Category: Old Lutheran Quotes

C. F. W. Walther on Women’s Rights, Infanticide, Godless Schools

September 5th, 2025

The following is found in Der Lutheraner vol 28 (1871) No. 5 (December 1) page 38.

Infanticide. The “Christian Messenger” of September 20 also speaks out about this terrible American sin. It writes: “It is utterly shocking how widespread infanticide is practiced in this country. Most of these female criminals want to appear so ‘respectable’ that they declare it a breach of ‘good manners’ when attention is drawn to these matters. Many of Jesus’ teachings they no longer wish to hear from the pulpit for this reason. Naturally, this is sheer hypocrisy. There is much talk in American circles about women’s rights; they would do better to study what women’s duties are. The horrific curse under which the American Republic suffers is not the ‘disenfranchisement’ of women by men, but their dehumanization by themselves. We know of a whole number who have fallen victim to their murderous trade. There are also certain women who pose as doctors, travel the country, and give lectures on matters intended only for women’s ears, in which they teach how to engage in refined debauchery within and outside of marriage without (as these shameful women say) falling into ‘misfortune.’ We know of cases where English churches were made available to them for this purpose. In this way, thousands of hearts are poisoned, and many families are made unhappy. The damnation of these child-murderers must be terrible.” We must add: Is it any wonder that such more-than-pagan atrocities flood the land in America when children are sent to schools where it is forbidden to teach them God’s holy Ten Commandments? If, instead of these godless schools, there were just as many and just as well-attended Christian congregational schools, America would surely not be so “given over” to a “perverse mind, to do what is not right” (Romans 1:26–28). As long as the church in America clings to the system of godless state schools, there is no hope for improvement, no help. These schools are the root of the tree of our corruption; the axe must be laid to them, or all other measures are in vain. W[alther].
Monica, a Model for Women

August 18th, 2025

The following quotation from Luther appears in Der Lutheraner, vol 42, p. 86.

Monica, a Model for Women.

One reads of Monica, the mother of Saint Augustine, who had a strange, peculiar husband who was also a pagan. What did she do? She conducted herself in such a way that he did her no harm. The other Christian women were greatly astonished by this and went to her, complaining about their husbands, saying that even though they were Christians, they could do nothing to please them and were scolded and beaten by them. They asked her how she managed, since her husband was not only a peculiar man but also a pagan, to remain unbeaten by him. The dear Monica answered them and said: I suspect you give your husbands cause for it. If you were submissive to them, did not argue back or answer every word, but patiently yielded to them and obeyed, or reconciled with kind words, you would likely remain unbeaten. For this is how I deal with him: when my husband scolds, I pray; when he is angry, I yield to him or give him kind words. In this way, I have not only calmed his anger but also brought him to the point where he was converted and became a Christian. Behold, this fine fruit came from the fact that the dear Monica was merciful toward her husband, did not condemn or judge him, etc. Thus, it can often happen, as St. Paul says, that an unbelieving spouse may be converted through the other, who is faithful. Luther, Erl. A. 13, 77.
“I live a gay lifestyle,” Says LCMS Rev. Billy Brath.

November 18th, 2024
For he who seeks that which he knows will provoke him to unchastity has already committed this sin before God. This is irrefutably evident from the clear sayings of Holy Scripture. For thus, first of all, the holy apostle Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, 6:18, writes, “Flee fornication.” He does not only say: do not commit fornication! Nor does he merely say: fight against fornication! but he says: “Flee” it! But why does he speak thus? Precisely to tell us not only not to commit this sin grossly, but also to avoid it everywhere, to keep away from it, to avoid every opportunity for it; in short, to flee it, flee it! So we are not to think: I will go here and there, where I shall certainly be provoked to unchastity; but I will do it with the intention of fighting against it. No, says the apostle, you should rather act in such a way that you do not need to fight against it at all because of your guilt. Rather, you should flee from it like a poisonous snake. No one enters into a fight with it without necessity.¹ One does not seek it out, but flees it. One takes up the fight against it only when one encounters it without one’s will. For then, of course, the rule is: either fight, or die! — Hence the godly Johann Gerhard also writes in his incomparable “Sacred Meditations”: “While the apostle held that all vices must be resisted, he calls against fornication not to a duel, but to flight, saying: ‘Flee fornication!’” — Hence also, on the other hand, the holy apostle Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy, cries out to him, who was then a young man, “Flee the lusts of youth!” (3:22.) So he says not only, Take no part in the lusts of youth; but, “Flee, flee the lusts of youth!” Do not come too near to them, but go far away from where you might be seduced, enticed, provoked to such lusts.

C.F.W. Walther, Second Lesson on Dance, delivered 10.19.1884 Immanuel Church, Saint Louis, Missouri

Allow me first, kind reader, to offer the lecture of concern itself here for you to view if you see so fit to do. Undoubtedly in these contested forms of public criticism one must field the immediate pleasantries – he quoted out of context!; did you even read, listen, ingest the whole media?; well certainly that’s not what he really meant! – and so in my winsomest efforts I shall make it known that I am trying to conceal no such context, nor skimp the whole, nor in the slightest misconstrue. If you must, watch, listen to LCMS Reverend Billy Brath’s “LGBTQ” Breakout Session from the 2019 Michigan District All Pastor’s Conference and then continue reading the truth of the scandal as I descry.

As you may have surmised by the title, the focus of this response will be centered upon Reverend Brath’s definitions of the concepts gay, queer, and cultural identity. Ultimately, it is his false division of sexual activity from its daily, cultural expression that shall be refuted on both counts, insofar as (1) they are not to be tolerated in their artificial separation nor (2) their actual, inseperable manifestation. While his false division appears to be a clever trick by which one makes an excuse for dining with tax collectors, sinners and sodomi-, err, I mean, just more sinners like you and me who just happen to talk, dress and act funny, as Reverend Brath would have us believe!-, in the end even this artificially contrived dichotomy fails under the true application of Scripture.

The straw-man first appears within the first twelve minutes of his lecture. Reverend Brath complains of other fellow pastors in the LCMS having their gaydars pinged by his dress, self comportment, et cetera, upon which opportunity he rhetorically flips the accusation of the interaction upon them: “so you mean, in our interaction that we have just had, you started thinking about who I want to have sex with? How stupid is that?”

The Biblical matter of fact is that it is indeed rather quite intuitive. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. The association between men who are effeminate and those who abuse themselves with mankind was indeed so intuitive for Saint Paul for him to have listed them side by side in the list of unrighteous. How stupid of Reverend Brath to not be concerned whatsoever with his perceived effeminacy!

This close association given by Saint Paul undoes the whole of Reverend Brath’s argument as he proceeds to make in his lecture. Effeminacy is part and parcel with self-abuse with mankind and the original Greek of verse 1Cor6:9 intricately ties the apostle’s writing back to that which he wrote to the saints in Rome, 1:27². Both verses deliberately use the Greek word for male, arsen: ἀρσενοκοῖται & ᾰ̓́ρσενες. While Paul had the word aner, andres meaning “man” available to him, he deliberately chose in both instances to emphasize the male, arsen, sex to stress the very corporeal offense being done. Indeed the Sainted Paul Kretzmann wrote in the second volume of his New Testament Popular Commentary as regards this section of Romans 1, “The heinousness of their transgression is marked by the words referring to the sex of the transgressors.”

Many in recent years have tried to defend the term μαλακοὶ, effeminate, as not referring to active homosexuals but merely people who trip gaydars in their mannerisms and dress. Whether or not one may abuse this term by appearing to successfully argue so is of no import here however. Even if we concede this effeminacy to be, as today’s parlance would have it, a type of gender expression separate from sexual activity itself (as Reverend Brath says, “queer theory- research it”), it still falls within the apostle’s list of condemnation, and that within immediate collocation.³ Moreover such effeminates of antiquity were, among others, actors of theatre, whose sort of behavior and company Saint Walther had this to say:

Now every kingdom has its peculiar customs. The customs of the world, therefore, are not to be followed by any Christian, even if it seems that he can do so without defiling himself. If he sees that the customs are really those of the wicked, ungodly world, he should not go along with them. This is the way the apostle wants it when he writes that those who want to be Christians should not conform to this world. Oh, beloved brothers and sisters in the Lord, how much, how much must be reformed among us, if we want to be reformed according to this word of the apostle! How much conformity with the world one notices when one enters into the families among us, and especially when one looks closely at our youth who are growing out of their parents! Our trial fits in very well with the Reformation feast we have just celebrated; for merely reforming ourselves in doctrine is not enough, it must also be followed by a holy life, or God will take away the pure doctrine from us again.

C.F.W. Walther, First Lesson on Theater, delivered 11.2.1884 Trinity Church, Saint Louis, Missouri

No, rather than fleeing sin, rather than reforming his life, Reverend Brath maintains he must continue to attend gay bars for the ministry. Which, by the way, as he misses no opportunity to whatabout: have you seen just how terrible straight clubs are in contrast? (25-26 minute mark for those following along in the video linked above) It is here that the great atheology of sin-leveling begins its parade out of Reverend Brath’s cursed maw: all sexuality is broken, we are told! Never mind that the very Confessions to which our esteemed Reverend has vowed fidelity explicitly rule that sodomy is even worse than fornication.⁴ No, we must be reminded of the hetero logs in our eyes when taking exception with the homo specks in that neighbor’s. How at home Reverend Brath must find himself in the LCACA Misery Synod.

The next atheological maneuver made is to deny regeneration by the invocation of the iustus et peccator. We are told that an impenitent heterosexual adulterer can be rightly excommunicated while a lesbian (one must now strain to understand if the term refers to an active homosexual or merely a performative one; yet as shown above it is a distinction without a difference!) cannot: for she does not know she is sinning as a fish does not know it swims in water. Rather than approaching this issue with a Scriptural standard by applying proof texts of how those without eyes to see nor ears to hear are to be dealt with, Reverend Brath makes a major concession: “the majority of gay folk in America are never going to be convinced that homosexuality is a sin.” (we’re at 35 minutes in, refill your popcorn buckets now if you haven’t already…) Better yet, he states that one of the reasons for this is Scriptural – not before coyly looking upward as if to soliloquize to God, saying “no offense, You wrote it perfectly…”. All of this simply denies regeneration, that by the claim that we are all simultaneously righteous and sinner, there is no need to get caught up in the sexual sin of homosexuals (whether performative or active) contra Johann Danhauer in his Theologia Conscientiariae:

regeneration is commanded.⁵ A different constitution of the kingdom requires different customs; but Christ’s kingdom is not of this world; therefore it does not permit the customs of the world.

But rather than have his eyes set on Christ’s kingdom, Reverend Brath conflates His with the world. This is nowhere clearer than when he plainly states that he works with nonprofit organizations that give material aid to gay people who come to the Orlando, Florida area to seek the extra-familial LGBTQ network. He claims he does this because he wants everyone in heaven, and that this desire motivates him to stick his head out and be the gay pastor in the Missouri Synod. (we’re at minutes 40-44 in case you were wondering) In Reverend Brath’s kingdom, a stiff-necked straight adulterer is barred from entry while a culturally oblivious gay is granted infinite patience and mercy; God’s Law is completely overturned for the Social Gospel of fundraising and grooming those lost souls who have ran away from their families and churches; “stop sleeping around” and “slow down on the drug use” (his words, 40 minutes) are the closest you will get to hearing any sort of enjoinder for the wellbeing of sinners.

Don’t get me wrong: those suffering under the spiritual malaise of the LGBTQ movement need to be ministered to. Christ died for their sins and they too can be saved. But don’t tell me my sin stinks worse than theirs when our Confessions clearly deny it and in fact state the opposite; don’t deny regeneration as the proof of necessary good works flowing from saving faith; don’t artificially divorce the active act of homosexuality with its mere outward cultural expression as a sleight of hand.
1. For the necessity of self defence in such circumstances, read Self Defence in Der Lutheraner ↩︎
2. For an in depth review of the particular topic of focus of Saint Paul’s Roman epistle in its first chapter, read On Sodomites Axioi Thanatou ↩︎
3. One must also note the strictly expressive nature of Saint Paul’s instruction on headcovering in 1 Corinthians. By appealing to nature and not sexual acts themselves when arguing that women should cover their heads, Saint Paul implicitly acknowledges there is no bifurcation between the common public and intimate private expressions of rightly ordered natures. Womanhood is therefore defined equally in being man’s veiled glory in both the public and private senses. Cognoverit lector. ↩︎
4. For the clear explication of Luther’s comments on the VI Commandment, read on Missouri’s departure from Luther’s clear teachings ↩︎
5. Emphasis mine ↩︎
“I want the destruction of Sodom by fire preached in the Church”: Luther on preaching the Law

November 3rd, 2024

In the doctrine of the antinomians there was this statement: “If somebody were an adulterer, provided only that he believed, he would have a gracious God.” But what kind of church will it be, I ask, in which so awful a statement is heard? A distinction is necessary, and it should be taught that adulterers or sinners are of two kinds: some who become aware of their adultery or sin to such an extent that they shudder with their whole heart and begin to repent earnestly, and not only feel sorry for what they have done but also sincerely desire and endeavor never again to commit anything like it. These are not smug in their sin; they are thoroughly frightened, and they dread God’s wrath. If they take hold of the Word of the Gospel and trust in the mercy of God for Christ’s sake, they are saved and have forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ.

Even though the others, whether adulterers or sinners, are unable to excuse their sin, they nevertheless feel no sorrow about it. On the contrary, they are glad that they have achieved their desire. They look for opportunities to commit sins and smugly indulge in them. Because these people do not have the Holy Spirit, they cannot believe; and he who preaches to such people about faith deceives them.

This sickness demands a different medicine, namely, that you say with Paul: “God will judge the adulterous” (Heb. 13:4); “They will not see the kingdom of God” (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10); and “Without chastity no one can please God” (Rom. 8:8). Hence they are defiled and under the wrath of God.

Such sledges are needed to crush these rocks. Abraham does not indulge in sins, but long before this he was truly humbled in spirit. Therefore the Lord comforts him, for He takes pleasure in a smoking flax. Therefore He tends it carefully, in order that it may burst into flames.

But the people of Sodom are like crags and very hard rocks. In their case brimstone, lightning from heaven, and thunder are needed. Those foolish and lying prophets who maintain that the Law should not be taught in the church and that, in general, no one should be rebuked too severely or burdened in his conscience are not aware of this.

If this is true, however, why does the Lord want the example of Sodom preserved in His very church and taught by Abraham? Moreover, in view of the fact that He adds “in order that they may fear the Lord,” do not those who want only the promises to be taught exclude the doctrine of the fear of the Lord entirely from the church? Hence the fanatical spirits who confound the entire system of heavenly doctrine in a pernicious manner must be shunned.

But this doctrine of the Law is profitable not only for teaching the fear of the Lord; but, as the Lord adds, it also produces this fruit, that those who are frightened in this way by the judgment and wrath of God practice justice and discernment.

If you divide all Scripture, it contains two topics: promises and threats or benefits and punishments. And, as Bernard states, hearts that are neither softened by kindnesses nor improved by blows are properly called hard. Thus the works of God are also twofold. Works of mercy are those which Paul mentions in Acts 14:17: “He gives rain from heaven, fruitfulness,” etc. He does works of wrath when He also sends a plague, war, and famine in order to frighten and humble the obdurate. Thus in Christ salvation is promised to all who are baptized and believe. On the other hand, judgment and eternal death are threatened to those who do not believe in Christ.

In these circumstances how can or should the preaching of the Law be excluded from the church? Do you not at the same time exclude the fear of God and the majority of the works of God? God certainly does not perform these in order that they may remain hidden, but He wants us to see them and in this way to be led to fear Him. If there were no perils of fire and water, no sudden death and similar evils, I myself would surely not say anything about them and would speak only of God’s kindness and of His benefits. But experience teaches otherwise. Hence to declare that the Law should not be taught in the church is characteristic of men who do not know Christ and are blinded by their pride and wickedness. Previously Moses has set forth many examples of God’s graciousness: when God promised Abraham the Blessed Seed, when He honored him with an outstanding victory, and when He came to him as a guest and ate bread at his home. These events are related by Moses, and nothing else is added to them; but in this passage there is added the command to preach: “He will relate them,” says God, “to his children”; that is: “I want the destruction of Sodom by fire preached in the church.” What is the reason for this? Because the church is never altogether pure; the greater part is always wicked, as the parable of the seed teaches (Matt. 13:3 ff). In fact, the true saints themselves, who are righteous through faith in the Son of God, have the sinful flesh, which must be mortified by constant chastening, as Paul says (1 Cor. 11:31): “If we would judge ourselves, we would not be chastened by the Lord.” Therefore keep this passage in mind. It is adequate by itself to refute the antinomians.

— Bl. Dr. Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis (18:19), LW 3:224-225
Self Defence in Der Lutheraner

September 17th, 2024
A Peasant Couple Attacked by Robbers, 1567 Univesity Collection, Stockholm, Sweden

Concerning Self Defense.^{^[1]}

Der Lutheraner Volume 21, January 1, 1865, No. 9.

In 1540, Luther wrote 91 sentences on the often misinterpreted saying of Christ: “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” Luke 18:22. The papists understood this saying as if, according to it, true perfection consisted in putting away all earthly goods and becoming a monk. The Anabaptists, however, sought to prove from this that it was sinful to possess earthly goods. In the propositions which Luther wrote against this perversion of the word of Christ, he also speaks of self defense. We would therefore like to share the propositions relating to this here. They are as follows:

In teaching that one should sell and leave everything, the Lord has permitted, or rather commanded, that everything should be lawfully sought and possessed; for you cannot sell or leave anything that you have not lawfully acquired and possessed; otherwise it would have had to be said that everything must be given back and restored to God, its rightful Lord, as plundered, stolen, and unrighteously posessed things. It is also evident from the second table of the holy commandments that therein it is commanded to seek everything in lawful ways when it is commanded: Thou shalt not steal; that is, what thou hast shall be thine, and not another man’s; or, as Paul exhorts, “Let every man labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” Eph. 4:28.

Now it is certain that Christ did not come to abolish the binding force of the commandments of the second table of the law, but rather to confirm them, Matthew 5:17. Yes, he also confirms the authorities and police laws, since he says before Pilate: “It is given thee from above,” John 19:11. Christ speaks of the sale and forsaking of all things with regard to the first table of the holy ten commandments, that is, with regard to the public profession of faith. For when it comes to the duties of the first table of the holy commandments and the purchase of the precious pearl of the kingdom of heaven, the field must be sold for its sake and everything must be abandoned. Then that which is rightly possessed according to the second table must be joyfully forsaken for the sake of the first table, that is, for the sake of eternal life. Except in this case, however, and if it does not depend on a public confession, one can acquire, preserve, administer and protect something in the world. For we are also obliged to follow the second table of the law, that is, we must provide, nourish and protect our lives according to divine and human law.

Apart from the fact that one must confess one’s faith by denying earthly things, every true Christian is a citizen of this world and must both do and share with others what the duties of the second table require. Therefore, if a murderer would do violence to you or a thief would take what is yours because you are a Christian,^{^[2]} you must resist such evil if you otherwise wish to be a righteous citizen in the world; for just as the secular authorities, of which you are a member and subject, themselves resist in such a case, so they also command you to resist by virtue of the second table when violence is done to you, and you are bound to obey. So if a murderer attacks you in the street and wants to kill you because you are a Christian, you must resist him, even if it costs him his life. For you know that the authorities have commanded that a murderer should be resisted and that the citizens should be protected. In such a case, you will fulfill the requirements of the first and second table. –

On the same subject the old godly and conscientious theologian Martin Chemnitz writes the following, translated into the vernacular:

The question of self-defense is a difficult one; namely, when someone in an unavoidable emergency, because he cannot otherwise escape, nor otherwise expel the violence, nor otherwise defend his life, kills the attacker. The civil rights in regard to this case are known; but the question is, whether this applies according to heavenly law and before the judgment seat of conscience, since Christ says: “I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39. Some reject the proof from the law of nature that it is lawful to drive out violence with violence, as ungodly and contrary to the gospel. Some, however, extend this saying so far that they maintain that private revenge is perfectly lawful, thus setting aside the precepts of Christ (Matthew 5:39).

The true grounds of this contention must therefore be carefully considered. For not all natural principles, especially in the teaching of the law, are to be rejected and condemned. For this is also a principle of the law of nature: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Matthew 7:12. But neither are all without exception to be accepted and approved, because “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.” 1 Cor. 2:14. Therefore two useful rules are taught: 1. The gospel does not abolish the law of nature, because it is the truth of God, which was written on the hearts by God himself at creation, (Rom. 1:18, 2:14). 2. But because what is known of the law in this darkness of corrupt nature is obscure, and the stubbornness of the passions in the heart also corrupts right knowledge in the mind, the Word of God adds the interpretation to the law of nature and punishes and abolishes the falsifications of it that have been added from the corrupt inheritance.

But in order to see what the right principle is and how this natural knowledge is put in order, it must be noted that opposition to violence takes place in three cases: 1. In lawful dominions and in the office of authority. For the latter rightly expels violence with violence when it averts highway robberies with an armed hand and by war. There is no dispute about this case. 2. In the defense of those who are entrusted to our care, e.g. when a father of a family expels violence by force when his house is attacked and defends his own. 3. in defending his own body against an unjust, sudden and openly violent attack. With regard to these last two cases there is a dispute.

The question is to be presented in such a way that defense with the removal of all unjust desires is lawful and necessary. But the following factors also belong to such defense: 1. That the violent attack which one suffers is a sudden one that one cannot escape in any way by giving way, fleeing, or suffering a (lesser) injustice. 2. That the violent attack is an obvious one, that one cannot save life and limb by any other means of defense than by striking back and killing. 3. That the authorities are so absent that they cannot come to the rescue, and that delay and waiting are clearly dangerous to life. 4. That restrictions be kept on innocent self-protection; to which, as the jurists teach, the following belong: (1) That self-defense be done immediately on the act. For if it occurs some time after the wrong has been done, it is evident that it is not done to repel the attack, but out of a desire for revenge. (2) That it is not done with the intention of revenge, not out of pain at the injustice experienced, but only to abort the violence and to protect life. If one could escape in any other way, one would rather not defend oneself or at least not kill, but is forced to defend oneself if one does not want to neglect one’s own life and that of one’s own.^{^[3]} (3) They also say that a uniformity of offensive and defensive weapons is required, so that if someone attacks you unarmed or with a stick, you will not immediately shoot him with a firearm if he hits you with it.

The question is therefore this: since in such a case the law and the authorities permit self-defense, whether this is in conflict with the teaching of the Gospel and with the commandment to love one’s enemies. Although this question is the subject of many disputations, the following simple and true reasons should be noted. 1. Christ did not come into the world to abolish, by his teaching and preaching, the law of nature and the laws which accord with common sense, and to establish a new political order; but he mainly delivers the spiritual doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, and he declares that the doctrine of the law is to be used for this, because the knowledge of it has been darkened and corrupted by the darkness of original sin. We have already said what evil desires and sinful passions corrupt natural knowledge in this case. These excluded, the work of the law is written in our hearts, that, as we ought to harm no one, likewise we ought to protect our own bodies against unjust violence, either by the ordinary powers of the authorities, or by self-defense, if the authorities cannot come to our aid. For thus says (the pagan philosopher) Cicero, when he describes the first principles of natural law: “In the beginning the whole race of living beings was ordained by nature to protect itself, its body and its life, and to ward off from itself that which seems to want to harm it.” This judgment, because it in truth contains that of the right of nature, is not annulled by the teaching of the Gospel, but only the explanation is added that no sinful desires may be mixed into it and that it may not be done without or against the authority of the laws and the authorities in personal outrage. This is the first reason.

2. The laws themselves, which are consistent with common sense, permit and approve such a case of self-defense. It has been established by the authority of the magistracy that in the case of sudden and openly violent attacks, when the judge is absent and cannot come to the rescue, everyone may justly protect himself and his own by self-defense. But it has been shown above that public punishment includes everything that is done according to the law or by order or authorization of a lawful authority, even by private persons.

3. More clear and certain are the proofs which are taken from the testimonies of Holy Scripture. For there is a case of self-defense of a private person explained in the Law of Moses Ex 22, 2, 3: “If a thief be found breaking up (with an instrument for breaking in), and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him.” Consider how carefully God has indicated the circumstances of self-defense and restricted it by the definite limits of blameless protection. If someone is seized at night with a weapon during a burglary, it is assumed that he came with the intention of committing murder, and therefore defense is permitted. After the sun has risen, however, the owner of the house can protect himself and his property in other ways; therefore, if he then kills the thief under the pretext of defense, he is guilty because he did not observe the limits of innocent protection. It is true that the judicial laws of Moses do not bind us, but it is right to judge from them which political laws agree with the law of nature and with the eternal law that is in God’s heart. For God has not established anything that conflicts with his word and will.

Even before the Mosaic Law, there is an example of self-defense by a private person in the story of Abraham (Gen. 14:14), for he was a stranger in the land of Canaan, held no office of authority, and especially had no lawful power in Salem, and yet he armed his family to defend his nephew, pursued and killed the enemy, and freed not only Lot but also the other captives. And far from disapproving of this defense, Melchizedech, the priest of God Most High, blesses the victor: “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” But note the circumstances of blameless protection in this story. Firstly, his help is requested, for one who had escaped reports to Abraham. Secondly, the authorities at Salem were so overwhelmed that they could not come to his aid. Third, he is in league with Mamre, Escol and Aner, who were the rightful rulers in their place, but had no power in the land of Sodom; and yet they take up arms with Abraham to defend their neighbors.

John 18:36 also belongs here: “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” Thus in civil life, if the lawful authorities command and permit it, private individuals may justly resort to self-defense. And Proverbs 24:11 says: “Save those who would be killed, and do not withdraw from those who would be strangled.” However, he (Solomon) speaks here mainly of the office of authority; but he adds the general conclusion: “He rewards a man according to his work.” Hence Ambrose (the Church Father) writes: “He who does not remove injustice from his companion, if he can, is as much in the wrong as he who inflicts it.” Likewise: “If one can help and does not do so, this is nothing other than being favorable to wickedness.”

4. But, says one, these examples prove only the defense of one’s neighbor, not of one’s own body and life. Answer: The law says: Love thy neighbor as thyself. If, therefore, I act rightly when I defend my neighbor in an openly violent attack, it follows that the defense of one’s own body also belongs to the commandment of love. And the case of Ex 22:2-3 also includes the defense of one’s own body. Furthermore, Exodus 21:13 reads: “But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand,” i.e. as in Genesis 14:15. Some would counter this with Matthew 5:39: “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you,” etc.,^{^[4]} and also by Matthew 26:52: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” But these sayings are also explained above. They distinguish between the offices of the authorities and the ministry of the gospel and instruct the pious, when the authorities either persecute them or deprive them of their protection and reputation, that they should not resist the evil in personal passion and iniquity. – Resistance also seems to conflict with the commandment to love one’s enemies. But then Abraham would also have sinned against this commandment (Gen 14:15), as would the law (Ex 22:2), as would the authorities when they punish evildoers.
1. We are sharing some testimonies on this subject at the request of several who are in such circumstances that they are in great need of clarity from God’s Word for conscientious conduct. Hopefully these testimonies will also be read with pleasure and not without benefit by those who are not exactly in such circumstances. –Editors of Der Lutheraner. ↑
2. Luther places here the case where a citizen is attacked because he is a Christian, since the occurrence of this case was to be particularly expected in his time and actually occurred a few years later, in the Schmalkaldic War. It goes without saying, however, that self-defense is all the more justified when the attack of a robber or murderer happens for other worldly reasons. ↑
3. This restriction, that self-defense is not done out of vindictiveness and hatred, is especially important, since many Christians are now so inflamed by abolitionist fanaticism that they seem to have stripped off not only the Christian, but even the human being. Not only every spark of love against their enemies, but even every spark of the meanest sense of justice against their opponents seems to have been extinguished. A truly diabolical hatred and a hellish joy at the misfortune and misery of the enemy has driven all Christian, even human feeling out of them. And this bestiality is glossed over with the name of patriotism and obedience to the authorities. ↑
4. Concerning this saying, see Luther’s Folk Library (Volksbibliothek), combined volume 9 and 10, pages 167-182 (i.e. Luther’s 1530 homilies on the Sermon on the Mount). ↑
Martin Luther’s “The right and power of a Christian congregation or community to judge all teaching and to call, appoint, and dismiss teachers, established and proved from Scripture” (1523)

August 8th, 2024

Congregationalist is nary a word used but as a descriptor for the theology of Old Missouri Synod founder C. F. W. Walther. This is a fact much to the chagrin, I should like to offer, of the Reformer himself, Dr. Luther. While some may hand-wave this 1523 treatise away as some early expression of especial mettle on the part of Saint Luther, it is the opinion of us here at Old Lutherans that he meant what he said herein not only for the particular time and place he wrote it in but for us and all posterity of the seed of Christ to diligently and critically apply. Indeed, it is just the case that Saint Walther sought so to do.

It is necessary, first of all, to know where and what a Christian congregation is, so that men may not engage in purely human affairs under cover of the name of a Christian congregation, as has always been the custom of non-christians. Now the certain mark of the Christian congregation is the preaching of the Gospel in its purity. For as one can tell by the army standard, as by a sure sign, what leader and what army have taken the field, so one may surely know by the Gospel where Christ and His army are stationed. Of this we have God’s sure promise in Isaiah 55:10. “My word,” He says, “that goeth forth out of my mouth, shall not return unto me void; but as the rain cometh down from heaven and watereth the earth, so shall my word accomplish all things whereto I send it.” Hence we are certain that where the Gospel is preached, there must be Christians, no matter how few in number or how sinful and frail they be; just as where the Gospel is not preached and the doctrines of men hold sway, there can be no Christians but only heathens, no matter how great their numbers or how saintly and good their lives.

From this it follows undeniably that bishops, foundations, monastic houses, and all that crew have long since ceased to be either Christians or a Christian congregation, though they have flaunted this name as their exclusive possession. For whoever knows what the Gospel is can see, hear and understand that they are based, to this very day, upon their human teachings and have driven, and are still driving, the Gospel far from them.

Whatever such folk do and say must be regarded, therefore, as heathen and secular.

Secondly, in this matter of judging teachings and of appointing and dismissing teachers or pastors, not the least attention is to be paid to any human decree, law, precedent, usage or custom, whether it be decreed by pope or emperor, by princes or bishops, whether it have been observed by half the world or by all the world, whether it be in existence for one year or for a thousand years. The soul of man is eternal and above everything that is temporal; therefore it must be ruled and equipped with an eternal word alone. It is most absurd to rule conscience, in God’s stead, by means of human law and long established custom. We must be guided, therefore, in this matter by the Scriptures and the Word of God. For the Word of God and the teaching of man cannot but clash when the latter undertakes to rule the soul. Of this we desire to give a plain instance in the question before us.

The word and teaching of man have decreed and prescribed that the judging of doctrine be left altogether to bishops, theologians, and councils.

Whatever these have decided, all the world is bound to regard as law and as articles of faith. This is abundantly proved by their daily harping on the pope’s canon law. One hears scarcely anything else from them but the boast that they have the power and the right to judge what is Christian and what is heretical; the plain Christian must await their decision and abide by it. This claim of theirs, with which they have intimidated the whole world, and which is their chief stronghold and defense, lo, how shamelessly and how senselessly it rages against the law and Word of God!

For Christ decrees the very opposite. He takes from the bishops, theologians and councils both the right and the power to judge doctrine, and confers them upon all men, and upon all Christians in particular. He does this when He says in John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice”; and, “My sheep do not follow a stranger, but flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers. As many as have come are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them.” Here you see plainly who has the right to judge teaching. Bishops, pope, theologians, and anyone else have the power to teach; but the sheep are to judge whether what they teach is the voice of Christ or the voice of strangers. What reply can be made to this by the windbags who bluster and shout, “Councils! councils! Ah, we must listen to the theologians, the bishops, the great majority; we must look to ancient usage and custom.” What! God’s Word yield to your ancient usage, your custom, your bishops? Never! We therefore let bishops and councils decide and decree what they please; but when we have God’s Word on our side, it shall be for us, and not for them, to say whether it is right or wrong, and they shall yield to us and obey our word.

Here you see plainly enough, I fancy, how much trust is to be placed in those persons who deal with souls by means of the word of men. Who does not see that all bishops, foundations, monastic houses, universities, with all that are therein, rage against this clear word of Christ by shamelessly taking from the sheep the judgment of doctrine and appropriating it to themselves by their own impudent decree? Hence they are certainly to be regarded as murderers, thieves, wolves and apostate Christians, who are here openly convicted not only of denying the Word of God, but of setting up and carrying out decrees in opposition to this Word. Thus it behooved antichrist and his kingdom to do according to Paul’s prediction in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 [Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition].

Again, Christ says in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Observe that He here assigns the judgment not to the prophets and teachers, but to the pupils, or the sheep. For how could one beware of false prophets unless one examined, judged and gave a decision on their teaching? Indeed, there can be no false prophets among the hearers, but among the teachers alone. All teachers should and must, therefore, be subject with their teaching to the judgment of the hearers.

Our third passage is from St. Paul, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test all things; hold fast that which is good.” Note that Paul would have no doctrine or decree to be observed unless it be tested and found good by the congregation that hears it. For this testing certainly does not pertain to the teachers; they must first declare that which is to be tested. Thus, in this passage also, the judgment is taken from the teachers and committed to the pupils among Christians; hence there is a vast difference between Christians and the world. In the world the ruler commands what he pleases, and his subjects accept it; but “among you,” says Christ, “it shall not be so.”

Among Christians everyone is the other’s judge and, on the other hand, also subject to the other. The spiritual tyrants, however, have turned Christendom into a temporal power.

Our fourth passage is again a saying of Christ’s, in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you; for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.” But what need is there of adducing further passages? All the warnings of St. Paul in Romans 16:13, 1 Corinthians 10:14, Galatians 3:4 and 5, Colossians 2:8, and everywhere else, as well as the sayings of all the prophets in which they teach that doctrines of men are to be rejected, these altogether deprive the teachers of the right and power to judge any teaching, and assign this right and power to the hearers with urgent commands and on pain of losing their souls. So that the hearers not only have the power and the right to judge all preaching, but are obliged to judge it under penalty of forfeiting the favor of Divine Majesty. Thus we see in how unchristian a manner the despots dealt with us when they deprived us of this right and appropriated it to themselves. For this thing alone they have richly deserved to be cast out of the Christian Church and driven forth as wolves, thieves and murderers, whose rule and teaching are contrary to God’s Word and will.

We conclude, then, that where there is a Christian congregation which has the Gospel, it not only has the right and the power, but is in duty bound, according to the obedience it pledged to Christ in Baptism, and under pain of forfeiting its salvation, to shun, to flee, to put down, to withdraw from, the authority which our bishops, abbots, monastic houses, foundations, and the like exercise today; since it is plainly to be seen that their teaching and rule are opposed to God and His Word. Thus our first point is established certainly and firmly enough, and we should depend upon it that to put down or to shun such bishops, abbots, monasteries, and the like rule, is a divine right and necessary for the salvation of souls. A Christian congregation, however, should not and cannot be without the Word of God. It follows therefore logically enough from the foregoing, that it must have teachers and preachers to administer this Word. And since in these last accursed times the bishops and false spiritual rulers neither are nor have any intention of being such teachers, and are moreover unwilling to give us or to suffer us to have such teachers; and since we ought not to tempt God to send down anew preachers from heaven: therefore we must do as the Scriptures say, and call and appoint from among ourselves men who are found fit for this work, and whom God has enlightened with understanding and endowed with the requisite gifts.

For no one can deny that every Christian has God’s Word and is taught of God and anointed by Him to the priesthood. Thus Christ says in John 6:45, “They shall all be taught of God.” And in Psalm 45:7, “God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” By “fellows” are meant Christians, Christ’s brethren, consecrated to be priests with Him. As Peter also says in 1 Peter 2:9, “Ye are a royal priesthood, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you into his marvelous light.” Now, if Christians have the Word of God and are anointed by Him, they are in duty bound to confess, preach and spread this Word. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:13, “We have the same spirit of faith, and therefore we speak”; and the prophet says in Psalm 116:10, “I believed, therefore I speak”; and in Psalm 51:13, he says in the name of all Christians, “I will teach transgressors thy ways, that sinners may be converted unto thee.”

These passages prove once more that a Christian not only has the right and power to teach God’s Word, but is in duty bound to teach it on pain of losing his salvation and forfeiting God’s favor.

Now you will say: “But, unless he has been called to do this, he dare not preach, as you yourself have repeatedly taught!” I reply: Here you must consider the Christian from a double point of view. On the one hand, when he is in a place where there are no Christians, he needs no other call than the fact that he is a Christian, inwardly called and anointed by God; he is bound by the duty of brotherly love to preach to the erring heathens or nonchristians and to teach them the Gospel, even though no one call him to this work. That is what St. Stephen did (Acts 6:8 and Acts 7:2); the office of preaching was not committed to him by the apostles, yet he preached and performed great wonders among the people. Philip, Stephen’s fellow-deacon, did the same (Acts 8:5), without having received the office of preaching. The same is true of Apollos (Acts 18:25). In such circumstances the Christian looks, in brotherly love, upon the needs of poor perishing souls, and waits for no commission or letter from pope or bishop. For necessity breaks every law and knows no law; moreover, love is bound to help when there is no one else to help. But, on the other hand, when the Christian is in a place where there are Christians, who have the same power and right as he, he should not thrust himself forward, but should rather let himself be called and drawn forth to preach and teach in the stead and by the commission of the rest. Indeed, a Christian has such power that he may and should arise and teach, even among Christians, without being called of men, in case he finds the teacher in that place to be in error, provided that this be done in a becoming and decent manner. Such a case is plainly described by St. Paul in Corinthians 14:30, where he says, “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” Notice what St. Paul does here. He commands the man who is teaching to hold his peace and to retire (among Christians!), and commands the hearer to arise, even without a call, because necessity knows no law.

If then St. Paul here bids anyone, in case of necessity, among Christians, to arise even without a call, and calls him by virtue of this word of God; and if he bids the other to retire, and deposes him by virtue of these words: how much more does an entire Christian congregation have the right to call a man to this office whenever it becomes necessary! And it is always necessary, and never more than now. For in the same passage St. Paul gives to every Christian the power to teach among Christians whenever it becomes necessary, “Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be admonished”; and, “Desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues; but let all things be done decently and in order.”

Take this passage as a most sure basis, which gives more than sufficient authority to the Christian congregation to preach, to permit men to preach, and to call preachers. Especially in case of necessity, this passage itself calls everyone in particular, without any call of men; so that we might have no doubt that the congregation which has the Gospel may and should choose and call, out of its number, one who is to teach the Word in its stead.

But now you will say: “St. Paul, however, commanded Timothy and Titus to appoint priests; moreover, we read in Acts 14:23 that Paul and Barnabas appointed priests in their congregations. The congregation cannot, therefore, call anyone, nor can anyone come forward of his own accord to preach among Christians; but we must have the consent and commission of bishops, abbots or other prelates, who sit in the apostles’ seat.” I reply: If indeed our bishops and abbots sat in the apostles’ seat, as they claim, one might speak of letting them do what Titus and Timothy, Paul and Barnabas did when they appointed priests. But now that they sit in the devil’s seat, and are wolves, neither preaching the Gospel nor permitting it to be preached, the appointment of men to the office of preaching and pastoral care among Christians concerns them as much as it concerns the Jew and the Turk. Mule drivers and dog leaders, that is what they ought to be!

Moreover, even if they were the right sort of bishops and desired to have the Gospel and to appoint the right sort of preachers, they could not and should not do this without the consent, choice and call of the congregation; except in cases of necessity, in order that souls might not be lost for lack of God’s Word. For in such necessity, as we have seen, anyone may provide a preacher, either by personal request or through the power of the secular authorities; nay, he should himself step into the breach and rise up and teach, if he be able, for necessity is necessity and knows no bounds, just as, when fire breaks out in a town, everyone should hasten to lend a hand and not wait to be asked.

But where no such necessity exists, and where there are those who have the right, the power, and the gift to teach, no bishop ought to appoint anyone without the consent, choice and call of the congregation; it is his duty rather to confirm the man whom the congregation has elected and called. If the bishop does not confirm him, he is none the less confirmed by virtue of the call of the congregation. For neither Titus nor Timothy nor Paul appointed any priest unless he was chosen and called by the congregation. This is clearly proved from Paul’s words in Titus 1:7 and 1 Timothy 3:2, “A bishop, or priest, must be blameless”; and, “The deacons must first be proved.” Titus certainly did not know who was blameless: this information must needs come from the congregation, who must bring such a one to his attention. We read also in Acts 6:2, with respect to a very minor office, that the apostles themselves did not venture to appoint men to be deacons without the knowledge and consent of the congregation. The congregation, on the contrary, chose and called the seven deacons, and the apostles confirmed them. But if the apostles did not venture, upon their own authority, to appoint men to an office that had to do merely with the distribution of bodily food, how should they have been so bold as to commit to anyone the highest office of all, that of preaching, by their own power and without the knowledge, consent and call of the congregation?

But since in our days the necessity exists, and there is never a bishop to provide evangelical preachers, the example of Titus and Timothy does not apply here. We must rather call a preacher out of the congregation, whether he be confirmed by Titus or not. For the people to whom Titus ministered would or should have done the same, if he had refused to confirm their preachers or if there had been no one else to appoint preachers. These days are altogether unlike the days of Titus; then the apostles ruled and desired the right sort of preachers, but now our despots desire none but wolves and thieves.

And why do the raging tyrants condemn us for electing and calling in this manner? They themselves do the same thing, and have no other way.

Among them no one is ever appointed pope or bishop by the authority of one man, but he is elected and called by the chapter and thereupon confirmed by others, bishops by the pope as their superior, but the pope himself by the Cardinal of Ostia as his inferior. And if one should happen not to be confirmed, he is none the less bishop or pope. Now I ask the dear tyrants this question: If the election and call of their congregation can make a man a bishop, and if the pope is pope solely by virtue of his election without confirmation by any other authority, why should not a Christian congregation make a man a preacher solely by virtue of its call? (My argument has the greater force because, forsooth, they regard the estate of bishop and pope as superior to the office of preacher.) Who has granted this right to them and withheld it from us? The more since our call has Scripture in its favor, while theirs is but a human fable without Scripture, whereby they rob us of our rights. They are tyrants and knaves, dealing with us as the devil’s apostles are bound to do.

Hence it has also been the custom in certain places that even secular authorities such as burgomasters and princes appointed and salaried their own city and castle preachers, choosing whom they pleased, without the consent or commission of bishops or popes; nor has anyone ever interfered with this custom. I am afraid, however, that it was not done from a correct understanding of their Christian rights; it has come about rather because the spiritual tyrants despised the office of preaching, held it common, and made a sharp distinction between it and the spiritual rule. But it is in truth the highest office of all, on which all other offices depend and from which they follow; on the other hand, where this office does not exist none of the others can follow. For in John 4:2 we read that Christ did not baptize, but only preached; and Paul boasts in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was sent not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

Therefore, the man to whom has been committed the office of preaching has committed to him the highest office in the Christian Church. He may then also baptize, say mass, and take full charge of the care of souls. Or if he prefer, he may confine himself to preaching, and leave baptizing and such minor offices to others, as Christ did, and St. Paul, and all the apostles (Acts 6:4). By this we see that our present bishops and spirituals are painted images and no bishops at all. For the highest office, that of the Word, which ought to be their proper work, they leave to the very lowest orders, to chaplains and monks, alms-collectors! To whom they leave also the minor offices, such as baptism and other pastoral acts. Meanwhile they themselves administer confirmation and bless bells, altars and churches, works which are neither Christian nor episcopal, but invented out of their own heads. They are perverse and blind mummers, and nothing but make-believe bishops.
Goerge Stoeckhardt on the Perspicuity of Scripture and True Doctrine

May 25th, 2024

The following is an excerpt from Lehre und Wehre XXVI translated by the sainted Erwin Koehlinger. Bolded letters added for editorial emphasis by yours truly. We invite you, dear reader, to compare the sainted Dr. Stoeckhardt’s statements with those following regarding modern teaching found in the Occupied Missouri Synod.

“Our Confession, the Formula of Concord, points explicitly to Scripture as being the norm in matters of faith and doctrine. We read in the introduction:

We receive and embrace the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged (FC SD Rule and Norm 3).

If we wish to be clear and sure, acquire divine certainty with regard to the doctrine of predestination, we must step into and draw from this fountain of Israel. We must above all search Holy Scripture regarding this doctrine. In this article Scripture decides what is true doctrine and what is false. And the doctrine of predestination is doctrine revealed in Scripture. Here too we are dealing with God’s Word and revelation. The passages cited, which we shall consider in the discussion of the individual theses, have been considered and treated as the proof-passages for the doctrine of predestination. Therefore, it is not true if one says that in this article he can think and teach this or that without doing harm. Here, too, God’s holy truth is at stake. The doctrine of predestination is before other articles of the Christian faith a mystery which we shall never be able to fathom. Nevertheless, the generally accepted rule of old Lutheran teachers applies also to this mystery: “It is possible to explain inexplicable things in clear and intelligible words.” Although unspeakably profound Holy Scripture is, nevertheless, clear and intelligible. It reveals to us inexplicable divine mysteries in understandable, clear language. The doctrine of predestination is also presented to us in Scripture in clear, unmistakable words. Scripture gives us the “what” even though it is silent about the “how” and “why.” Wouldn’t it be terrible were we of a mind to throw away the “what” because we are unable to understand the “how” and “why”? We hold fast to the “what” and believe it even though we are unable to make any sense out of it. The Bible is a bright sun. Except that it does not open up to us the depths that exist in God in such a way that we need expect no new disclosures in eternal life. So it is not right for one to say that, since the doctrine of predestination is so full of mystery, various interpretations are still tolerable. What concerns the substance of this doctrine is clearly revealed.”

Note the childlike faith so simply yet brilliantly shining forth in Stoeckhardt’s writing. And yet Occupied Missouri is burdened – populated – with the following captives of reason:

Vernunft ist die höchste Hur, die der Teufel hat—Martin Luther

A member of the very Commision on Theology and Church Relations, in the sclerotic heart of Synod Herself, is not simply in violation of point V of the 1932 Brief Statement—no, more than a mere dismissal of some Synodical declaration from a bygone era, we are more importantly being told that the CTCR is happy to throw away the “what” of Scripture simply because it does not know its “why” or “how.” No longer does the Formula of Concord Solid Declaration Rule and Norm 3 apply, for these new teachings of today’s Young Lutherans in Occupied Missouri deny the very purity, the very clarity of the fountain of Israel by denying Scripture’s perspicuity on matters such as Young Earth Creationism. No, rather, they let their Reason get the better of them.

Stoeckhardt weeps.
On Jews, Israel & the Church (Pt. 3): George Stoeckhardt’s Romans Commentary

May 24th, 2024
Old Missouri Theologian George Stoeckhardt’s Commentary on Romans is a wealth of doctrine for our present, starved age of antinomian Lutheranism. One such application ripe for the correction of Christian thinking is a series of hilights regarding the Judaean people, Israel —both the nation and the typological concept found in Scripture —, and the Church Herself. Herein below you will find such a selection of hilights from Stoeckhardt’s Romerbrief demonstrating the Old Missouri teachings on these topics and more. This is the third and final part in a series regarding such.

For more on the topic of true Israel (i.e the Church Invisible) and the modern peoples called Jewish today read
In contrast to Parts 1 & 2 (linked above) there will be no editorial bolding nor short comments following. The following excerpts are esteemed of utter importance throughout and speak for themselves to the utmost. Verses from Scripture are underlined as original.

XI.1
The apostle’s people, Israel, is accursed from Christ and excluded from salvation. This is due to their persistent unbelief. Paul now refers back to these chief thoughts of the two previous chapters and says: I say then, Hath God cast away his people? What I have written concerning the condemnation of the Jews is not meant as though God has rejected His people is it? It would be a self-contradiction if God had rejected His own people. That is as unthinkable as hating one’s own flesh.
Paul is not thinking of the Jewish nation as such and of its historical calling, as though the latter perished with the condemnation of the majority of Israelites. For rejection is as much as condemnation, exclusion from salvation, something different than loss of the historical calling. “His people” designates God’s people in the narrower sense of the word. The apostle has already distinguished between the Israelites descended from Abraham according to the flesh and children of God from Israel, the children of the promise, whome God chose and called to adoption and eternal life; and he has restricted to the former what he said of Israelis rejection. This difference he wishes to discuss further. “His people,” the people of God, is the sum total of the true children of Israel. And it is unthinkable that God should have rejected his people. God forbid.
He confirms this denial with a reference to his own person. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul was a full-blooded Israelite. For the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin were the core of the Jewish people after the return from exile. And he, the servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, shares in Christ’s salvation; and so by his example he proves that there are Israelites who will be saved, that there is in Israel a people which God has not rejected.

XI.7
What then? What follows from this? What then is the situation? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for. What Israel sought, according to the great mass, namely, righteousness and salvation, that they did not receive, for they wished to be justified and saved by works. But the election hath obtained it. The elect, who owe their existence and constancy to God’s free grace, have obtained it. Therefore, there is in Israel a true people of God, whom He has not rejected but who share in Christ’s salvation.
And the rest are blinded. Their understanding and will became blunt and hard and altogether insusceptible and insensitive to salvation in Christ and to the Word of salvation, Already in the discussion of obduracy, 9,17.18, Paul had the Jews in mind objectively. Now after he presented the ubelief and guilt of Israel at full length, he directly testifies that Israel as punishment for its unbelief has incurred God’s judgment of obduracy. They were hardened by God, confirmed in their corrupt inclination; they were made insensitive to all encouragements to change it. Therefore, their obduracy is punishment for their corrupt inclination, in which they must henceforth persist, after they did not want to forsake it.

XI.8
No one, however, should be astonished over this severe lot of the Jews. For’ the same was already prophesied by the prophets. According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber. Is. 29, 9-12. God has given them a spirit of prickling, bewildering pain; according to the original Hebrew: a spirit of sleep, of bewilderment. They were so bewildered and stupified that they could not understand the prophetic Word, divine revelation.
Eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, namely, has He given them, unto this day. Thus the apostle refers back to Deut. 29,4 where Moses holds before his people, that had seen such great signs and miracles:”yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” However, in that Paul changes the negative “The Lord hath not given you… eyes to see,” etc., into the positive “God hath given them eyes that they should not see,” he, at the same time he refers to Is 6,10, this locus classicus of Israel’s obduracy, where Isaiah received the commission from God to harden the heart of this people by preaching “Make the heart of this people fat… lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart.
Israel was denied spiritual sight and hearing, the ability to grasp and understand God’s Word and work. The blinding and hardening of Israel had begun in the time of Isaiah, yes, reach back in their beginnings to the days of Moses. Yet, because at the time of Christ and the apostles the judgment of obduracy over Israel was really completed, the apostle thus righty refers the statement of Isaiah and Moses as prophecies of the New Testament.

XI.10
What is the threatened destruction? Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. They should be spiritually blinded and darkened. Their spiritual powers must become so weak that they can no more see and go the way of salvation.
What is said in these quotations from the prophets concerning the obduracy of the Jews coincides with the example of Pharaoh. 9,17.18. God hardens those who before have hardened themselves, God gives them over to their corrupt, hardened disposition and withdraws from them Spirit and grace, And when man is thus forsaken by God and His Spirit, then he is altogether incapable of knowing the truth, of repentance, of faith, of obedience.

XI.11
“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?” First it read: “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?” No, the rejection of the Jews is not to be thought of thus. But not also thus, as though Israel had stumbled in order to fall. Paul again has those in mind whom God has given over to their malice, who have finally hardened themselves against Christ and His salvation, whom God denies Spirit and assistance, so that it is impossible for them to turn and repent. They have stumbled and definitely fallen, never to rise again, But did they stumble in order to fall? Is their fall the end in itself? Did God intend that they should fall and be destroyed, so that He should find satisfaction in their destruction? God forbid.
The final purpose of Israel’s destruction was: But rather through their fall salvation is come unto the gentiles. The fall of Israel is their unbelief. In 9,22 Paul had stated that God made use of the time of patience, when He bore the vessels of wrath in great longsuffering, to make known to the vessels of mercy, also to the heathen, the riches of His glory, and to offer them salvation in Christ. And here he stresses that the unbelief of the Jews turned salvation to the heathen, in that the apostles, after the Jews rejected the Word of salvation, traveled the streets of the heathen.
That the heathen shared in salvation again had the purpose to incite the Jews to emulation. For to provoke them to jealousy. God’s design was and is that Israelites should be won for Christ through the Word and example of the believing Gentiles, And this is a design which is realized, for in verse 15 the reception of the Jews is presented as a fact. To be sure, those Jews, who are converted to Christ, are not of the obdurate Jews They too were at first unbelieving. Nevertheless, their unbelief did not advance to obduracy. After stumbling and falling they were attracted by the Gentiles and converted to Christ.

XI.12
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing or them the riches ot the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? The injury and harm, which the Jews drew upon themselves by their unbelief, are the riches of the world or of the Gentiles, for as a result of their unbelief the heathen world has received the fulness of salvation and grace, all the riches of Christ. If this is the case, how much more will their fulness bring the world blessing and salvation, The fulness of the Jews is not all Jews descended from Abraham according to the flesh but all Jews wno have salvation in Christ, They are God’s people in Israel, whom God before chose unto Himself, in other words, the full number of the elect from Israel. And when this fulness is complete, when all the elect from Israel have been brought in, then there will be a new, greater gain for the world. Wherein this gain consists is seen from the following.

XI.14
If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. The heathen should know that Paul, he apostle to the Gentiles, has the welfare and salvation of the Jews at heart. Yet, it would satisfy him if he could win but a few for Christ. For according to the prophecy in Is. 10,22; 53,1, etc., he is certain that the great majority of them do not believe the Gospel and incur final wrath and judgment, and that only a remnant of Israel will be saved. These few, who will be converted through the ministry of Paul and further through the witness and example of the believing Gentiles, form with the remnants of previous times the fulness of Israel.

XI.15
What incites and spurs the apostle on to provoke his relatives according to the flesh is the prospect of the blessed results of Israel’s conversion. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? The rejection of the Jews establishes the reconciliation of the world. The reconciliation, obtained through the unbelief and the resultant rejection of the Jews, is not the objective reconciliation of the world with God through Christ’s blood and death but the subjectove reconciliation, identical with the conversion of the heathen world to God. 2 Cor. 5,20. As a result of Israel’s rejection the Word of reconciliation has gone into the heathen world and has placed many heathen into the right relation of peace with God and brought them into fellowship with Him.
If this rejection of Israel, this bad thing, has such a good result, what blessing will then flow from the acceptance of Israel? Just as little as all Jews were rejected, will all Jews be received. And when all the remaining out of Israel, whom God from the beginning has elected for Himself, unto the last one has been won for Christ and received by God into grace, then the glorious, blessed end will follow. That is nothing else but life from the dead. That is eternal life, which begins with the resurrection from the dead, the life which is the fruit and result of justification and reconciliation. When the preaching of the Gospel has reached its goal in the heathen worid and in Israel, when the elect from the heathen peoples and the elect from Israei have been reconciled and have entered into fellowship with God, then the time of the world is past; then a new existence and life, the life of glorification, wiil begin; then the converted Jews and Gentiles will inherit the kingdom, which was prepared for them from the beginning of the world.
Looking back upon the last two sections, verses 11.12 and verses 13-15, we find the same train of thought in both. The fall of the Jews, their unbelief and their rejection redound to the salvation, to the conversion of the heathen; on the other hand, the faith of the heathen redounds to the conversion and deliverance and finally to the perfect salvation of some of Israel, the remnant, the fulness of Israel. Only that in the second section the apostle speaks of himself and of his apostleship, how through his service in the Gospel -and that is true in general of service in the Word- he helped to carry out those salutary designs of God, verses 1l.12. And so the latter, verses 13-15, serves to confirm what he before said in general about the wonderful ways of God. So the working and officiating of Paul, and of New Testament preachers in general, real clearly show what God’s object was with regard to the Jews and Gentiles and how His design is carried out.

XI.16
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. The first-fruit is the beginning of the dough, not the first-fruits of the harvest. That Paul speaks of the beginning of the dough was entailed by the regulation of the law, according to which the first-fruit of the dough should be given to the priests. Num. 15,19-21. In reality there was and is no holy beginning and no holy dough, as little as there are a holy root and holy branches. The picture only states that the dough has the same quality as the first-fruit, and that the branches are formed as the roots.
Both pictures have the same sense, but only the latter is discussed further. Roots and branches awaken the concept of a tree; and so the apostle speaks further of an olive tree, a good olive tree, which he then contrasts to a wild olive three. The first is evidently a picture of Israel, the latter of the heathen world. The roots of Israel are the fathers of Israel, the patriarchs. The same are meant with the first-fruit or beginning of the dough.
However, is the Jewish nation as such meant by the olive tree and by the dough ? Are all Israelites, who are descended from Abraham according to the flesh, meant by the branches? And accordingly is the perfection, which Paul ascribes to the roots and branches, only an external sanctity?
Many answer in the affirmative. Indeed scripture also calls the entire people of Israel “the people of God.” To this people was given certain advantages. God had revealed Himself to them and had given them the law and promise. Out of Israel Christ came according to the flesh. And if one desires, he may take these objective prerogatives together into the concept of sanctity.
But this outward concept of sanctity does not exactly fit the patriarchs. If the roots, the patriarchs, are called holy, one thinks of what marks and distinguishes them. And that was, on the one hand, the promise which they received, and on the other hand, faith in the promise. Paul had presented Abraham as the father and type of all believers. The Word of God first came to Abraham, and it was primarily a word of promise concerning future salvation. And this promise Abraham had received in faith. So he was sanctified through Word and faith, separated from his heathen surroundings and brought into fellowship with God.
What is further said and praised of the branches is more than external sanctity, is inner sanctity. The branches of the olive tree share in the fatness of the root and the olive tree. This means: the Israelites, pictured under the branches of the olive tree, not only received the promise from the fathers but also shared in the content of the promise, the promised blessing. One, however, only partakes of divine blessing and salvation through faith. The part of the branch that is broken off is broken off because of unbelief. Therefore, it is faith which connects the branches and keeps them joined to the tree and roots. So by branches we understand all believing Israelites, sanctified through faith. Accordingly, the good olive tree is believing Israel, God’s Church, which in the time of the Old Covenant had her abode in natural Israel. Now the sense of the picture becomes clear.

XI.17
And if some of the branches be broken off etc. It is a sad fact that sone of the branches were broken off. They were also at first branches of the olive tree, sanctified by promise and faith, but now are they broken out of the good olive tree, are withered, dead branches and need but be burned. Although the branches broken off are not few in number, yet with the apostle those branches which remain on the olive tree count far more than the great number of branches broken off. The breaking off of these branches falls in time together with the ingrafting of the branches from the wild olive tree, with the conversion and pardoning of the Gentiles.
Thus Paul thinks of what has happened at his time, in the time of the New Testament. With the appearance of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel a crisis arose for the believing Israelites. Many of them, who had at first believed Moses and the prophets, became worse. Tney took offense at the crucified Christ, at the Word of the cross. And because of their unbelief they were broken off. They remained distant from the Church of Christ and were thereby cut off from the olive tree and the root, from the promise of the blessing and fellowship of God, excluded from God’s congregation. For the Church of God had now become the Church of Jesus Christ. The Christian Church, which had her origin and beginning in Israel, was the continuation of true Israel. In Christ all of God’s promises, in which the fathers shared, in which all believers of the Old Testament comforted themselves, became Yea and Amen. Therefore, he of Israel, who who first accepted the promises and then rejected the promised Savior, ceased to be a true Israelite, a member of God’s congregation of salvation. In the number of unbelieving Jews belong also all of those children of Abraham according to the flesh, whose heart had always been far from God, who had believed neither Moses nor the prophets and now did not believe Christ and the preaching of the apostles. To these, however, Paul does not refer. Only the example of the Israelites who fell from faith, as then also the example of those who after the fall were again converted and again received, suited the purpose which he here follows: to warn the Gentile Christians against apostasy.
The apostle now takes out one from the number of the Gentile Christians and deals with him as the representative of his class, in order to present clearly and concretely this grave truth to his readers. With a powerful appeal to the conscience of every individual Gentile Christian, the apostle continues: And thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them. Before you were converted, you were of the wild olive tree. You descended from the wild olive tree, from degenerate humanity, estranged from God and fallen under the curse. But you were inserted into the good olive tree, which was originally planted in Israel and whose roots were the patriarchs of Israel. You were converted to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and became a living member of his congregation. You were planted in among them, between the original branches which remained, the believing Israelites, who now became believing Christians. And with them partakest of the root and the fatness of the olive tree. Through faith in the gospel you partake of the benefits of Christ: reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, justification, victory over death and eternal happiness. Those are the blessings which were already promised to the fathers, and of which also the believers of the Old Covenant partook through faith in the promise.
Paul has before his eyes the olive tree in its original form and in the first stage of its growth: the roots – the patriarchs; and the branches – the believing children of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant the appearance of the tree has changed; it has entered a new stage of development. The believing Israelites now call upon the name of Christ Jesus. They live on
the Gospel of Christ. And in the congregation of the believers out of Israel are found pelievers from all the peoples of the earth. Nevertheless, it is the same olive tree. There is one Church of God in the Old and New Testaments, whose roots reach back to Abraham, yes, to Adam. The Christ, who appeared in the flesh, the Lord of the Christians, is the Messian of Israel. The Gospel of Christ, the Crucified and the Resurrected, shows that the promise, which was given to the fathers of Israel and to their children, is fulfilled. And to the believing Jews the believing Gentiles were added. Yes, Gentile Christians should consider that they were added to the Jews and not vice versa, that the Jews have first claim to the riches of God’s kingdom. This truth Christ already expressed in Matt. 8,11: “And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. In John 10, 16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring.” In Eph. 2,11ff. Paul reminds the Gentile Christians that they were without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, and so without hope and without God, but that they were brough nigh unto Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and are now fellow Citizens with all the saints of Israel.

XI.23
In order to keep the Gentile Christians in humility and to guard them against contempt for the fallen, the apostle continues: And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: they will again be accepted in grace and translated into their former state, The roles can quickly change. Those who now stand can easily fall, On the other hand, the fallen can also be raised. True, Paul speaks conditionally; yet he would not speak thus if he did not expect at least a few to rise again and return to their previous position. With those Jews who are again converted and accepted by God after the fall from faith, unbelief has not gone to the extreme, to obduracy. Their fell was not definite and their loss of saivation no permanent, final loss.
They shall be grafted in for God is powerful, for God is able to graff them in again. It would be strange if the apostle meant by this that cod had the power to forgive and to reinstete the penitent, also those who again repent after their fall. Then an appeal would rather be in place to God’s great grace.
The mention of the power and omnipotence of God points power to the influence of God upon the heart and disposition of the fallen. The almighty God has the power also to fulfill the condition of reacceptance, the return to faith. The almighty God has the power to convert sinners and also to reconvert the fallen and again bring them into the congregation of saints. The grafting in of the heathen also implied the conversion of the heathen.

XI.25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits. The apostle wants to reveal a mystery to his brethren, the Christian readers, and not conceal it from them, lest they become wise in their own thinking or give way to their own thoughts. He has especially the Gentile Christians in mind, for just they could easily think wrong of this.
That blindness in part is happened to Israel. First, he does not want to conceal from his brethren that a part, but not all, of Israel has become obdurate. The apostle had said that also at present there was a remnant in Israel according to the election of grace and that this remnant had received what Israel did not. Then he added:”And the rest were blinded. From this one could conclude that all Israelites, who at the time of the apostle did not partake of salvation and were outside the Christian Church, had been hardened. But that is not the case. The apostle now brings forth that not al2 were under the judgment of obduracy at the time. That believing Israel was excluded from obduracy is self-evident. But he has unbelieving Israel in mind and wants to make known to his readers that at the time unbelieving Israel had not as a whole become obdurate. He has just established the possibility, yes, uttered the expectation, that some of the branches cut off from the olive tree would forsake unbelief and again be engrafted. And these Israelites do not belong to the obdurate Israelites. Because of the rebirth of the apostates Israel was only hardened in part. And this partial hardening will also in the future be the characteristic of Israel and will continue until the time which has been set.
That time is until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. This is the entrance of the heathen not into the kingdom of glory but into the Church of Christ, into the congregation pictured by the olive tree. The. entire context deals with the development and progress of the kingdom of God on earth, The fulness of the Gentiles is all heathen who enter the Christian Church or are converted to Christ. They form a definite whole, known to God the Lord alone and firmly established by God from the beginning. As the fulness of the Jews is the fulness of the elect from Israel, so the fulness of the Gentiles is the is the fulness of the elect from the heathen world. All whom God in time has called, converted and still converts from the Jews and Gentiles, they are the vessels of mercy, which he has predestined to glory. And their sum total is the fulness of the Jews and Gentiles.
What Paul teaches in agreement with the last prophecies of the Lord concerning the conversion of the heathen is the following. He, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, first brought the Gospel of Christ, the Son of God, into the heathen world, and established among the Gentiles the obedience of faith. This Gospel, however, will be preached on earth until the end of the world as a witness unto all peoples. Matt. 24,14. And so at all times souls will be won for the Lord , first from this, then from that people. Through the whole New Testament era Christendom is gathered from all races of the earth. And when the last of the Gentiles, predestined to glory, are called and converted to Christ, then the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled; then the fulness of the Gentiles exists; then the fulness of the Gentiles has entered the kingdom of God. Luke 21,24.
And when it is stated that Israel in part has become obdurate until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, it does not follow that when tae designate time has been reached, obduracy will cease and Israel will be freed from their present fate and judgment. Only this much is clearly stated that obduracy will continue up until that time, that during the entire period of the conversion of the heathen Israel, the obdurate part, remains under the curse of obduracy. After the entrance of the fulness of the Gertiles a change of things is to be expected. Wherein this change consists will shortly follow of itself.

XI.26
And so all Israel shall be saved. Spoken of is not the future salvation but the salvation which falls in time and consists in this, that Israel will share in the salvation in Christ, which coincides with conversion to Christ. In Eph. 2,lff. Paul designates the conversion of the heathen, the awakening from spiritual death to spiritual life, as salvation, deliverance, This deliverance, to be sure, results in the future salvation.
It is here solemnly announced by the apostle that all Israel will be converted and saved. “AlÌ” refers to the entire whole, including all the individual parts. A mass conversion of the Jews is no conversion of all Israel. If one understands all Israel as all of natural Israel, nothing remains but the assumption that all the Jews, who died in unbelief, will arise from the dead before the end of the world and will with those yet living be converted to the Lord. According to the newer interpretation the conversion of all Israel is identical with the conversion of obdurate Israel. That is a contradiction in itself and contrary to the context. According to the context all Israel is the sum total of the elect out of Israel.
According to the apostle’s presentation, chapters 9-11, the following is the history of Israel’s deliverance. God from eternity chose for himself a people out of Israel, a fulness. And those whom he elected from eternity He in time called and converted. So there was at all times a remnant in Israel, a small group of the true children of Abraham and God, also during the worst periods of apostasy. At the time of Christ and the apostles this remnant, the elect, consisted of those Israelites who joined themselves to Christ and entered the Christian Church. Even later many Jews, who first did not believe, were provoked by the converted heathen to follow Christ. And so in the future some will always be won out of Israel until the fulness of Israel is completed and become Christ’s own. And how can “all Israel” in this connection mean anything else other but the fulness of Israel, the people whom God had before elected? And how can “all Israel will be saved” mean anything else than that the conversion and deliverance just of this fulness will finally be an accomplished fact? “All Israel” is identical with the fulness of Israel, with the people whom God had before elected. When the last of the elect of Israel will be converted to Christ, then are the remnants of all times brought together; and these remnants of all times form all Israel. This complete whole includes all the individual parts without exception.
This then is what Paul teaches, Israel is in part hardened. There are believing Jews who are not yet hardened. This partial obduracy of Israel will continue until the fulness of the heathen will have come in or until the end of the world, for according to Matt. 24,14, the Gospel will be preached to the heathen until the end. And so, since the partial obduracy of Israel, which continues until the end, creates the possibility for continued partial conversion of the Jews, there will at all times be some won from Israel, until then at the end of time the fulness of Israel exists. That only part, to be sure the greater part, of Īsrael is hardened makes possible the deliverance of the smaller part. God leaves Israel so long under the curse of obduracy because He according to His eternal decree desires to and must bring into his kingdom the fulness of the heathen before the end of time. Since obduracy only concerns part of Israel, more souls will always be converted to Christ from the unbelieving Jewish people during the course of time. And so the eternal decree of God is also aimed at all Israel.
When the fulness of the Gentiles has gone in and all Israel is saved, then follows for the fulness Of the Gentiles and of the Jews life from the dead, eteral salvation; while the judgment of obduracy, which has befallen the greater part of İsrael, will end in the judgement of eternal damnation. That is the change which will take place.
We can now understand in what sense and by what right the apostle calls this statement a mystery. In the New Testament the truths of salvation, as far as they are revealed by divine revelation, are regarded as mysteries. These mysteries are embraced in that one mystery, that of Christ and His redemption. Col, 2,2; 4,3; I Tim.3,9.16. Then, also historical data are called mysteries inasmuch as they were originally hidden to men and were revealed to the apostles by the Spirit and communicated by them unto the congregations. Thus the fact that the heathen are “fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ” is also called a mystery, Eph. 3,6. And so here the fact that Israel is only partially hardened and this partial hardening will remain unto the end, that from this partially hardened people there is continually a great gathering of believers until the end of days and in this way all Israel will be saved, is introduced as a mystery. No one could know that in this hostile people, apparently totally hardened, there were yet the elect, whose gathering was not yet completed through the evangelic preaching. This secret the apostle reveals to his readers.
Paul has already told his readers of Israel’s obduracy, on the one hand, and of the deliverance of Israel, on the other. However, that Israel is only hardened in part and this partial obduracy, persisting until the end, gives opportunity for the deliverance of all Israel, he first states at the end of his historical presentation. Now it is clear what false thoughts the apostle wishes to prevent.
It was already remarked that one could think that the entire unbelieving Jewish people, which at the time of the apostle was opposed to the Christian Church, had incurred the judgment of obduracy and were lost without hope. And among the Gentiles such thoughts arose. So the apostle declares to his readers that these are erring thoughts and assures them that not all unbelieving Israelites were hardened at the time. There was still hope for Israel. There were some at their time who would be converted to Christ and be saved. And with this assurance he confirms the expectation that olive branches, which were cut off, will again be grafted into their own olive tree.

XI.27
As it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
This is a combination of various prophetic passages. The statement concerning the coming of the Deliverer is from Is. 59, 20.21. This chapter 59 is a reprimand which runs out into a threat of judgment against apostate Israel. The threat suddenly changes into a promise. Verse 20: “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” This promise concerns the remnant of Jacob. To them will the Redeemer come. And God’s covenant, made through the Messiah with Israel the remnant in Jacob, should consist in this that the Lord’s Word and Spirit will constantly rule them. Israel will then be a believing, obedient people. Paul adopts the translation of the Septuagint and so ascribes the conversion of those in Jacob to the Redeemer. Thus the conversion of the lost sheep of the house of Israel is e.g. Ezek. 34, 11ff, presented as Christ’s work. In that Paul says the Redeemer will come out of Sion, he refers to such passages as Ps. 14,7. So he interweaves reminiscences from other passages into the quotation from Is. 59. And that he does when he says that the new covenant should also consist in the forgiveness of sins. He points to such prophecies as Is.27, 9; Jer. 31,31ff. When the remnant of Jacob will be converted to Christ, the mighty God, then they will have salvation in Christ, the forgiveness of sins. The quotation, as Paul has it, prophesies the actual appearance of Christ and the work of converting the Jews, which He began during His earthly wandering and continued after His exaltation through His apostles and preachers in order to complete it before His second coming, to complete it not with the last Jewish generation, but in and with the conversion of the last remnants from Israel.

XI.28
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved. The unnamed subjects, of whom it is said that they are the objects of both God’s hate and of God’s love, are none other than the unbelieving Jews, whose conversion is yet to be expected. They are the enemies of God. They have God as their enemy, because they malignantly oppose the Gospel. “For your sakes” shows that in this way salvation fell to the heathen. The unbelief of the Jews in general, not only the unbelief advanced to obduracy, determined God to turn salvation to the heathen. On the other hand, concerning the election they are beloved of God, God loves them inasmuch as and because He chose them from the beginning, because they belong to His people in Israel, which He had before chosen unto Himself.

XI.29
They are beloved for the father’s sakes. This the apostle explains in the words: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. The context deals with a showing of God’s grace, the call of the fathers. This was exhibited in the promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which promised salvation in Christ to them and their seed, the true seed. This promise cannot fail; it must and will be fulfilled unto the whole seed, because all showings of God’s grace are immutable. Both reasons adduced for the love of God form a uniform motive. Election and call are correlatives here also. The latter is a result of the former, because God has elected them from the beginning and has called them to salvation in Christ, in and with the promise given to the fathers, and because the purpose of such election and call will certainly be fulfilled, therefore, the Israelites whom the apostle has in mind, are loved now already by God, though they do not yet believe, even though God hates their unbelief.
On Jews, Israel & the Church (Pt. 2): George Stoeckhardt’s Romans Commentary

May 3rd, 2024
Old Missouri Theologian George Stoeckhardt’s Commentary on Romans is a wealth of doctrine for our present, starved age of antinomian Lutheranism. One such application ripe for the correction of Christian thinking is a series of hilights regarding the Judaean people, Israel —both the nation and the typological concept found in Scripture —, and the Church Herself. Herein below you will find such a selection of hilights from Stoeckhardt’s Romerbrief demonstrating the Old Missouri teachings on these topics and more. This is the second part in a series regarding such.

For more on the topic of true Israel (i.e the Church Invisible) and the modern peoples called Jewish today read
As elsewhere, the below excerpts are formatted with the exact verse in reference at the header, with the verses themselves underlined as original. Editorial emphasis is added with bolded letters. A short concluding comment follows.

X.3
The apostle for his own person desires, wishes and requests salvation for Israel. Nothing else would he rather have than that Israel should direct their zeal, which they revealed it an evil way and in an evil thing, in the establishment of work-righteousness, to a good thing, the righteousness of God, and so attain salvation. But the Jews by their ubelief hinder not only the fulfillment of his wish, the hearing of his prayer, but finally his intercession itself.

Christians also pray for the non-Christians, for their offenders and persecuters, pray that God should convert them. Nevertheless, in the measure the latter take offense at the Stumblingstone and harden themselves against God’s Word and the right knowledge, they withdraw their intercession until it cease altogether. “There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” I John 5,16. That is the sin, the condition or state of obduracy.

X.4
The apostle is right in accusing the Jews with punishable stupidity, for what he has just stated is indisputably the purpose of the sending of Christ. And that the Jews ignore. If they would only open their eyes and not wilfully close them to the clear light of the New Testament, to the publicly attested truth and fact concerning Christ’s fulfilling all righteousness, they would not again seek out the law and establish their own righteousness of God.

X.5
Many are of the opinion that the righteousness of the law was the way of salvation ordained by God in Old Testament times, the basis for the attainment of salvation, and that the righteousness of faith is the way of salvation first since the time of Christ, in New Testament times. With that Paul’s entire doctrine is overthrown. According to Pauline and Scriptural doctrine there is only one way to salvation for all men, at all times: that is faith and righteousness of faith. In Rom. 4 Paul pointed out in detail that Abraham was justified and received the inheritance not by the works of the law but by faith alone. And the same is true of David during the time after the giving of the law. At no time was it God’s intention to justify and save men through the law. Paul explicitly denies that the law was given for the purpose of saving men. Gal. 3, 21. Men who wished to be justified and saved before God by the works of the law follow their own thoughts.

Certainly, the law of Moses is the law of God. The Mosaic law reveals God’s eternal, unchangeable will. Everything that He has commanded in the law is His earnest demand of all men. And God has attached to the fulfillment of the law: life, salvation; to the transgression of the same: Curse, wrath, death, damnation. But all that to the purpose that man may know that he has not kept His commandments, that he confesses his sins and knows that he has merited curse and wrath, and that he then, despairing of the righteousness of the law, turns to the righteousness of faith.

X.16
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. God had sent His messengers, who proclaimed salvation. But so many refused to accept and obey the Gospel, God’s message of salvation. Disobedence to the Gospel is nothing else than unbelief, as then faith is essentially obedience to the Gospel. Thus formally and solemnly, after having previously pointed to it, the apostle substantiates Israel’s unbelief, and as severe guilt. If the Jews lose salvation, the fault is their’s alone and not God’s. God has done and prepared all that is necessary for faith and salvation. He has given the Gospel and sent preachers. However, they did not and did not want to receive the Gospel of their salvation, which was preached to them at God’s commission.

The apostle confirms his judgment over Israel by the judgment which the prophet Isaiah long before pronounced over his people. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Is. 53, 1. This report is the prophetic preaching, just such preaching as is contained in Isaiah 53, the preaching of the humiliation and exaltation of the Servant of God. In the expression “our report” the apostle joins himself to all the preachers of all times, who like himself testified of Christ, therefore, also to the apostles and preachers of the New Testament. But who has believed our preaching? No one, as good as no one, very few. It is a painful complaint which the prophet makes in the name of all the Gospel preachers. At the same time, this complaint is a severe accusation. From the days of Isaiah on unbelief, that they did not believe the preaching concerning Christ, is the mark of Israel.

X.17
Having spoken of the connection between faith, preaching, sending, the apostle adds these words in order to put the unbelief, the disobedience of the Jews into the most glaring light. By their unbelief they oppose that connection, the order of salvation established by God, and frustrate what God has done and prepared to bring man salvation.

X.18
But I say, Have they not heard? The apostle himself raises this objection. It did not remain unintelligible to them, did it? Having rebuked the unbelief, disobedience of the Jews, the apostle presupposes that the Jews have heard the message of Christ, the voices of God’s messengers. One can only expect faith of those who have heard the message. One can only reproach those with disobedience who have heard the Gospel. But has the apostle supposed too much? Have all the Jews really heard the Gospel? Have the Jews abroad, scattered throughout the heathen lands, remained without report and kowledge of Christ?

X.19
The apostle has removed all excuse for the unbelief of the Jews. Also the excuse that they had not heard the Gospel. The messengers of salvation followed after them unto the ends of the earth. But I say, Did not Israel know? Israel did not take to heart the time of her visitation. That was the severe guilt of the people. Luke 19, 42.44. Israel was lacking in the saving knowiedge of the Gospel. Paul does not simply write:”Israel did not know,” Rather: “But I say, It is not so that Israel did not know, is it?” It is unthinkable, unbelievable that Israel, the chosen people, to whom God from ages past had intrusted His word and promises, should ignore and leave unnoticed the message of the promises fulfillment, or despise and reject it. The apostle
is astonished and surprized and indignant over the undeniable, clear fact that Israel did not understand and believe the Gospel.

It is very surprizing that Israel did not understand and believe the Gospel. Yet one should not take offense at this. For the prophets already before proclaimed the unbelief of Israel, First Moses saith. The first who spoke of this was Moses, already Moses, with whom the Scriptures begin. I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I
will anger you. Deut. 32,21.

The Israelites had aroused God’s jealousy and displeasure by their idols and vanities, by praying to vain idols instead of to the living God. And so God through a foolish people, through a people which is not a people, not God’s people, in that He would turn His grace to them and accept them as His people, will make the Israelites jealous and angry. This foolish people, of which Moses speaks, which is not a people, is the ungodly heathen world. So here the conversion, pardoning of the heathen is prophesied. Stated not for its own sake, it appears as only the cause on account of which the jealousy, displeasure and wrath of Israel are inflamed. In this connection Moses prophesied of Israel’s future apostasy that finally brings down God’s wrath, which burns into the lowest part of hell. The Israelites are “a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.” Deut, 32,20. They forsook God and served idols. Their corrupt nature and disposition reached their climax when they begrudged the heathen God’s grace, when they took offense at God’s grace, which is freely offered to sinful, godless men. Thus Moses spoke of Israel’s unbelief, which he characterized as opposition to the Lord’s grace. Man does not want to know anything of the Gospel, because its sweet, comforting content is offensive to him, A clear example of this unbelief of the Jews is found in Acts 13, 42ff.

X.21
Here too the heathen are only mentioned for the sake of contrast, for the sake of the Jews. But to Israel he saith. Thus Paul calls attention to the contrast. This then pertains to the Jews: All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. Is. 65, 2.

God continually, the whole day, spread out His hands towards Israel, in order to draw them unto Himself and embrace them. But Israel was an obstinate people. They did not wait to be told and opposed. Thus also Isaiah prophesies of Jewish unbelief. He regards it as obstinate, stiff-necked rejection of the lasting efforts of God’s love, as open opposition and protest against God’s gracious will. The Lord’s lament over Jerusalem, for example, shows the fulfillment of this prophecy. “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matt, 23,37. Yet also at the time of the apostle God spread out His arms to Israel, in that He attempted to soften their hard hearts through the heart-winning preaching of the Gospel and bore the vessels of wrath with great patience. The Jews, however, despised the riches of divine goodness, patience and longsuffering and frankly and freely declared: We are unwilling; we do not want to be saved.

That is true of the unbelievers of all times. What an abyss of malice unbelief is! To lost and damned men comes the eternal mercy, the open, loving arms of Him who bows to the sinners. And man forcibly withdraws himself from the loving arms of God and says to Him: “No, I do not want you.” Both Isaiah and Paul shamed the Jews by the example of the heathen and then bared Jewish unbelief in its entire shame and atrocity.

In fine brevem

A few points will aptly summarize. (1) As seen in Stoeckhardt’s comment on Romans IX.2 in part 1 of this series, (see link above) “a Christian always keeps his desires within the realm of possibility and the limits set by God” – this is reaffirmed in his masterful application of the verse I John 5,16 to Romans X.3. The ultimate point being, to hem and haw over the fact that the Jews have been cursed by God in their hardhearted, obdurate state and wish them be saved in spite of that fact is, in fact, sin. (2) Willingness and unwillingness are spoke of in frank terms that may be grating to Young Lutheran ears which are all too commonly tickled by the theological fact that God, indeed, works faith in us and by the Spiritus Sanctus we are sanctified; and yet, though it is God’s work to call His elect, we all each of us possess a negative duty as Christians to not be so unwilling as to refuse the free gift of unearned grace given us. (3) The apostasy of God’s once-chosen people is a fact well foreknown and shown throughout Scripture.
On Jews, Israel & the Church (Pt 1): George Stoeckhardt’s Romans Commentary

April 27th, 2024
Old Missouri Theologian George Stoeckhardt’s Commentary on Romans is a wealth of doctrine for our present, starved age of antinomian Lutheranism. One such application ripe for the correction of Christian thinking is a series of hilights regarding the Judaean people, Israel —both the nation and the typological concept found in Scripture —, and the Church Herself. Herein below you will find such a selection of hilights from Stoeckhardt’s Romerbrief demonstrating the Old Missouri teachings on these topics and more. This is the first part in a series regarding such.

For more on the topic of true Israel (i.e the Church Invisible) and the modern peoples called Jewish today read
- “What makes our mission to the Jews so difficult?” Der Lutheraner Vol. 66, No. 24
- What Does it Mean to Stop Being a Jew? Pt 1
As elsewhere, the below excerpts are formatted with the exact verse in reference at the header, with the verses themselves underlined as original. Editorial emphasis is added with bolded letters. A short concluding comment follows.

IX.2
The apostle so holily and dearly assures that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. What incessantly pains and troubles him is this: For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Paul’s brethren and relatives according to the flesh, the Jews, are accursed. They have fallen under and are appointed to the wrath and curse of God. The Jews are under God’s curse because they are excluded from Christ and salvation in Christ. It annoys the apostle that his own people are excluded from salvation, which he also praised in this letter and recommended to Jews and Gentiles. It troubles his heart so deeply that he wished he himself would be banned from Christ and condemned, instead of his brethren according to the flesh. If it were possible and proper, Paul would like to pledge his own salvation in order to save his brethren from damnation. The apostle does not directly speak the wish, for a Christian always keeps his desircs within the realm of possibility and the limits set by God. But it is the earnest feeling of his heart that, in case it were possible, he would be ready to buy the deliverance of his brethren with his own salvation. Paul now enumerates the advantages of his brethren according to the flesh, from which one understands why he so ardently loves and is so deeply concerned about the exclusion of his brethren from salvation in Christ.

IX.6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. That Paul’s brethren according to the flesh are accursed from Christ is not to be understood as though God’s Word had become invalid. This Word is the Word of God, which concerned Israel,
God’s promise that Israel should be His people and the possessor and bearer of the promise of Christ. This promise seems to contradict the present fate of the Jews. As it was promised, Christ went forth from Israel. Nevertheless, the promise, that Israel had, included also that Israel itself and Israel first should share in Christ’s salvation, which was meant for all peoples, to
be sure. Abraham, through whom all the peoples of the earth should be blessed, should also himself be a blessing. When Christ should come, “Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely,” Jer. 23,6. And now Israel is accursed from Christ! However, God’s Word has not become untenable. That the apostle proves.

IX.9
Isaac was a son of promise. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. Gen. 18,10.14. Isaac was born by promise. Gal. 4,23. God had given the promise to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, when their bodies were already dead, that they should have a son. And what He promised that He was also able to do and did. Isaac is thus a type of the children of the promise. Isaac, by virtue of the promise, was born in the natural way. The children of promise, whom the apostle has in mind, are born by the promise, by the Gospel, in a spiritual way, are translated into a new, spiritual life and existence. God has created faith in them through the Word. Through faith they are born again. Thus believing Christians are the children of the promise, as was Isaac. Ga.4,28. And the children of the promise, the believing, converted Israelites, are the true children of Abraham and God. They are not accursed from Christ but share in His salvation. So God’s Word, which Israel had, has not become of none effect but in that respect has rather been confirmed and fulfilled. For from the beginning in the promise the blessings was connected with faith. Isaiah says: “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone,.. he that believeth shall not make haste.” Is. 28,16. The new covenant, which rests on the forgiveness of sins, has, according to Jeremiah, also this characteristic that the children of Israel will know the Lord. Jer. 31,34. Scriptures testify that Abraham, the ancestor of Israel, was justified by faith, and so is the father of all believers, also of the believing Jews, a father of the circumcision, not only of those who are of the circumcision but also of those who walk in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith, To them righteousness is imputed; to them belongs the promised inheritance.

We must distinguish between the seed and the true seed of Abraham. The people of Israel, all bodily descendants of Abraham from Isaac, as from Jacob, were God’s people. God had placed this people into a special relation to Himself. He had revealed Himself to this people and lived in their midst. Israel had a law. The whole community, all the public affairs of Israel were regulated by the law. To them belonged the promise. To Israel alone, to no other people, was the promise given, was the future Christ revealed in the promise. Christ came from the people of Israel in the fulness of time. Salvation has come from the Jews. It is wrong to restrict the prerogatives of Israel to the believing Israelites. They are rather characteristic of all Israel. From Israel according to the flesh, which includes all natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, however, the Israel according to the Spirit is to be distinguished. Only Israel begotten through the Word by the Spirit is the true Israel. Only the believing Israelites are regarded by God as Abraham’s real children and God’s true children and share in Christ’s salvation; while all those Israelites, who are Israelites according to the flesh only, but not according to the Spirit and faith, are accursed from Christ. It is wrong to reckon among the enumerate advantages of Israel the salvation in Christ, the righteousness which avails before God, the eternal salvation. The promise pertains to all Israelites inasmuch as the promised Christ should and did take upon Himself flesh and blood from Israel, and inasmuch as in the promise and later in the preaching of the Gospel salvation was offered to all Israelites. The real children of the promise are only those who cling to the promise, who have applied to themselves Christ’s salvation in faith.

IX.13
The apostle wishes to refer this second Biblical example, as the first, to the question under discussion. That Esau was excluded from the lineage of promise points to that fact that not all Israelites, descended from Abraham according to the flesh, are true Israelites. Jacob, as Isaac, is a type of the true children of Abraham and God. This is the lesson from the example of Jacob: All Israelites, who – as Jacob and regardless of birth and origin, of works and conduct- were chosen and called according to God’s free purpose, but who are now chosen and called to adoption and salvation in Christ, are the real seed of Abraham; they are God’s children, who finally receive eternal salvation.

IX.18
It evidently was the example of Pharaoh which caused the apostle to speak of obduracy. Nowhere in Scriptures is obduracy described more in detail than in the story of Pharaoh. God has presented Pharaoh just as an example of obduracy. The last great deed of God’s might and judgment upon Pharaoh, which destroyed him from the earth, was prepared through the judgment of obduracy, Yet, it is especially the context that leads the apostle to the subject. Through the entire historical discussion runs the contrast between true Israel and the Israel accursed from Christ. In the further course of the discussion just this fact is brought forth that the unbelieving Jews have fallen under the judgment of obduracy. Though the statement “Whom he will he hardeneth” is general in character, Paul has in mind especially the Jews, who had the same experience as Pharaoh. From the example of Pharaoh, therefore, one should learn what obduracy really is.

IX.23-4
Throughout the present historical discussion the apostle speaks of the fate of Israel, which he places along side of the fate of the Gentiles. So when he speaks of the vessels of wrath, he has before his eyes his fellow men, who at the time when he wrote this were accursed from Christ. It was a great day of mercy for Israel when Christ, who is God over all, took from Israel the flesh and blood of men and went to and fro among His people to seek and to save that which was lost. He came unto His own, but His own received Him not. To them He cried out at the close of His public ministry: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matt. 23,37. Then when the Jews nailed their Messiah to the cross, they filled the measure of their sins; then were they ripe for destruction. It would not have been too severe had God suddenly exterminated this generation of Christ’s murderers from the earth. Matt, 23,32. But God had patience and granted the disobedient children yet a last time of grace.

The twelve apostles of Israel declared the salvation, which Christ had won for sinners through suffering and death, to their people first of all and preached unto them repentance and forgiveness of sins. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, wherever he came, spoke the Word of God first to the Jews of the Diaspora. When the greater part of the Jews hardened themselves to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then the judgement of obduracy, already begun in the days of Christ, was completed; and final wrath was no longer far off. “They please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” I Thess. 2, 15.16. The judgment of wrath in the year 70 A.D. was according to Scripture the final day for Israel, a type and beginning of the judgment of the world. Matt. 16,28; Mark 9,1; Luke 9,27. At the the same time, however, during this last period of Israel’s history the Church of the New Testament was being built in the heathen world, especially through the ministry of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. In those days God had revealed the riches of His glory and the fulness of His mercy to the poor, erring heathen. When the Jews did not deem themselves worthy of eternal life, the apostles turned to the heathen and gathered together from the peoples of the heathen a great harvest. And wherever the Gospel of Christ was preached and brought fruit, there also a number of Jews was added to the congregation of Christ. These are the historical facts, the great deeds of God, upon which Paul looks back, having already happened when he wrote this letter.

IX.25-6
Paul refers these words of Hosea to the call and pardoning of the Gentiles. In his prophecy Hosea reveals to the idolatrous Kingdom of the Ten Tribes that the Lord would no longer be gracious to them and that they would become like the
heathen. The Ten Tribes then also perished in the heathen world after their removal into the Assyrian Captivity. But to the threat there is immediately attached a promise, a Messianic promise, Hos. I,10:”Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it
was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” The first part of the prophecy is evidently an echo of the patriarchal promise received by Abraham, Gen.12,3; 15,5; 17,5; 22,17. The seed of Abraham, however, is the spiritual posterity. Rom.4,17. Accordingly in Hos.1.10 “the children of Israel,” whose number should be as the sands of the seas,” are the members of God’s New Testament people; the place where it was said to them, “ye are not my people,” is the heathen land; those not called His people are the heathen to whom also belonged those Israelites, who had become like the heathen. And of the Gentiles it is here prophesied that they in Messianic times would be and be called the sons of the living God. The continuation of the prophecy agrees with this, Hos.1,11:”Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”

These words can mean nothing else than the gathering of the New Testament Church from all peoples, the one flock under the one Shepherd, John 10,ll, which is here described in Old Testament expressions under the picture of the return from the captivity. For the children of Israel, in the real sense of the word, in distinction from the children of Judah, the Ten Tribes, never returned to Canaan from the Exile. And when it reads further in Hos, 2,1:”Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah,” and in 2,23; “and I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God,” thus, according to the context, reference is made to the mercy which the Gentiles should experience. In Hos. 1,10; 2,23 there is, therefore, a direct Scriptural testimony for the call, conversion and pardoning of the Gentiles.

IX.29:
And as Esaias said before, Except the lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. Is. 1,9. In this prophecy, Is. l, Isaiah paints in short, marked lines the disobedient and impenitent Israel, as it was at his time and remained in later times, and threatens the judgment, which already began in his days and was finally completed in the mighty catastrophe of 70 A.D. Then the wrath of God was poured out over Judah-Jerusalem, similarly as once over
the godless cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. All apostate children are dedicated to wrath and destruction, not only those who are snatched away by such visible judgments. Nevertheless, Judah was not altogether like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, of whom not one remained when the Lord destroyed those cities. In this case God kept a seed for Himself. Those are the true Israelites, who have shared in Christ’s salvation.

With these two prophetic quotations the apostle has confirmed the words: “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also Gentiles.” God, as prophesied in the Scriptures of the Old Covenant called and gathered a people, Christendom, for Himself from the Gentiles and also from the Jews, in spite of the rejection of the great mass already proclaimed by the prophets.

IX.33
Such was the state of affairs with Israel when Paul wrote this letter. Christ had appeared and presented Himself to His people as the promised Helper and Redeemer. The apostle of Christ had first declared to the Jews that there was salvation in no one else but in Christ, the Crucified and the Resurrected. The great majority of Israel, however, had from the beginning taken offense at Christ and became confirmed in their enmity against Christ. Thus for them Christ, according to God’s just decree, was appointed to this purpose: that they further and more violently took offense at Him and were finally dashed to pieces. Thus the apostle points to the severe guilt of Israel, their fully-matured unbelief, as the adequate cause of their destruction and damnation.

In fine brevem

A few points will aptly summarize. (1) Stoeckhardt clearly exegetes the events of the New Testament with the prophecy of the Old, finding ample fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in the events of Our Lord’s ministry, death and resurrection. No need for retaining Old Testament prophecies for purposes of dispensationalist misreadings! (2) The physical and the spiritual seeds of Abraham are clearly distinguished one from the other, as it was clearly the former alone that the majority of Judah prided herself on when it was those of the latter that constitute true Israel. (3) This spiritual seed, that is faith, has been and will always be the same throughout all time, the righteous belief in the savior sent to crush the serpent’s head.
Do You Renounce Jewish Unbelief and Blasphemy?

January 15th, 2024

The German Lutherans in America once had a powerfully true confession that would have prevented so many subsequent problems not only in the church but perhaps the nation. At some point their descendants grew shy about sharing that confession in English, but we’re here to share what should have been transferred to English-speaking Christendom.

Following three pages of prayers, the first questions in the rite for adult baptism in the 1902 Church Agenda translate as follows:

Here the following questions are asked of the one to be baptized:
Do you renounce the Devil?
Answer: Yes!
And all his works?
Answer: Yes!
And all his ways, especially the Jewish (heathen, Unitarian, separatist) unbelief and blasphemy? (the gross and dangerous Anabaptist errors and enthusiasm?)
Answer: Yes!

Kirchen-Agende für Evang.-Luth. Gemeinden, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1902, pp.13-14

We see the same text still included in the 1922 edition with the addition of brackets before insonderheit ‘especially’:

Kirchen-Agende für Evang.-Luth. Gemeinden, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1922, pp.144-145

Why were the brackets added? Was this part of the question considered less important by then? We find the answer in another change that was made in the second paragraph of the prayer at the beginning of this rite, which reads:

“And also thy present servant (maid), born of Jewish (heathen etc.) parents, has to thank this thy undeserved grace and unfathomable mercy alone that his soul has been freed from damnation. Before now, he was without Christ, foreign and outside of the spiritual kingdom of Israel, and therefore on account of his sins, he was in an entirely unholy state. Now, however, after he has been converted by thy wonderful goodness and united through the faith with Christ, he has drawn close.” (1902 Agenda p. 11)

The 1922 Agenda is missing the phrase italicized above.

1902 Agenda p. 11

1922 Agenda p. 143

Here we see why these particular ways of the Devil are listed: Any adult convert has been under the power of the Devil and therefore deceived by heretical beliefs up until the time of his conversion. This baptismal rite lists the most common forms of unbelief and blasphemy that ensnare people before their conversion and expects that they condemn their former unbelief and blasphemy publicly before their baptism.

This list of potential converts to Christianity (Jews, heathen, Unitarians, separatists, Anabaptists) were the most common types of non-Christians in America at that time who would have needed a baptism before joining a Lutheran church. Converts to the Lutheran church from other Christian churches with valid Trinitarian baptisms would not have to be baptized before joining.

Now that the context for this passage is clear, we would like to make a few points regarding the inclusion of “Jewish Unbelief and blasphemy” in this rite.

First: The beliefs and practices of Jews are contrary to the true faith in Christ, they are blasphemous, and these beliefs and practices are the work of the Devil.

Second: Jews are cut off from the true Israel unless they repent of their unbelief and turn to Christ their Savior. They are not part of Israel on account of their ancestry or by means of their blasphemous teachings and practices.

Third: Anyone who renounces the Devil, all his works, and all his ways renounces all the false beliefs and practices listed in this rite: Jewish, heathen, Unitarian, and separatist unbelief and blasphemy, the gross and dangerous Anabaptist errors and enthusiasm (and many others including Mormonism and Mohammedanism). If it was ever appropriate for any convert to renounce these things explicitly then all Christians renounce them implicitly.

Fourth: It would be wise to bring these specific condemnations of the Devil’s snares back to our baptism rite for adults. For the sake of the souls who join our churches we should not be shy in making sure that all our members have the strength to admit their former errors and renounce them publicly.

Fifth: Although it is doubtful that new Christians were given the option to renounce this whole list of heresies publicly, that would have been beneficial, and it would also be beneficial to begin that practice not only in baptismal rites but also in the confirmation of new members etc. Since we live in a time and place where so many religions of the Devil are tolerated and promoted, we shouldn’t hesitate to renounce the prominent ones by name. Should we be in fellowship with men who are hesitant to renounce Mormonism or Buddhism as the work of the Devil? If not, then we also shouldn’t be in fellowship with men who hesitate to renounce Judaism as the same.
Papist Superstitions and African Heathen

August 11th, 2023

Friedrich Bente reports the following in Der Lutheraner V.50 p.76. (April 24, 1894).

Roman superstition. “The Catholic News” is annoyed that Catholics are often so stupid as to publish things which expose them to the ridicule of Protestants. In its columns of February 28, it reports the following case: “Mrs. Abel Ram—a gifted and enthusiastic Catholic—has just published with Longman a history of the founding and growth of the Order of the Little Sisters of the Poor. In it is found the following story. The patron saint of the Society is St. Joseph. They—the sisters of the order—turn to him when they run out of bread, and their prayers are usually answered. ‘If, however,’ says Mrs. Ram, ‘the saint waits too long for an answer to their insistent requests, penance is imposed on him; his face is turned to the wall, he is locked in a closet, or in some other way punished. Thus, in a convent in the Netherlands, the inmates had a shortage of butter. Finally, they—the sisters—became quite angry with St. Joseph, to whom they had prayed daily. The good mother—the superior in the convent—however, had a plan of attack. She had two old men carry the statue of the saint out of the chapel into the cellar and place it under the empty butter dishes. There was butter!”—Same as the Negroes in Africa do when their idols will not listen. The only difference is that the Negroes are neither considered civilized nor Christian, which the Catholics claim exclusively for themselves.
— F[riedrich]. B[ente].
Kindergarten: Where Idle, Pleasure-Seeking Women send their “Little Pests”

July 29th, 2023

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Kindergartens, in which younger children are instructed and engage in play before [formally] entering school, can only be justified when great poverty requires mothers to earn their daily bread during the day. A small child flourishes nowhere better than under the eyes of his mother; she shoud be his nurturer [Erzieherin] and teacher. But idle, comfortable, pleasure-seeking women experience it as a “relief” to be able to send the “little pests” to Kindergarten where the caretakers have to “bother” with them.
— J.C.W. Lindemann, Amerikanisch-Lutherische Schul-Praxis, pg. 36
St. Augustine & the Holy Augsburg Confessors: “Neither must we submit to Catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God”

May 27th, 2023

“[A]ccording to the Gospel or, as they say, by divine right, there belongs to the bishops as bishops, that is, to those to whom has been committed the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments, no jurisdiction except to forgive sins, to judge doctrine, to reject doctrines contrary to the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church wicked men, whose wickedness is known, and this without human force, simply by the Word. Herein the congregations of necessity and by divine right must obey them, according to Luke 10, 16: ‘He that heareth you heareth Me.’ But when they teach or ordain anything against the Gospel, then the congregations have a commandment of God prohibiting obedience, Matt. 7, 15: ‘Beware of false prophets’; Gal. 1, 8: ‘Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed’; 2 Cor. 13, 8: ‘We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.’ Also: ‘The power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.’ So, also, the Canonical Laws command (II. Q. VII. Cap., Sacerdotes, and Cap. Oves). And Augustine (Contra Petiliani Epistolam): ‘Neither must we submit to Catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God.’”
~ Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII: “Of Ecclesiastical Power”; 20-28
Lutheran Confessors to Charles V: “Attend to the Preservation and Propagation of Divine Things”

May 7th, 2023

A better Charles. Among Charlemagne’s many notable accomplishments was the publication of the 1943 edition of Luther’s Small Catechism. Signed copies are still floating around out there.

It is an unfortunate and common mistake when browsing the Book of Concord to assume that the article titles indicate limited topical scopes of discussion. Though there are numerous examples—one need only think of how frequently the cardinal truths concerning justification sola fide are reiterated—one in particular stands out in light of recent discussions regarding the proper Lutheran understanding of faith and politics. One of the most interesting statements on this topic is located near the very end of Article XXI of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, “Of the Invocation of Saints.” Melanchthon writes:

Therefore, most excellent Emperor Charles, for the sake of the glory of Christ, which we have no doubt that you desire to praise and magnify, we beseech you not to assent to the violent counsels of our adversaries, but to seek other honorable ways of so establishing harmony that godly consciences are not burdened, that no cruelty is exercised against innocent men, as we have hitherto seen, and that sound doctrine is not suppressed in the Church. To God most of all you owe the duty [as far as this is possible to man] to maintain sound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those who teach what is right. For God demands this when He honors kings with His own name and calls them gods, saying, Ps. 82:6: I have said, “Ye are gods,” namely, that they should attend to the preservation and propagation of divine things, i.e., the Gospel of Christ, on the earth, and, as the vicars of God, should defend the life and safety of the innocent [true Christian teachers and preachers].

Brackets are in the original and contain Justas Jonas’s elaborations from the German edition.

When is the last time you heard a Lutheran pastor or theologian of any sort teach that it is the duty of the state—specifically of the ruler—“to maintain sound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those who teach what is right”? When have you heard a Lutheran teach that “[kings] should attend to the preservation and propagation of divine things, i.e., the Gospel of Christ, on the earth,” distinguish between true and false teachers, and defend the latter?

I’m not going to run a poll, but I’m going to guess that the answer is either “never” or “it was mentioned once in a Confessions study that ‘they used to think that way back then.’”

This is what our Lutheran fathers believed, because it’s what the Bible teaches. “Freedom of religion” is a modern notion. It is not derived from Scripture. If the prince will not support the Church in his realm, if he will not suppress heresy, he is failing to do his duty as a prince, not just failing to “do his Christian duty.” This is not descriptive; it’s prescriptive. This is not just what rulers did once upon a time; this is what all rulers are supposed to do. In every age. For the sake of the glory of Christ.

Be of good cheer, Lutheran man. More and more people are waking up to the truth. You’re not alone. There are many like you out there. Our numbers are growing every day. Those who are married and blessed with children are teaching their children these good things, these forgotten truths, this true spiritual meat. “And the Lord, he it is that doth go before thee; he will be with thee, he will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.”

Let’s pray for Christ to hasten his return. And until he comes again, let’s pray that God would send us a ruler who will defend the Faith. Saying that we can’t Christianize America is like saying that you can’t Christianize your home. Speak for yourself, naysayer! I Christianize my home every day, by God’s grace, and I, and people like me, intend to Christianize America. Because it’s our home.

Thanks for reading Old Lutherans.

We are unabashedly doing this for more than just kicks. If you enjoy this blog, please consider making a secure donation via TipTopJar. We are doing things. https://t.co/DbSeEWle9L pic.twitter.com/NvScQgCGpp

— Old Lutheran Synod (@oldluth) April 29, 2023
Theological Axioms on Secular Government Assembled by C. F. W. Walther

May 7th, 2023

John (the Steadfast), Elector of Saxony

[This translation from the German by Christopher S. Doerr originally appeared in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 1 (Winter 2012) Walther’s original appeared in Lehre und Wehre V. 9 (1863) pp. 303-305, V. 10 pp. 15-19]

XXIII. About Secular Government

1. Initially the governmental dignity belonged to the family heads, but as a result of the increase of the human race it was transferred to specific predetermined persons. (Kromayer)

2. When a kingdom is first established, its authority and power must be arranged according to natural law and according to the way that law is put into practice in their nation. (Gerhard)

3. The contributing causes which impart governmental dignity to a successor, as many modes as there are of acquiring that dignity, by inherited succession, vote, compact, conquest in just wars, or even by lot, neither change the inherent nature of governmental power nor take anything away from the divine origin of that power. (Scherzer)

4. Power refers to something actual, irrespective of the legal basis for how that power was first acquired. (ibid.)

5. If prescriptive laws should not carry any weight, what kingdom will then be considered lawful? (Dannhauer)

6. The same authority that Constantine gave the Christians, Julian the Apostate also gave. (Augustine)

7. The necessity for subjects to obey is not by virtue of an authority that people are free to set up or not,^[1] but is in accordance with God-given, natural law. It is indeed the very same as the authority of a father, the use of which was conferred upon the first parent not by his descendants, who did not yet exist, nor by those who did already exist, who willingly gathered together and subjugated themselves to him as the first one created; but on the contrary, just as they acquired body and soul from their first father through natural dependence, so also they acquired the life-instructions that befit a reasoning creature. (Huelsemann)

8. The government has conferred upon it the power to provide, to make laws, to judge, and to punish. (Hollaz)

9. The government has the power of the sword not only metaphorically, but also synecdochically, not only judicially, but also armed with the sword of war. (Dannhauer)^[2]

10. The government has power over every soul situated anywhere within the perimeter of its kingdom. (ibid.)

11. The government is God’s minister, but not in the same way that the citizens of the community are. (ibid.)

12. By “Caesar” (or higher authorities), you should understand also those sent by Caesar, who do what they do in Caesar’s name. (ibid.)

13. Subjects have no authority to resist him who is the rightful king even if in exercising his power he is a tyrant. (ibid.)

14. When the sword that has been given to the government and belongs to it is taken up by the subjects, those who lay hold of that sword are sticking their hands into someone else’s office. (ibid.)

15. It is unjust for a subject to take up the sword, when he is simply a mere subject. (ibid.)

16. You should distinguish between those who are only subjects and those who are not only subjects. (Gerhard)

17. You should distinguish between princes who possess all sovereignty and have unlimited authority and princes whose authority is limited and circumscribed by a compact concluded between them and the nobles of the realm. (Gerhard)

18. If the king has part of the sovereignty and the people, the senate, has the other part, then force can be used to oppose the king when he encroaches upon territory that is not his, insofar as he has no ruling authority there. (Dannhauer)

19. It is a false conclusion to say that every authority comes from God and therefore may not be resisted, so that even a tyrant who unjustly invades another land is not to be opposed. (ibid.)

20. So long as the powers to resist are lacking, the lordship of an invader has binding authority, not because it is so just, but because it is to be accepted that those who have the right to rule would sooner that the laws made in the interim be legitimate than advise that laws and justice cease and everything end up in disorder. (ibid.)

21. Princes exist for the sake of the subjects, not subjects for the sake of the princes. (Gerhard)

22. A prince is, as it were, the guardian and custodian of the state, being called its lord not as regards a proprietary right, but in consideration of what he does to rule and protect. (ibid.)

23. A prince can do much that he cannot do with a good conscience. (Dannhauer)

24. The verse in 1 Sam. 8 does not speak about a just and legitimate authority (of a king), but about an actual authority, as it is carried out, that is binding and not to be opposed. (Dannhauer)

25. To Caesar is to be given what is Caesar’s in such way that what is God’s is still given to God. (Gerhard)

26. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, that is, (give) to Caesar the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, and to God the image of God, which is in man, namely so that you give Caesar the money and give God yourself: otherwise, what would be left for God if everything were Caesar’s? (Tertullian)

27. It would be seditious for a preacher not to chastise someone who scoffs at the government. (Luther)

28. The gospel does not abolish civil ordinances.

29. Earth has one kind of authority: heaven has another. (Hackspan)^[3]

30. In spiritual matters the government belongs to the sheep, but in political matters to the shepherd. (Gerhard)

31. The government owes obedience to the pastors in spiritual things, since in that relationship it is part of the sheep; on the other hand, in the same way, the church’s ministers owe obedience to the government in political matters, since in that relationship they are the sheep. (ibid.)

32. The prince, as a prince, is chief over the state, just as Christ is chief over the members of the church and protector of its churchly fellowship. (ibid.)

33. If the government is made up of believers who are members of the church, then they extend the call (to the preacher), not because they are the government, but because they are members of the church. (Luther)

34. Secular rule has to do with far different matters than the gospel does: its power is not to protect souls, but body and goods against external forces by using the sword and physical punishments. (Augsburg Confession)

35. The bishop, as a prince, cannot impose anything upon the church, for that would mean mixing the two governments together and then he would be a real “allotri-episkopos,” or a bishop who sticks his hands in other people’s business. If we let him have his way in this matter, then we would be guilty of the same robbery of churches as he is. Here you must sooner give up your life than permit such godlessness and injustice. (Luther)

36. The bishop, as a prince, can impose whatever he wants upon his (Christian) subjects and give them commands, insofar as they are subjects and what he commands is pious and just, and the subjects must obey, for they are then obeying not as the church, but as citizens. (Luther)

37. It is not the business of kings to give laws to the church. (John of Damascus)

38. Secular government should be content and look after its own business and let people believe this or that, however they can and want to believe, and no one should compel people with force to believe something. When it comes to believing, it is something free and cannot be compelled by anyone. Yes, it is something God effects in the spirit. Be quiet, then, about compelling people to believe through outward force. (Luther)

39. Commandments don’t get people to believe the truth, nor is any compromise possible when it comes to the truth. (Balser)

40. The subjects are bound to vindicate their beliefs when the government so commands, but are not bound by a command to believe. (Dannhauer)

41. Heresy as such is a spiritual crime and hence is to be overcome also with the spiritual sword. (Gerhard)

42. Who may force me to believe what I am unwilling to believe or not to believe what I am willing to believe? Nothing is as voluntary as religion: once the disposition for it leaves you, that religion has ceased, it is no more. (Lactantius)

43. The church of Christ does not thirst for blood, since its bridegroom is the Lamb. (Christoph Agricola)^[4]

44. The good people in the worldwide church are by no means pleased when anyone, even a heretic, is made to feel the wrath of the death penalty. (Augustine)^[5]

45. The government bears the sword for nothing if, in cases of necessity, when there is no other means available for obtaining peace, the sword cannot be drawn from its sheath for the defense of their subjects. (Gerhard)

46. In order for a war to be lawful, it requires that the government has the right to declare and begin the war, that the reasons why the war is undertaken are righteous and fair, that the war is waged in a lawful manner, and that it is waged for a good purpose. (Gerhard)

47. The reasons for the war must be acknowledged not only by the government under whose oversight the war is waged, but also by the soldiers with whose help and service they wage it. (Arcularius)^[6]

48. Citizens are not bound to help the government accomplish the waging of an unjust war. (Arcularius)

49. If the government hides the true reason for a war and puts forth another reason in pretence, then the citizens who are called to serve in the war must obey, until a time when it becomes completely obvious that the war is an unjust one. (ibid.)

50. Not for the spread of religion, but for its defense, can a war be waged by a lawful government. (Gerhard)

51. A Christian government certainly can and should use its orderly authority to intervene for a neighboring nation that is being oppressed for its confession of the truth, in order that the strictness might abate somewhat and the free exercise of the true religion be permitted there. (Gerhard)

52. Conducting a case before the judge and calling for the government to pass sentence against the injustice of a neighbor, does not in and of itself conflict with love for one’s neighbor, since God commands justice just as well as love for one’s enemy. (Gerhard)

53. You should argue your legal case in such a way that you are not arguing with your own heart. (ibid.)

54. Besides situations in which you must confess your faith also by denying earthly things, every true Christian is a citizen of this world and must do what the duties of the second table of the law require, as well as pay their debts to others. (Luther)

55. When a murderer wants to do violence to you or a thief wants to take what is yours, then since you are a Christian and you want to be an upright citizen of this world, you must offer resistance to such evil: likewise the secular government, whose member and subject you are, in such a case itself offers resistance and commands you also to offer resistance, on the strength of the second table of the law, if you have the power to do so, and you are bound to obey. (Luther)

56. When a murderer attacks you on the street without warning and is going to do away with you, since you are a Christian you must offer him resistance, even if it should cost him his life, for you know that the government has commanded that people offer resistance to a murderer and that the citizens should be protected from murder. In such a case you are complying with both the first and second tables of the law. (Luther)

57. To change the government and to improve the government are two different things, as far from one another as heaven from earth. (ibid.)

58. To make a contract is a God-given and natural right. (Gerhard)

59. The right to rule is a God-given and natural right, but the determination of what specific form that rule will take belongs to international law, which is to some extant derived from natural rights. (Gerhard)

60. Note that he (David in Ps. 82:1) calls all assemblies or orderly gatherings, God’s assemblies, as God’s own are there and he accepts them as his works, just as he calls Nineveh a city of God in Jonah 1. For he has created all assemblies and he calls them into being and still brings them together, tends them, increases them, blesses and preserves them. Raving mad reason in its cleverness, along with all the wise people of the world, does not know at all that an assembly is something created and ordained by God, but thinks nothing other than that it comes together in a reckless and chaotic manner, and that a nation stays together and lives in one place in the very same way that murderers, robbers, and other evil rabble (which are the devil’s assemblies) intermingle with one another in order to destroy peace and God’s order. (Luther)

[1] (WFW: a free human or positive right)

[2] The power of the sword which Romans 13 assigns to the government includes the execution of criminals and the power of war.

[3] According to Darling’s Cyclopaedia Bibliographica, accessed online, Theodore Hackspan lived 1607-1659 and was a “Lutheran divine and eminent oriental scholar” whose writings included the Cabbalae Judaicae expositio.

[4] Couldn’t find much about this person: Wikipedia mentions a Christoph Agricola who was a violent opponent of Pistorius, but clicking on his name gets you to an article about Christoph Agricola the landscape painter. There is also a composer Wolfgang Christoph Agricola, who lived 1600-1659: three different people?

[5] This refers especially to acts like those of the Inquisition.

[6] According to http://www.geni.com, Daniel (Schreiner) Arcularius lived 1541-1596 and was a doctor of theology at Marburg.
C. F. W. Walther on Jewish Sensitivity, Denial of Killing Christ

May 4th, 2023

Lehre und Wehre V. 26 (1880) p. 384

Jewish Sensitivity. The Praepositus Milarch, in his speech at the last Sedan celebration, said, among other things: “Shall it be said of us, as it was once said of the children of Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai: ‘They sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play’? Curse him who degrades the Sedan celebration in such a way.” But the speaker also had Jews in his audience. Thus there appeared in the public papers an “urgent declaration” signed by the Jewish congregation in Neubrandenburg, in which it rejected with “deepest indignation” that Milarch had used this opportunity “for an extremely violent outburst against our ancestors at Mount Sinai.” Eventually these Jewish fellows will probably forbid this also: that preachers continue to preach what they did on Mount Golgotha. W[alther].

Day of Sedan
Sarah is in the Tent

April 29th, 2023

Luther has the following to say about Sarah’s modesty in his Commentary on Genesis.

[Genesis 18:]9. They said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: She is in the tent.

After Moses has finished the description of the feast, than which the sun has never seen anything more sumptuous–for the table companions are God Himself with His angels–he appends the conversation or discourse that took place at the feast. He does so in order that this description may lack nothing and in order that it may become known to the entire world that this feast was not like one partaken of by monks upon whom silence is imposed.

Nothing is more irksome and more senseless than a feast at which silence reigns; for discourses are the real condiments of foods if as Paul says (Col. 4:6), they are seasoned with salt. For word is whetted by word; and not only is the belly fed with food, but the heart is also fed with doctrine, since godly conversations refresh the hearts, arouse faith, kindle love, and instruct in many ways. Away, therefore, with the silly and silent monks who suppose that worship and saintliness consist in silence!

Sarah seems to have had some doubt concerning the promise that was given above in chapter seventeen, namely, that she herself would be the mother of the Promised Seed. Therefore the Lord calls her in order that He, in person, may strengthen her in faith. For it is the perpetual work of God to instruct, enlighten, and strengthen weak hearts through His Spirit, not to condemn them or to cast them aside because of their weakness. Accordingly, God asks where Sarah is, and Abraham gives the short answer: “She is in the tent.” An indifferent heart reads this and pays no attention to it; but by means of these few words the Holy Spirit wanted to set before all women an example to imitate, so that, just as Abraham is presented everywhere as a rule, so to speak, of faith and of good works, so Sarah might give instruction about the highest virtues of a saintly and praiseworthy housewife.

For the weakness or inborn levity of this sex is well known. Women are commonly in the habit of gadding and inquiring about everything with disgraceful curiosity. Or they stand idle at the door and look either for something to see or for fresh rumors. For this reason Proverbs (7:11) states about wicked women that they have “feet that do not tarry.” This is due to their curiosity to see and hear things which nevertheless do not concern them at all. Therefore levity in morals as well as garrulousness and curiosity are censured in this sex.

In the case of Sarah, however, the opposite virtues are given praise in this passage, and this by means of Abraham’s brief statement that she is in the tent. If she had been inquisitive after the fashion of other women, she would have rushed to the door, would have seen the guests, would have listened to their conversations, would have interrupted them, etc.; but she does none of these things. She busies herself with her own tasks, which the household demands, and is unconcerned about the other things.

Thus Paul prescribes (Titus 2:5) that a woman should be οικουρος, a domestic, so to speak, one who stays in her own home and looks after her own affairs. The heathen depicted Venus as standing on a tortoise; for just as a tortoise carries its house with it wherever it creeps, so a wife should be concerned with the affairs of her own home and not go too far away from it. This is demanded not only by the tasks peculiar to this sex but also by the requirements of the children and of the domestics, who need careful supervision.

Hence it is great praise for Sarah that on this occasion she tends to her own affairs and does not offend by being curious but, like a tortoise, remains in her little shell and does not take the time required to get a brief look at the guests she has and at what kind of guests they are.

This modesty or restraint surpasses all the acts of worship and all the works of all the nuns, and these words, “Sarah is in the tent,” should be inscribed on the veils of all matrons; for in this way they would be reminded of their duty to beware of inquisitiveness, gadding, and garrulousness, and to accustom themselves to managing the household with care. With this brief statement Moses has described all the virtues of a good housewife, one who gladly stays at home and takes care of the management of the household, in order that the things which her husband provides may be properly allotted and administered.

Why should anyone be frightened by a hat?

Our opponents, the papists, boast of their great and wonderful works; but they laugh at us when we bestow praise on such activities in the household and in civil life, for they regard these as insignificant and ordinary. But to fast on certain days, to dress in a particular color, to abstain from eating meat, to undertake pilgrimages to distant places, etc.–these things they extol with full cheeks, and for them they promise heaven and supreme blessedness.

But even though the papists are undeserving of our replies to their nonsense and their absurdities, it is useful for us to understand and appraise those domestic and civil works properly. Hospitality is a domestic and civic work; but it must certainly be preferred to all the works of the hermits, yes, even to the fasting of St. John the Baptist, even though he undertook this as a result of God’s directive or order.

And this modesty or restraint of Sarah is a work that has to do with the home. What virgin or widow could be compared to her? But this union of male and female bothers the little saints so much that they not only do not believe that this kind of life is saintly but even think that it stands in the way of saintly religious exercises. It was for this reason that the pope imposed celibacy on his people. Furthermore, this kind of life is too ordinary and common among all people; therefore it is devoid of all show and is especially looked down upon by those who want to be the saintliest.

Yet their eyes should have been fixed on Him who instituted the state and the household. If the popes did this, they surely would have a loftier opinion about both functions. “God created them male and female,” and “He blessed them” (Gen. 1:27). You are not going to suppose, are you, that these are insignificant matters?

Therefore let us maintain that those works in the household and in the state which the papists despise as ordinary and worthless are most excellent and also most pleasing to God. For, to mention hospitality, what work is there, I ask, among all acts of worship of the popes that can be compared to it?

It seems to be something insignificant to give a cup of cold water to a thirsty person. But listen to Christ. What grand praise He bestows on this, and what rewards He promises (Matt. 10:42)!

But we shall reach the same conclusion about the other works in the household. If faithful parents bring up their children properly and accustom them to a godly conduct, and if through strict discipline they keep the domestics at their duty, these are ordinary works, I admit, without any outward show and without any reputation or saintliness; but the verdict should have been reached on the basis of the Word, not on the basis of reason.

It would not have been difficult for Abraham to fast on certain days, something which he no doubt did; but Moses records nothing about his fasting, for he wanted to record his true virtues, not such works as hypocrites can and usually do imitate.

But the papists do not deserve a more extensive answer from us. Therefore let us give thanks to God that we, having been taught by the Word, know what are truly good works, namely, to obey our superiors, to honor our parents, to manage our domestics, and to render the ordinary services which the need of the brethren demands, etc. For we see that these works were so highly esteemed by Moses, by the prophets, by Christ Himself, and by the apostles that they were not ashamed to preach about them often and to prescribe them.

They saw what snares reason ties for itself. Entangled in these snares, it cannot arrive at a knowledge of the true forms of worship; for, because of their outward appearance, the works or the traditions of men are always wont to lead men away from true works and exercises of godliness.

Draw me a sheep.

Look at a monk. He shuns obedience to all authorities, even to parents. He does not bring up children, does not work, and is beneficent to no one; but he is filled with hatred and ill will toward his own people and grows fat on the sweat of the poor. Yet he takes pride in his vow of poverty.

But Abraham, the godly head of the household, is truly poor. For he obeys when God calls him into exile. Nowhere does he have a fixed place. Although God blessed him, he nevertheless looks among the unbelieving heathen for attacks, violence, and rapine at any hour. Sarah, his companion, willingly follows her husband into exile, looks after the domestics and the home, is obliging toward the neighbors, and is obedient to her husband.

These are the highest virtues. There is nothing like them in all human traditions. Learn, therefore, to regard them highly and, since they are ordinances of God, to prefer them to human traditions, however grand and showy. For these corrupt faith and the ordinances of God. Like innkeepers, they mix wine with water.

Therefore let us take note of this example. Sarah is praised for diligently performing her duty in her home. For if a mistress of the household desires to please and serve God, she should not, as is the custom in the papacy, run here and there to the churches, fast, count prayers, etc. No, she should take care of the domestics, bring up and teach the children, do her work in the kitchen, and the like. If she does these things in faith in the Son of God and hopes to please God for Christ’s sake, she is saintly and blessed.

“What therefore God has joined together,” says Christ (Matt. 19:6), “let no man put asunder.” Therefore separation or celibacy, such as exists in the papacy, is not of God. On the contrary, the services which that divine union demands are holy and truly good works, no matter how insignificant and ordinary they are considered so far as outward appearance is concerned.

Where there is true obedience toward God in faith, there whatever the calling demands is holy and a worship pleasing to God. But if some prefer either widowhood or virginity and are able to forego marriage without sinning, let them do it, yet in such a way that they do not for this reason condemn domestic economy and the state. For these are kinds of life that have been ordained and instituted by God.

Let monks and nuns glory in their works. For a husband let it be enough if he rules his house properly; for a wife let it be enough if she takes care of the children by feeding them, washing them, and putting them to sleep, if she is obedient to her husband and diligently takes care of the household affairs. These works far surpass those of all nuns. Nevertheless, nuns are exceedingly proud of what they do.

For from human traditions this bane results, that hearts become complacent and take their sanctity for granted. But a godly mistress of the household is not proud; for she is vexed and humbled in various ways when countless annoyances are put in her way by the domestics, by her husband, by the children, by the neighbors, etc. Thus opportunities are nowhere lacking for the practice both of faith and of prayer. But let this be enough about the example of Sarah, and let us go on to what follows.

Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves
and it is rather tedious for children to have to explain things to them time and again.
“If, however, they wish to learn something, they should ask their husbands at home”

April 29th, 2023

Where and when are women to be “in silence”? Why does St. Paul give this command? Is it unseemly for women to speak up in a Sunday Bible class? How about head coverings? A selection from “On the Vocation of Women Teachers in Christian Parochial Schools” by George Stoeckhardt, translator S. B. (no affiliation with Old Lutherans) helps us consider these questions aright.

Old Lutherans has taken the liberty of inserting a few additional paragraph breaks in the following selection for ease of reading. Readers wishing to see the original paragraph breaks are encouraged to consult the full translation at Brosamlein, linked above.

Georg Stoeckhardt (1842-1913), one of the great men of the Missouri Synod. See this fine tribute: “Centennial of the Death of George Stoeckhardt,” by Gaylin R. Schmeling, President, Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary, Mankato, Minnesota.

In the 14th chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul gives the Corinthian Christians an instruction on the establishment and order of the public divine service: how it should be held when they come together (v. 26,) especially on the correct use of the double χάρισμα of prophecy and speaking in tongues. He impresses upon them, that prophets should not speak over one another, but rather in order and that in every gathering about two or three should speak so that the hearers can correctly grasp what they are hearing. “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace” (v.29-33) And now he adds a prohibition which concerns the women. “The women should be silent in the congregation.”

It must have also occurred in the Corinthian congregation, which had suffered so much disorder, that women emerged as teachers in the public divine services. The Apostle sees a disorder in this and takes it on with complete determination. The portion of the chapter that is in consideration here begins with the last words of verse 33. These words connect better with that which follows than the preceding. Accordingly, we translate verse 33b and 34a as: “As in all assemblies of the saints, so also your women should be silent in the assemblies.” With the expression ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις as well as ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις the congregational assemblies are meant. The εκκλησίαι of a Corinthian congregation can be nothing other than the public assemblies of the congregation. Indeed, the entire chapter deals with how the liturgical assemblies should be held. The localization ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, “in the assemblies,” set over against the other localization ἐν οἶκω, “at home” (v. 35.) The meaning of the Apostle is not that women should be quiet in the realm of the church in every respect or that they should not speak “on behalf of the congregation,” but rather that they should be quiet in the liturgical gatherings and should not speak, i.e. refrain from public teaching. That this and nothing else is the sense of the apostolic prohibition is evident from its justification. “For it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be submissive, as the law also says.” The emphasis is laid upon ὑποτάσσεσθαι. It becomes women to be submissive. To whom? Clearly to the men. This is the law. The apostle points to the word that God spoke to Eve while still in Paradise: “Your will shall be subjected to your husband, and he will be your lord,” 1 Moses 3:16. This was the will and command of God from the beginning that women should subordinate themselves to men in all things. Precisely for this reason it was not permitted to women to speak and instruct men in the public assembly and therefore in the presence of so many men. In this way, they would elevate themselves above men. Women should be submissive to men, they should be quiet in the liturgical assembly, piously listen, and let themselves be instructed by the men, by the teachers of the congregation. In this way, they submit themselves to the men. For the student is subordinate to the teacher. St. Paul adds: “If, however, they wish to learn something, they should ask their husbands [Männer] at home.”

Frequently a discussion connected to the instructional discourses, a sort of conversation on the teaching. Whoever had not understood something asked the teacher, and this point was discussed. The Apostle, however, does not even permit women to direct questions to the teacher and thus to occasion a public discussion and participate therein. They should rather ask their husbands at home. Paul gives the reason for this with the words: “for it is shameful for women to speak in the assembly.” From the subordination of women under men flows womanly discipline and shame, restraint in conversation with men. However, women injure and deny this female propriety and modesty when they somehow seize the word in a public gathering, even by raising questions, participating in discussion and thereby drawing the attention and glances of so many men upon themselves. What St. Paul here forbids to women and to the congregation with respect to women, is a direct, apostolic prohibition. He speaks categorically: “Women should be silent.” “It is not permitted to women to speak.” But on top of that, he expressly asserts his instruction as God’s Word. “Or has the Word of God come from you? Or has it come to you alone?” (v. 36.) The word of God has not gone out from the Corinthians; it was handed down to them by others and not only to them, but it has come to many other places. But everywhere else, where the Word has come, in all other congregations, the public divine service is held in accordance with the Word of God, so that women may not act as teachers. Thus the Corinthians should follow the example of other congregations and comply with the Word of God in this matter as well.

Just how serious the Apostle is that the natural relationship which exists between man and woman, that of superordination and subordination, not be disturbed within the Church can been seen from another passage from 1 Corinthians, ch. 11:1-16. Here he is also dealing with the liturgical gatherings of the congregation and instructs women to appear with a covered head, men, however, with an uncovered head. It was the custom among Greeks that in public gatherings and especially in temples and the festivals of idols women wore a head covering, but men were seen with a free, exposed head. The covering of women’s heads was considered a symbol of the dependence upon men; the free, uncovered head of men as a sign of their dignity and grandeur. The apostle does not introduce what he writes here about the external attire and bearing as an apostolic command, as a Word of God, but rather he imparts good counsel to the Corinthians; it is a laudable custom, συνἠθεια (v. 16,) that is well established in all other congregations, which he here commends to them. He does not want to engage in further dispute with those who are of another opinion and contradict him.

Ultimately, Christian women can sufficiently maintain and signify their position toward men, their dependence upon men, even when they appear in the divine service without a head covering. For the Apostle, what matters is that everywhere they stay within their limits. So in this context he recalls the creation of man and woman and the relationship of the one to the other established in creation. “Man is not from woman, but woman from man. And man is not made for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” (v. 8,9.) It follows from this that the man is the head of the woman, but the woman is subordinate to the man (v. 3.) To be sure, in Christ there is neither man nor woman; woman are partakers of the same grace as men. But Christendom does not remove the distinction between man and woman that is grounded in the order of creation. In external converse, in gatherings with men, and also in liturgical [gottesdienstlich] assemblies, women should not forget, but rather prove that they are women, subordinate to men.
Can the dignity and holiness of the ministry bear it that a priest have a lawful spouse?

April 16th, 2023

By all means. For not only did priests in the Old Testament have their lawful wives, but Paul also writes, in the New Testament, that such a bishop and elder is to be chosen as is both of blameless life and the husband of one wife (l Ti 3:2; Tts 1:5-6).

But some say: Paul is to be understood allegorically, namely that a bishop is to be appointed over only one church, or that he indeed can be chosen bishop who formerly was the husband of one wife, but not he who still is, or he who still has his own wife.

Paul himself is his own clear interpreter, namely that by husband of one wife he means him who has children, and not only of the church, but also of a family, that is, he rules well a wife, children, and servants (1 Ti 3:4; Tts 1:16). So also some of the apostles had their own wives, not only before they became apostles, but they also lived in marriage with them at the very time when they were apostles (1 Co 9:5). So also Ignatius and Clemens explain that passage of Paul. Moreover, Paul does not say, He who was the husband of one wife, but: He who is. And if these words were to be wrested to the past tense, it would necessarily also follow therefrom that a bishop is to be chosen who was at one time sober and able to teach, but is no longer so.
Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion (1593, 1603), ed., trans. Luther Poellot; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981; 148-149
F. E. Mayer: “The Lutheran confessions…belong in the pulpit and the pew”

April 2nd, 2023

The Lutherans consider the confessions not only a doctrinal standard; they are more than a body of truth; they become a public confession, a confessional act. They are in the first place, the believer’s joyful response to God’s gracious offer in the Gospel. The Lutheran confessions are kerygmatic and prayable, i.e. they belong in the pulpit and the pew. They are a doxology. In the second place the confessions establish the consensus with the fathers and with their own contemporaries. The act of confessing places the present church in the continuity of faith and is a public testimony that she shares the conflicts and the conquests of the faithful of all ages. And finally Lutherans believe that loyalty to the confessions is a precious heritage which each generation must recapture for itself and transmit to its descendants. Lutherans believe that divine truth is absolute, has not changed since Apostolic times, will not change during future generations in accord with Jesus’ saying that His words shall never pass away. The Lutheran confessional principle is expressed in the slogan:

God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine pure
Shall to eternity endure.
F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1945), p. 138ff

Category: Old Lutheran Quotes

In fine brevem

In fine brevem