset, Stulman introduces ideas from disaster studies which are
gaining more prominence in Old Testament studies. Accordingly, the aim of
Jeremiah, according to Stulman, is less the explanation of the catastrophe or a
theodicy; rather, the book is intended to heal the wounds of battered Judah through
identification with its prophetic main character.
Stulman sees the broken marriage metaphor of Jeremiah 2:1-4:4 as the inter-
pretive lens through which to view the rest of the book. The presentation of Yahweh
as generous but scorned husband generates a rich tapestry. The subsequent inter-
action between Yahweh and Israel causes Yahweh enormous pain and heartache.
Yahweh’s suffering, in turn, is reflected in the life of Jeremiah. Like Terrance
Fretheim’s commentary on Jeremiah (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), Stulman
accents the interpenetration between Yahweh’s grief and that of Jeremiah’s. More
often than not, “in unison, God and Jeremiah join the requiem for the fallen city”
(144).
Comments on Jeremiah 6:16-21 are representative of the commentary.
Jeremiah alerts the community to the futility of their worship. Their attempts to
circumvent the way of justice and righteousness with liturgical rites, no matter
how extravagant and compelling they are, are doomed to fail; they cannot mas-
querade for true obedience to Yahweh’s Torah. In the spirit of Samuel who declared
to Saul, “obedience is better than sacrifice, the harkening of God to the fat of rams”
(1 Sam. 15:22), Jeremiah declares that religious observances cannot substitute for
moral integrity (cf. Ps. 15; Micah 6:6-8). Worship apart from a love toward neighbor
deadens people to the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faith (cf. Matt.
23:23) and creates an illusion of certainty.
Throughout the book, Stulman keeps his eyes firmly on intertextuality within
the book of Jeremiah. For example, in his comments on chapter 25, he states that
it plays a vital role in the architecture of Jeremiah. The divine plan of “plucking up
and pulling down, destroying and overthrowing” summarizes this pivotal chapter.
In addition to thematic connections with Jeremiah’s call, there are also lexical

links, such as the term for “word(s),” “hand,” “send,” and “north.” Jeremiah 1 and
25 serve as “bookends” for the first half of the book.
In Stulman’s work, we find neither an ideological-critical attitude nor a his-
toricist or deconstructivist distance to the text, but rather an empathetic reading
of a book of utter theological importance.
Reed Lessing
THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE. By David L. Petersen. Louisville: Westminster/

John Knox, 2002. 260 pages. Paper. $29.95.
Petersen is one of the most thoughtful and well-known commentators on Israel’s

prophetic corpus. He combines a keen interpretive perspective within the most
current scholarly research. In the first chapter, Petersen establishes working defi-
nitions for two problematic terms: “prophet” and “prophetic literature.” Ensuing
chapters treat the four major Biblical books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the
Book of the Twelve. Primary attention for each book is given to (1) setting the
historical and social context of the prophet and the book, (2) exploring the structure
and characteristic literary features present in the book, and (3) identifying and
discussing theological issues that are of special significance in the book. The chap-
ter devoted to the Book of the Twelve offers a capsule analysis of the individual
Biblical books that make up this larger mosaic. Petersen’s final chapter attends to
two different tasks: discussing prophetic literature that lies outside of the bound-
aries of Old Testament prophetic books (e.g., the oracles of Balaam, the narratives
about Elisha) and analyzing various traditions about prophets. At the end of each
chapter the author offers helpful bibliographies.
Throughout the book Petersen returns again and again to some of the major
characteristics of prophetic literature. One of his favorite themes is that prophets
“…were truly boundary figures, standing between the world of the sacred and
secular” (7). They represent people before Yahweh (Amos 7:2) as well as Yahweh to
people (Amos 5:4). Prophets act with Yahweh’s power within the mundane world
(e.g., Elisha) or they envision the cosmic world (Amos 7:4; Zech. 1:7-17). They par-
ticipate in the divine council (Is. 6; 1 Kings 22) as well as analyze the plans of
humans (Micah 3).
Since much of the prophetic literature is composed in poetry, Petersen offers a
helpful section on Hebrew parallelism; i.e., the presence of several poetic lines of a
roughly comparable length that stand in a semantic relationship. Because Hebrew
poetry in prophetic books is often composed using parallel lines, Petersen analyzes
a typical set of lines from the book of Nahum:
The chariots race madly through the streets,

They rush to and fro through the squares (Nah. 2:4).
Earlier scholars identified these lines as examples of synonymous parallel-

ism, emphasizing the essential similarity of the action described by Nahum. Chari-
ots in a city is the subject of both lines. Yet, the lines do more than repeat each
other. Synonymous parallelism does not get at the heart of the relationship. James
Kugel expresses this poetic structure as follows: “A, what’s more, B” (The Idea of
Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1981], 40-45). In light of Kugel’s analysis, the first line in Nahum 2:4 describes the
102
speed of the chariots; whereas, the second highlights the back-and-forth movement
of the chariots in the city. “The horse-drawn chariots do not simply race through the
city once; they churn around, like a disemboweling sword” (25).
But make no mistake about it, Petersen’s analysis is not only for the novice.
The book is full of penetrating insights for pastors and scholars on all levels. He
notes, for example, that when moving from Isaiah 6-8 to other lengthy prose sec-
tion in the book, chapters 36-39, one is struck by some pronounced similarities.
The location described in 36:2—“the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the
Fuller’s Field”—is identical with that of 7:3. In both texts, Assyria is the decisive
imperial power. In both texts, Isaiah speaks directly with a king, first Ahaz then
Hezekiah. In both, Isaiah admonishes the king “not to fear” the military challenge
that is before him (7:4; 37:6). In both texts, there is overt reference to “signs” (7:11,
14; 37:30; 38:7, 22). These similarities highlight the different ways in which a
Judean king responds to Isaiah. Ahaz does not fear, but Hezekiah does. Much of
Isaiah 6-8 and 36-39 are therefore structured around these two kings.
One more example, this time from Jeremiah, will demonstrate the insights
Petersen offers. Jeremiah never identifies “the enemy from the north” (cf. 1:13).
Petersen notes that the very ambiguity of this force from the north enhances its
terror. Some have suggested Jeremiah may have originally been referring to the
Scythians, a nation of horse-riding warriors from the area of the Caspian Sea who
made incursions in Syria-Palestine. More recently there has been a tendency sim-
ply to identify this enemy with the Babylonians, who did indeed destroy Judah.
This would be satisfactory, except that in Jeremiah 50:3, 41 Jeremiah refers to a
nation or people from the north who will destroy the Babylonians. In fact, 50:41-42,
an oracle against Babylon, is a virtual replica of an oracle spoken against Judah,
according to which they will be destroyed by the Babylonians. He concludes that we
should probably understand “the enemy from the north” as a potent symbol, ever
available to convey a new, or the latest, military threat in the ancient Near East.
One of Petersen’s beliefs is that, “Israelite prophetic literature seems to have
had an almost inherent capacity to elicit elucidation at a later time” (5). “This
ability of prophetic literature to elicit newer prophetic literature is one of its hall-
marks” (34). It is ironic that he takes this position in light of the fact that he offers
a study on the Mari prophetic texts that show no evidence of later additions!
While Petersen’s use of form criticism is very helpful in many instances, this
methodology’s tendency to read discontinuity in a book as seams that demonstrate
a different source is an enterprise fraught with perils, obstacles, and difficulties;
any results are partly, if not largely, informed guesswork. In the end, there is a
significant difference between having something tangible and trying to draw infer-
ences or argue cases on the basis of a reconstructed hypothetical original. What is
reconstructed is finally of the scholar’s making. It is precisely the nature of pro-
phetic discourse to make sudden shifts on all levels of language, including style
and imagery, and to juxtapose multiple, divergent, and even dissonant perspec-
tives in much the same way as in the use of poetic parallelism. Hence, it is an
anachronism to impose on prophetic texts the criteria applied to writings intended
to be scientific or didactic—clear and distinct ideas, logically ordered. Petersen
dogmatically embraces this view but offers no valid reason for it.
This aside, Petersen’s systematic and comprehensive introduction imparts a
pressing need for an easy-to-read treatment of prophetic literary issues, historical
events, social roles, and theological perspectives. I recommend the book, both to

those who are beginning to study this fascinating corpus, as well as to the more
seasoned expositor seeking a helpful review with outstanding insights.
Reed Lessing
REFORMING MARY: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of

the Sixteenth Century. By Beth Kreitzer. New York: Oxford University Press,
2004. 239 pages. Cloth. $55.00.
Martin Luther loved to ponder and praise the blessed virgin, Mary, who has
long been the object of study and speculation and spiritual emulation in the Catho-
lic Church. Not only did he comment on Mary’s song, The Magnificat, on several
occasions, but he preached about Mary numerous times throughout his lifetime.
Several prominent Lutheran preachers in the next decades followed Luther’s ex-
ample, although sometimes with differing results. An analysis of these sermons
serves as the focus of this constructive study by Dr. Beth Kreitzer, History Profes-
sor at Saint Vincent College, Latrobe, Pennsylvania.
According to Kreitzer’s doctoral study of Lutheran Marian sermons, there is a
“Lutheran Mary” that can be recognized. Noting that Jaroslav Pelikan’s Mary
Through the Centuries has his chapter on Mary in the time of the Reformation
entitled, “The Model of Faith,” Kreitzer finds confirmation of this view in the ser-
mons she studied. She adds in line with Eric Gritsch that “Luther’s views of Mary
are Lutheran theology in a microcosm: we see law and gospel, unmerited grace over
good works, the ‘hidden’ work of God, salvation through faith alone, the authority of
Scripture over tradition” (9). In her concluding chapter, Kreitzer shows that
“Lutheran Mary” is not the medieval “Queen of Heaven” but is “praised as a meek,
pious, chaste, and obedient girl…[and] must serve as a passive representative of
the faithful Christian” (25).
Sixteenth-century sermons as sources for scholarly research have seen in-
creasing popularity in the past few decades, and Kreitzer’s research is no excep-
tion. She set out a clear path for her work in reviewing over sixty years of Evangeli-
cal (Lutheran) preaching, including, most significantly, sermons by Martin Luther
himself. These printed sermons provide insights into what a wider audience re-
ceived as well as what was worthy of propagation in the years subsequent to the
Lutheran Reformation. The most significant shift noted by Kreitzer in the six
decades under study is the presentation of Mary as truly human and even being
sinful. Kreitzer says, “The sermons published after 1570 in particular contain
harsh comments about Mary, her weakness and her faults, and, occasionally, her
sin” (137). This latter view is certainly in contrast to the declaration by Pope John
Paul II on June 19, 1996 that Mary was sinless throughout her lifetime, which was
based upon Session 5 of the Council of Trent in 1546 “On Original Sin,” paragraph
5.
Chapters one through three deal with the most significant Marian festivals,
which Lutherans retained because of their Christological significance—Annuncia-
tion, Visitation, and Purification. Mary figures prominently in the sermons preached
on the Annunciation, particularly as an example of the faithful believer. In his
commentary on the Ave Maria, Luther “insists that grace comes from God through
Christ, and neither Mary nor any other person can dispense grace, which he thought
was implied by the words gratia plena” (31). This critique of the Ave Maria runs
through most of the subsequent Lutheran sermons, too, explaining that the angel’s
104
words are not a prayer, but a simple and proper greeting. A connection with Eve is
also made by several preachers, but the chief emphasis is upon Mary’s humble
faith, never upon her as an intercessor or mediatrix. More practical were the ser-
mons on the Purification in which Luther and later preachers stressed the impor-
tance of women having time at home to rest and recuperate after childbirth until
the Lutheran ceremony of churching was observed six weeks later. Mary becomes
the representative of the whole church when Simeon’s words are interpreted as the
church’s suffering in the world at Christ’s rejection.
Hearing Luther comment on the Magnificat as he discussed the visitation
account, we detect Mary’s complex role as an example of faith, an inspired witness,
and a model for women. Even Mary’s modest and chaste manner of travel was
recognized as exemplary, along with her good-neighborliness. “In Luther’s eyes, a
Christian life must include both religious virtues (faith, love, and humility) and
social propriety (zucht und erbarkeit)” (51). Kreitzer reports that two-thirds of the
later sermons also explicated moral lessons—directing the hearers to Mary’s faith
and humble service.
Kreitzer’s next two chapters deal with two non-festival texts in which Mary
plays a prominent role. The story of the twelve-year-old Jesus is not only a popular
story, but it provided significant opportunity to comment on issues related to fa-
milial life and responsibilities, the duty of parents and the obedience of children.
An emphasis upon Christian education is also found in many of the sermons,
including one by Philipp Melanchthon, who criticizes Mary for her negligence—
later, their fear at losing Jesus is described as a cross which she and Joseph had to
bear.
Especially engaging are the studies on the sermons dealing with the wedding
at Cana where not only are the usual comments on marriage evident, but more
emphasis is placed on the married life, particularly among clergy. Mary is depicted
as a wedding coordinator, yet her comments are put in less favorable light. Instead
of viewing her advice to the servants and her statement to Jesus as being almost
like prayers, her words demonstrate through Lutheran preaching that she had no
intercessory powers and Christ alone provides the help necessary.
Several sermons on minor Marian festivals serve as the subject of the final
chapter in this book. Sermons on Christmas (Luke 2) and Mary’s role during the
infancy narratives as Theotokos are addressed, although Mary played almost no
role in the flight to Egypt and Jesus’ circumcision. Sermons on Christ’s passion
note Mary at the cross, but in that position, she becomes an image of the church,
obedient to God’s will and suffering patiently. These sixteenth-century preachers
also pointed to family values and even stressed Christ’s fulfilling of the Fourth
Commandment from the latter narrative.
Holidays celebrating Mary’s conception, birth, and assumption, while remain-
ing popular in Roman Catholic piety, are rarely the subject of sermons among
Lutherans, perhaps following Luther’s lead. Yet there were a few messages which
refer to these occasions in the sixteenth century, usually in order to criticize their
non-scriptural basis and fanciful conclusions.
A ten-page appendix follows these chapters providing short informative bio-
graphic sketches of each of the forty Lutheran preachers. It would have been benefi-
cial to have included a brief biographic sketch of the Roman Catholic preacher,
Johann Geiler, too. Endnotes on her sources fill fifty-plus pages, in addition to a
thorough bibliography of primary and secondary sources and a fifteen-page index.
Reflecting the larger theological and historical context of her study, Kreitzer

has augmented her study of Lutheran sermons with several sermons by Johann
Geiler of Keisersberg (1478-1510). This popular Catholic preacher and near-con-
temporary of Luther provided Kreitzer with a medieval foil for later sermons and
an insight into the popular historical setting of the Reformer’s Marian ideas.
One criticism that can be voiced of this study is that Kreitzer does not provide
the broader historical context of these sermons, particularly the imminent and on-
going Council of Trent (1545-1563), which had a great effect upon the Lutheran
preachers as they proclaimed their message of justification by grace through faith
because of Christ and not by works at all. However, her Biblical and theological
emphases compensate for this oversight.
No Lutheran preacher should miss this historical and theological study of
sixteenth-century homiletic content as they ponder the implications of Mary’s role
in the Scriptures and early Lutheran piety and preaching. Kreitzer has provided an
edifying resource for Luther scholars, early modern historians, and especially for
parish pastors in their sermon preparation and theological conversation.
Timothy Maschke
Mequon, WI
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIANITY: VOLUME 4 (P-Sh). Edited by Erwin

Fahlbusch, Jan Milic Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas
Vischer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. 984 pages. Cloth. $100.00.
With this volume, four of the projected five volumes of this “scholarly cartogra-
phy” have appeared. Much of this project is a translation of a predecessor set,
EVANGELISCHES KIRCHENLEXICON: INTERNATIONALE THEOLOG-
ISCHE ENZYKLOPÄDIE which was completed less than a decade ago, though
entries applicable to the English-speaking and North American context have been
added. The scholarly rigor applied to wide-ranging topics make this a standard,
authoritative, and up-to-date resource as we move further into this new century.
Articles cover Biblical books and persons, historical events and persons (Porvoo
Declaration, Reformers), theological concepts (predestination, resurrection, rev-
elation, salvation), church bodies and traditions (Pentecostal, Reformed, Salva-
tion Army), world religions, social and ethical issues, regions and nations, and
more. Some entries are understandably brief, though not without interest (e.g., an
interesting presentation of the varieties of meaning of Protoevangelium). Other
entries are aided by unique contexts of understanding or significance, e.g., the
Porvoo Common Statement (including a comparison with the Leuenberg Agree-
ment), or an insightful discussion of Practical Theology from a continental perspec-
tive. There are also major entries on topics of broader or deeper interest, e.g.,
pastor/al (14 pages), Pentecostal/ism (14), philosophy and/of… (26), Reformation
(32), salvation (13), sex/ual/ity (16). Those seeking wider or deeper research are
helped both by numerous cross-references within the encyclopedia and by biblio-
graphical references appended to each entry.
In the preface, the editors characterize EC as reflective of the global and
ecumenical nature of Christianity, and indeed four editors, themselves give expres-
sion to those qualities. In its range of articles the EC certainly is true to that
mandate. Even individual articles are put together with that spirit in mind. The
twenty-four-page article on Reformation, for instance, has sections on pre-refor-
mation, theology, impact, and development throughout Europe (Germany, Switzer-
106
land, France, Netherlands, England, Scotland, Nordic Countries, Baltic Countries,
Eastern Europe, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia, Italy,
and Spain) and is followed by an eight-page entry on Reformers. Similarly, the
entry on Reformed and Presbyterian Churches covers not only history, theological
emphases, and confessions but also distinctive national/cultural expression wher-
ever this tradition has taken root throughout the world.
No encyclopedia will have everything, of course, and certainly not everything to
everyone’s liking. The number of contributors and the variety of theological back-
grounds and convictions make that inevitable. (Happily, among contributors are
names familiar to the LCMS family, including Robert Kolb, as well as James
Childs, David Lotz, and Robert Wilken.) The ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIAN-
ITY, however, is a monumental project, comprehensive, up-to-date, scholarly, glo-
bally aware, and cross-referenced. It provides significant comment across the ex-
panse of theology and provides invaluable direction via bibliography to further
study. Used with discretion, as all secondary resources must be, this is a resource
that will enrich the church for many years. Though the price tag may intimidate
and may likely confine the EC to libraries (institutional or professional—and
church?), it is a worthy investment for the serious theologian because it will be the
kind of resource that one will reach for first and often, both to explore new aspects
of theology and to review old ones.
Henry Rowold

Books Received
Bauckham, Richard. JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES: The Gospel as Eyewit-

ness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 504 pages. Cloth. $32.00.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. OPENING THE SEALED BOOK: Interpretations of the Book
of Isaiah in Late Antiquity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 312 pages. Paper.
$25.00.
Berding, Kenneth. WHAT ARE SPIRITUAL GIFTS?: Rethinking the Conventional
View. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006. 368 pages. Paper. $16.99.
Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. A WORKBOOK FOR INTERMEDIATE HEBREW: Gram-
mar, Exegesis, and Commentary on Jonah and Ruth. Grand Rapids: Kregel,
2006. 306 pages. Paper. $21.99.
Davids, Peter H. THE LETTERS OF 2 PETER AND JUDE. Pillar New Testament
Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 380 pages. Cloth. $34.00.
Follis, Bryan A. TRUTH WITH LOVE: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. Wheaton:
Crossway, 2006. 220 pages. Paper. $15.99.
Fuller, Russell T. and Kyounbwon Choi. INVITATION TO BIBLICAL HEBREW: A
Beginning Grammar. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006. 634 pages. Cloth. $49.99.
Gathercole, Simon J. THE PRE-EXISTENT SON: Recovering the Christologies of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 356 pages. Paper.
$32.00.
Gritsch, Eric W. THE WIT OF MARTIN LUTHER. Minneapolis: Augsburg For-
tress, 2006. 142 pages. Paper. $7.00.
Grudem, Wayne. EVANGELICAL FEMINISM: A New Path to Liberalism? Wheaton:
Crossway, 2006. 272 pages. Paper. $15.99.
Johnson, Marshall D. PSALMS THROUGH THE YEAR: Spiritual Exercises for
Every Day. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007. 394 pages. Paper. $14.99.
Juern, John. PATIENT PARENTING: Raising Your Kids in the Shadow of the Cross.
Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2006. 102 pages. Paper. $12.99.
Kysar, Robert and Joseph M. Webb. PREACHING TO POSTMODERNS: New Per-
spectives for Proclaiming the Message. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. 240 pages.
Paper. $19.95.
Lathrop, Gordon W. THE PASTOR: A Spirituality. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
2006. 142 pages. Cloth $20.00.
Lawrence, James. GROWING LEADERS: Cultivating Discipleship for Yourself and
Others. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. 276 pages. Paper. $16.95.
Limburg, James. ENCOUNTERING ECCLESIASTES: A Book for Our Time. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 155 pages. Paper. $14.00.
Meilaender, Gilbert. THE WAY THAT LEADS THERE: Augustinian Reflections on
the Christian Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 184 pages. Paper. $16.00.
Pless, John T. A SMALL CATECHISM ON HUMAN LIFE. St. Louis: LCMS World
Relief and Human Care, 2006. 107 pages. Cloth. $14.99 (Adult version) $9.99
(Youth version—sold in packs of 10 for $9.99).
Richards, W. Larry. READ NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN 30 DAYS [OR LESS].
Berrien Springs, MI: Breakthrough Books, 2006. 192 pages. Paper. $24.80.
Richter, Eldor W. (Rick). THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE—A COMPARISON.
QandBcom@wideopenwest.com, 2006 [Second Edition] Lakewood, CO: Church
Press www.churchpress.com. 143 pages. Paper. ($15.95 value) $9.95.
108

January 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONCORDIA JOURNAL

Volume 33 January 2007 Number 1

Theological Potpourri ...................................................................... 2

Dying to Live: God’s Judgment of Jonah, Jesus, and the Baptized

GRAMMARIAN’S CORNER ................................................................ 61

HOMILETICAL HELPS .................................................................... 63

BOOK REVIEWS ............................................................................... 81

BOOKS RECEIVED ......................................................................... 108

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 1

Thinking About the Church:

Richard John Neuhaus has written a thoughtful and engaging book

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 3

However, the church is not only an association of external ties and

Talk of “church” necessitates talk of “faith,” because faith is the orga-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 5

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 7

Dying to Live: God’s Judgment of Jonah,

Dr. Reed Lessing is Associate Professor of Old Testament Exegetical Theol-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 9

Yahweh’s Judgment of Jonah

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 11

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 13

Although being swallowed ([lb

Now the former order of things is reversed: what a moment ago

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 15

The Father’s Judgment of Jesus

“The sign of Jonah” is mentioned three times in the Gospels: twice in

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 17

If we remember that in Matthew and Luke the events of Jonah chap-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 19

When making reference to “the sign of Jonah,” Jesus indicates that He is

God’s Judgment of the Baptized

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 21

When the minister immerses the child in the water it signifies

For his life on earth is nothing other than death; as soon as a

Luther persisted in speaking of Baptism in this way until the end of

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 23

Luther not only affirms baptismal regeneration, but, as Trigg notes,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 25

A Note to the Reader: When we recite the apostolic creed, we usually

Dr. Randar Tasmuth is Adjunct Professor of New Testament Studies and

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 27

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, wrote his five-volume work, The Sayings

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 29

The occurrence of maqhtai, twice in a short passage emphasizes the impor-

The apostles, Andrew, Peter, etc.

The elders, Aristion, John (? and perhaps others)

Aristion, the Elder John (and perhaps others)

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 31

Dass bei Papias der “Presbyter Johannes,” dem er so viele

It is evident that Papias, who also had historical considerations in mind,

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 33

Other Questions with Regard to Papias

The importance of Papias for Hengel and Charlesworth is not limited

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 35

ausbildete, herrschte im kleinasiatischen Wirkungskreis des Papias offensichtlich die

Soon after Hengel’s book Die johanneische Frage, R. Bauckham pub-

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 37

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 39

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 41

The texts of Luther’s 1528 catechetical sermons are published in vol-

Rev. Aaron Moldenhauer is Associate Pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY 2007 43