Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and The OT

Modern Theology 18:1 January 2002 ISSN 0266-7177
LUTHERS TRINITARIAN HERMENEUTIC AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

CHRISTINE HELMER
The gap between the biblical canons relative closure and the formulation of church teaching has, since the seventeenth century, been regarded as a historical truism. Since the rise of biblical criticism, the dogmas of the church have been challenged, criticized and eroded by historical arguments.1 History has been privileged as the terrain on which the reasonableness of the Christian religion and its doctrines are demonstrated; dogma and dogmatic claims concerning its authority are banished beyond the bounds of reasonable assent. Both popular opinion and scholarly consensus concede to historical criticism the better arguments, leaving the burden of proof on dogmatic theologians to articulate theological positions that would lter the Christian tradition through categories evident to reason. Within the historical paradigm, the trinitarian dogma is rendered problematic on two accounts. One argument denies the legitimacy of the Old Testament as a warrant for the Trinity. Neither Christ nor the Spirit of Christ appear historically prior to Christs birth from Mary. The typological or gurative preparations of the Trinity in the Old Testament are rejected on historical grounds;2 only the New Testament can accurately be appropriated as a point of departure for reecting on the JesusAbba relationship.3 With the revitalization of trinitarian theology in the twentieth century, the question of the unity of the God straddling both testaments has been raised.4 Soulen has pointed out the erasure of the God of Israel in classic trinitarian theological proposals.5 The Old Testament is not rejected on strictly historical grounds. Rather, YHWH is determined entirely in terms of the triune name, Father, Son, Spirit, a designation
Christine Helmer Claremont School of Theology, 1325 N. College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, USA
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
50
Christine Helmer
reecting the supercessionism indigenous to Christian theology as a whole.6 A second argument admits the distance between the proto-trinitarian formulations available in the New Testament and the articulation of trinitarian dogma in the fourth century. Proposals have been advanced to close the gap by providing either historical or theological reasons.7 The move from historical contingency to dogmatic necessity, however, represents the difficulty gnawing at the biblical-theological eld since Lessing. [A]ccidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.8 The dual exegetical and theological interests in the Trinity reect the split between two distinct argumentative paths. With the retreat of theological claims to accommodate the results of historical criticism, the question of how the Old Testament can inform Christian theology continues to be posed. The question is even more pressing in light of the early twentieth-century controversy concerning the Old Testaments status within the Christian Bible.9 It was this criticism that prompted some scholars, notably Wilhelm Vischer, to repristinate pre-Enlightenment positions in order to raise the issue of christological referentiality in Old Testament texts.10 Although the project stumbled on the rock of a quasi-allegorical interpretation, the effort inspired a renewed look at Luthers Old Testament interpretation.11 Both H. Bornkamm and J. S. Preus investigated Luthers turn to the literal sense of the Old Testament and his arguments for a semantic equivalence between biblical texts and the early churchs trinitarian and christological dogmas.12 It is the purpose of this essay to orient the discussion to Luthers explication of the trinitarian doctrine and its exegetical foundation in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Neither does Luther reduce the Old Testament to a series of trinitarian proof texts; nor does he raise the semantic level of the text to accommodate an allegorical interpretation, thereby relativizing the textual anchor. Rather, Luther articulates a complex trinitarian hermeneutic that moves between a trinitarian semantics and the Hebrew text. In the rst section, I will map out a possible historical explanation for Luthers concern to tie the Trinity to the Old Testament. By connecting the Holy Spirit to the text, Luther advocates a semantics of the inner-Trinity that imbues the Hebrew with a special dignity. The privileged status of the Hebrew original informs Luthers ongoing revisions to his Old Testament translations. In the second section, Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic will be discussed in view of both the specic translation into German of the Hebrew names for God, and the semantic claims justifying the translation. Finally, I will argue that Luther roots his trinitarian understanding in the grammatical and syntactical features of the royal Psalms. The Psalms speech structure renders a trinitarian grammar of transparency. The triune mystery is one in which the divine essence is transparent through the characteristics distinguishing between the three persons.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 51 1. Text and Sense Luthers late revisions to his translation of the Old Testament reect his intensied concern with the trinitarian doctrine. In this section, I focus on a particular historical controversy that may explain Luthers insistence on preserving the trinitarian semantic referent of the literal Hebrew text. For Luther, the referent of the text is the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Only on the basis of this claim can the turn to the Father and Son be made. In Luthers lifelong preoccupation with the Old Testament, the academic lectern, rather than the preaching pulpit, provided the forum.13 Luther began his teaching career by lecturing on the Psalms (15131516), a book he was to interpret two more times (15191521; 15321535).14 Two commentaries on the penitential Psalms were published in 1517 and 1525.15 Throughout the middle portion of his career, Luther lectured on the twelve minor prophets, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah and the Song of Songs.16 The Book of Genesis occupied a full ten years of Luthers academic efforts (15351545),17 while the last lectures he published were devoted to Isaiah 9 and 53, and Hosea 14:1214.18 Not only the object of the lectures and commentaries, the Old Testament text was the particular focus of Luthers canonical modications. Luther followed Jerome, not Augustine, in advocating the canonical authority of the Masoretic text.19 This move seems to have been motivated by early doubts concerning the appeal to Deutero-canonical books. Particularly in the disputation with Eck in Leipzig (1519), Luther had raised the issue of biblical warrants for the doctrine of purgatory. Luther argued against the churchs teaching on purgatory by denying the canonical authority of 2 Maccabees 12:46.20 There is, furthermore, enough evidence for the later Luthers doubts concerning the canonicity of the apocryphal texts. In his Bible translation, at least after 1534, he marked them off as the Apocrypha,21 recommending their use for pious edication, not for church teaching.22 He insisted that these books were not to be regarded as equal to the canon, a claim he can also be interpreted to have made for four New Testament books: Hebrews, James, Jude and Johns Apocalypse.23 Luthers position is neither to be misunderstood as a simple privileging of the canon over church teaching; nor is it to imply a consistent rejection of the canonical status of these texts. Rather, canonicity is determined by the subject matter; the text is servant to Christ that it must convey. Flexibility characterizes Luthers canonical decisions, but in a way that cannot undermine the literal text. In discussions of Luthers Bible translations, there is scholarly consensus regarding Luthers sense to sense method of translation.24 Luther promoted the accessibility of the texts subject matter through a translation reecting vernacular use, while also taking great care to conserve the [original] letter.25 The insistence on accessibility in the mother tongue must be interpreted together with Luthers conviction regarding the anchor of the subject matter in the text. Particular passages
52 Christine Helmer convey the promises of Christ in a way creating certainty. With respect to the christological referent, the Old Testament differs from the New Testament only according to the temporal orientation to Christ. The New Testament is written from the perspective of the Christ who has come, whereas the Old Testament is the cradle of Christ,26 conveying the Christ who is to come.27 Following this principle, Luther took great care to translate the Old Testament into German. Luther added major revisions to the Old Testament as late as 1539154128 that he included in the last Bible published during his lifetime (1545).29 When analyzing the records of the translation process, especially at its later stages, it is curious to note that Luther moves beyond a christological commitment. Documented is an explicit interest in rooting a trinitarian sense in the translation. The following question needs to be addressed. Why does Luther skew his translation in the direction of a trinitarian interpretation? The issue turns not on a christological, but on a pneumatological pivot: the historical dispensation of the Spirit. Although the historical reasons for Luthers later interest in the Trinity are not entirely clear, a possible explanation can be reconstructed. In the 1544 doctoral disputation of Major and Faber, Luther discusses the Trinity in view of two seemingly distinct issues. The context of the disputation is established by the rst thesis. In the thesis, Luther cites Matthew 17:5. God the Father desired that all disputations concerning the articles of faith should cease. Therefore he said concerning God his Son, Listen to him.30 In other texts, Luther joins disobedience to the Son with the denial of the Sons divinity. Both Arius and the devil represent, for Luther, a similar disobedience and consequently a similar heresy.31 By equivocating the refusal to hear the Son with the rejection of the eternal co-equality between Father and Son, Luther is insisting on the doctrinal requirements for true hearing. The doctrine of co-equality determines the way in which Christs speech must be received. In another section of the disputation, Luther turns to the second issue, the biblical moorings of Christs speech. At this point, a curious polemic erupts against two Catholic theologians, Johannes Eck and Johannes Cochlaeus that is connected to an attack against both Michael Servetus, the theologian who was burnt at the stake on charges of the antitrinitarian heresy, and Wolfgang Campanus. Luther unites the orthodox with the heretical faction by complementing the issue of obedience to the Son with the Spirits dispensation in the Old Testament. The context of Luthers explicit argument against both Servetus and Eck concerns the issue of technical trinitarian terminology in scripture. In the disputations preface, Luther mounts a specic attack against Servetus. According to Luther, Servetus and Campanus say that this article [of the Trinity] is not represented before John the Baptist, and [hence] they mock the scriptures.32 During the disputation, the charge against Eck is also prefaced by the issue of terminology,33 yet the difficulty seems to be heightened by the insertion of an additional argument regarding church authority. With
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 53 respect to Eck and Cochlaeus, Luther claims that they establish the doctrine of the Trinity on the authority of the doctors and the pope, not on scripture.34 When Ecks own treatise, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, is considered, it appears that Eck advances an argument on the churchs authority without specically mentioning the issue of biblical terminology. Eck explicitly refers to the Holy Spirits dispensation to the church, and in a separate proposition, to the authority of the church for interpreting scripture.35 Eck claims the historical precedence of the church over scripture in order to argue that the church attests to scriptures authenticity, and not the other way around.36 Using the argument on the churchs authority, Cochlaeus writes that Servetus position cannot be combated by scripture, but by the church that establishes the articles of faith.37 When Luther accuses both Servetus/Campanus and Eck/Cochlaeus of undermining the Trinity, he seems to be equivocating the two theological positions on the historical articulation of the doctrine after the canons xation. Luther collapses two distinct arguments to make one point. Although for different reasons, both Servetus and Eck tie the trinitarian doctrine to the church, rather than anchor it in scripture. Servetus rejects the trinitarian doctrine by deferring its articulation to its creedal formulations in the third and fourth centuries,38 while Eck restricts scriptures authority by amplifying the churchs authority in view of the Holy Spirits guiding activity. Luther sees a structural similarity between a position that relativizes church teaching on historical grounds and a position that establishes dogmatic truth by limiting the Spirit to a historical dispensation after Christs ascension. In order to combat his opponents views, Luther must explicate the relation between the trinitarian subject matter and the Old Testament text. In the Major disputation, only one side of the argument is formulated. The issue of doctrinal distance and terminological discrepancy from scripture is countered by elevating the discussion to the level of the res itself. The Trinity est res supra nostrum intellectum posita39 and its truth overrides any doctrinal formulation. Rem mussen wir behalten, wir redens mit Vocabln, wie wir wllen.40 Luthers translation strategy that frees the res from the literal letter reappears in the context of debate on scriptures relation to church doctrine. In another doctoral disputation, Luther sharpens his position by alluding to Augustine and Lombard. One discussion in the Fabricius disputation concentrates on the relation between the temporal diversity of rites and the unity of faith. Luthers statement on the identity of the faith that is preserved throughout differing historical epochs is a direct allusion to Lombard, who also addresses the possibility of introducing change into the object of faith by tensed verbs.41 Lombard cites Augustine in claiming that tensed verbs do not posit change in the content of the faith. [N]ec tamen diversa credimus nos et illi, sed eadem. Tempora enim, ut ait Augustinus, variata sunt, et ideo verba mutata, non des.42 In spite of temporal distinctions at the level of linguistic tense, the res remains the same in eternity. Luthers allusion to Lombard can help explain his concern in the Major
54
Christine Helmer
disputation with the transcendent res, whose truth is preserved in spite of terminological exibility. The res is conveyed as the semantic referent of a diversity of terms and descriptions. When Luther appeals to the transcendence argument, he is neither advocating laxity in language,43 nor appealing to the argument that locates doctrinal authority solely in church tradition.44 Rather, Luther makes the point that, although language is inevitably historically located, it cannot be understood to introduce diversication into the subject at the semantic level. What this element of the discussion shows is Luthers concern with preserving the trinitarian res as an eternal unity, above time and beyond reason. The argument then shapes Luthers handling of the Trinity in relation to the time prior to John the Evangelist. The issue of the textual basis for the Trinity can only be treated once the argument for the trinitarian res in the Old Testament is advanced. The point of entry into the semantic question is established by the rst thesis in the Major disputation: the Fathers injunction to listen to the Son.45 With respect to the Trinity before John the Evangelist, the thesis opens up the question of how the Son can be heard historically prior to the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. Given the paucity of interpretative clues within the disputation itself, Luthers position must be reconstructed from other texts in view of the Old Testaments access to the Sons speech. For Luther, access to the innertrinitarian mystery is granted solely by the third person of the Trinity. In the Old Testament, the Spirits inspiration of the prophets serves to open up the trinitarian res. In order to ground this claim, Luther equivocates the referent of the third article of the Creed with the Old Testament prophecies. In the treatise, Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543), Luther cross-references the passage, Der Geist des HERRN hat durch mich geredt (2 Samuel 23:2)46 with both 2 Peter 1:2147 and the phrase in the Nicene Creed, Der durch die Propheten geredet hat.48 In order to emphasize the semantic equivalence between scripture and the Creed, Luther unies his translation of the relevant passages by using the term reden. The philological choice captures the semantic equivalence pertaining to the Spirit, whose eternity is not disrupted by her temporally diverse dispensations. Even the 1541 revision to his Old Testament translation marks this uniformity. For 2 Samuel 23:2b, Luther changes Wort to Rede in order more clearly to expose the verses semantic equivalence with the Spirits speaking through the prophets.49 The self-same Spirit inspires the human author of the Psalms, David, so that he speaks not anymore as the Son of Jesse, born in sin, but as the one awakened by God to be a prophet.50 The Spirit creates the historical actuality of access into the divine subject matter. By virtue of the Spirits self-same identity throughout history, Luther can, on the one hand, advocate agreement between biblical authors, specically Moses and John, on the semantic referent of their writings.51 On the other hand, Luther can valorize the distinct ways of referring to the Trinity. Luther does not raise the semantic level of the Old Testament to suit the referent of the New Testament in order
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 55 to force a trinitarian interpretation at a spiritual level removed from the text.52 Rather, he privileges pneumatological equivalence in order to claim the dignity of various dispensations at their distinct historical sites. The Old Testaments dignity is grounded at the semantic level, that in turn guarantees the identity between prophetic utterances and the Spirits own speech. Access to the semantic referent is a second element driving Luthers hermeneutic. Luther discusses the Spirit not only in terms of semantic equivalence, but he also begins with the Spirit as the trinitarian person who facilitates access to the inner-trinitarian mystery. What no eyes have seen, nor ears heard is the subject matter of scripture and the Creed to which the Holy Spirit has access by virtue of her identity with the divine nature.53 The content of the Spirits speech is the God of Israel,54 a referent that cannot be attributed to human or angelic knowledge, but to one who plumbs the depths of the divine Majesty itself.55 For Luther, authorial agency must be divine because of the subject matter that is eternal. When Luther describes the text from the perspective of its eternal referent, he attributes authorship to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the author who warns, writes, teaches, comforts, brings to remembrance.56 On the other hand, Luther ties access into the mystery to historically concrete sites. The literal speech of the prophets, apostles and church is valorized because the Spirit is responsible for creating these tangible means to access the mystery.57 The referent opens up historical speech to unseen things, thereby establishing the dignity of the speechs written records. The texts referent ascribes dignity to the literal level of scripture. Luthers trinitarian-theological presupposition regarding the Spirits epistemological function grounds the claim that the external text is capable of referring to a subject matter too high for human words. In Luther scholarship, the texts relation to the referent is often understood as an identity of constitution. According to this view, the tangible and localized word of the promissio constitutes the actuality of its meaning.58 The question that begs to be answered, however, concerns the power of the constituting function of the word. For Luther, the word constitutes the spiritual reality only by virtue of its divine authority. Authorial agency provides the explanation for the words dignity. With respect to the biblical text, Luther privileges its trinitarian semantics that consequently establishes the original Hebrew, not the translation, as the vehicle for trinitarian knowledge. Hebrew is the language the Spirit uses to refer to a theological subject matter.59 The meaning of the Hebrew terms differ from meanings given to the same words in different elds of philosophy or astronomy. For example, Hebrew terms referring to time connote feasts and festivals; philosophical terms of time refer to motion.60 Concentrated listening to the Hebrew words, its grammar and syntax is required as a rst step in grasping the trinitarian reality. The epistemological point of entry into the trinitarian mystery is guaranteed by the semantic referent that ascribes dignity to the Hebrew text. Luther
56
Christine Helmer
presupposes the trinitarian work of the Spirit in order to ground the texts dignity, but conversely, Luther makes strong claims regarding the texts avenue into the mystery of co-equality between Father and Son. Text and Trinity are intimately connected. 2. The Names for God Once the texts epistemological capacity is established, a fuller trinitarian semantics can be developed. The Holy Spirit opens up the eternal mystery of the Father and the Son. In the following section, I will show how Luther refers to the Father and Son by translating the two Hebrew names for God, YHWH and Adonai. By representing the distinction in the German translation, Luther determines the semantics of the terms in order to interpret the speech pattern of the royal Psalms as the hermeneutical basis for his trinitarian understanding. The trinitarian supercessionist model, as Soulen argues, erases the Hebrew name YHWH and as a result, determines the God of Israel according to the trinitarian rule of faith, Father, Son and Spirit.61 Whereas the thesis may accurately describe the majority of trinitarian representations, Luthers Old Testament translation proves to be a surprising exception. One text in which Luther explains his principle for translating the Hebrew names for God is the series of sermons, held on Psalm 110 in 1535.62 Known by Old Testament scholars as a royal Psalm, Psalm 110 was acknowledged as an ascension Psalm by medieval theologians who noticed the citations of this Psalm in the New Testament.63 Luther translates verse one as follows: Der HERR sprach zu meinem HErrn: Setze dich zu meiner rechten (Ps. 110:1).64 The two references to Herr at the audible level of perception suggest agreement with the LXX and the Vulgate. The latter texts also use one term to stand in both locations, respectively (LXX Ps. 109:1) and dominus (Ps. 109:1).65 When the audible sound of Herr is compared with Luthers visual text, however, a difference can be observed. At the visual level of the text, Luther represents a distinction between the terms that is immediately evident in the Hebrew original: the distinction between YHWH and Adonai. For YHWH, Luther uses four capital letters: HERR; for Adonai, Luther capitalizes only the rst two letters: HErr. The visual difference in the German between the two representations of Herr reveals the distinction in the Hebrew, a rule Luther admits he follows throughout his translation of the Old Testament.66 What Luther has succeeded in doing is recover the original Hebrew distinction and to recover, at the visual level, the Greek and Latin erasures of the distinction. Luthers principle is retained in editions of the Luther-Bibel, as well as in the King James Version of the English Bible.67 The Weimarer Ausgabe of Luthers works also reproduces Luthers practice, whereas Walchs German edition of Luthers writings does not. The Hebrew distinction between YHWH and Adonai denotes, for Luther, a distinction in referent. In his writings, Luther refers to YHWH as the sacred
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 57 tetragrammaton,68 the divine Majesty. Following standard medieval pointing of YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, Luther identies the term Jehova with the sublime name for God.69 This identication is predicated on the speech structure in which the distinction in names is embedded.70 In cases where a distinction between speaker and addressee is found, such as the royal Psalms, the rule of referentiality is different from cases in which only one speaker is present. When one person speaks about or to another, the rule demands the predication of Jehova to the speaker. When only one speaker is present, Jehova can be predicated of that person, namely Christ, without injustice.71 With respect to the distinction in the speech situation, Luther identies the trinitarian referent of the rst Lord as the Father. He argues that this person is the true God,72 the origin of the inner-trinitarian relations.73 The order of inner-trinitarian speaking mirrors the relations of origin. A differentiated claim must, however, be made regarding the determination of the rst Lord in terms of a strict trinitarian referent. In the exegetical text, Von den letzten Worten Davids, Luther explicitly interprets 2 Samuel 23:17 as a warrant for the Trinity. The trinitarian context shapes the overdetermination of the speaker as the Father or the rst person of the Trinity. In exegetical commentaries on the Psalms, Luther is more reticent in overdetermining the speaker. For example, in his interpretation of Psalm 110:2,74 Luther does not identify HERR with the rst person of the Trinity, but tends to refer to this Lord as God, God of Israel, or with the pronoun, Er.75 The underdetermination may disclose Luthers retention of the literal Hebrew, while at the same time, showing that the distinction in speakers is the literal ground for any further trinitarian claims. On the other hand, Luther consistently and strictly identies the second Lord with Jesus Christ. Luther takes the second Lord, Adon, to mean the common German name by which servants and subordinates call the lord of the house, or the lord of the land.76 The reason for this exclusive denotation of the second Lord is given by the possessive pronoun my. Literally translating the Hebrew Adonai, Luther takes the possessive pronoun my to distinguish both grammatically and semantically the second from the rst Lord. The subject of my determines the christological denotation. Not part of the address content, my is located in the narrative formula introducing the address:77 Der HERR sprach zu meinem HErrn: . This location indicates the subject of my to be, not the rst Lord, but another. For Luther, the introduction is narrated from the perspective of someone who is witnessing the scene: the author of the Psalm. Witnessing the inner-trinitarian conversation, David narrates what he sees.78 Luther further justies the christological referent of my Lord by semantically equivocating the Old Testament passage with the Creed and the New Testament.79 In his explanation to the second article of the Creed in the Large Catechism, Luther converts the confession of faith into an oblique description of who Christ is. Ich gleube, das Jhesus Christus, warhafftiger Gottes son, sey mein HErr worden.80 The
58
Christine Helmer
catechetical my is taken further as a semantic equivalent to Romans 1:3. In his commentary on Psalm 110:1, Luther refers to my in Pauls sense of my Lord, according to the esh (Rom. 1:3), and inserts this sense into Davids narrative. Davids Lord is the one who will come after him as the Christ, promised according to the esh, the right and true man.81 For Luther, the word my is a word of faith, that accepts the Christ who is promised.82 The subject of my is the human observer who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord according to his human nature. The claim for Christs divinity necessitates a second determination of the possessive pronoun my. In order to argue this semantics, Luther turns to the direct speech in Psalm 110:1: Setze dich zu meiner rechten.83 At this juncture, the speaker differs from the speaker of the narrative introduction. Hence the subject of my also differs. In order to determine this subject, Luther cross-references the passage with Romans 1:4 [And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness] in order to claim that the Father speaks directly to his Son. By speaking, the Father reveals the Sons divinity, how he is the true, eternal God with the Father.84 Although with different addressees, the same inner-trinitarian speech structure is also rehearsed in Matthew 17:5.85 In this passage, the Father speaks not to the Son, as is the case in the royal Psalm, but speaks directly to those standing by. This is my Son; Listen to him. The subject of the possessive pronoun my is the Father, who speaks about his Son. For Luther, the Fathers speech is the exegetical warrant for the Sons divine nature. At the intersection between my Son and my Lord, the second Lord is denoted by the possessive pronoun my that has two subjects, a divine and a human subject. Luther concludes his interpretation of the narrative formula and direct speech in Psalm 110:1 by determining the christological referent of my Lord by virtue of both the divine and the human nature. My Lord is the object of faith that spans the innite amplitude between divinity and humanity. He is the one who sits above in the divine Majesty and is yet my esh and blood and my brother.86 Basing his determination on the literal rendering of Adonai as my Lord, Luther identies the christological referent in terms of the incarnation. Luther does not only translate literally from the Hebrew, but also digs into the grammatical idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew language. In another case, that of Psalm 2:12, Luther refers explicitly to a rule of Hebrew grammar in order to support his christologically focused interpretation. Luther translates verse 12a with, Osculamini Filium, ne irascatur, .87 In the commentary, Luther explains why his particular translation swerves away from the LXX and makes Jeromes translation more precise. Regarding the translation of the Hebrew , Luther argues against the inaccuracy of the LXX , appearing in the Vetus Latina as apprehendite, on the basis of how Hebrew grammar must be understood.88 Luther initially shrinks the terms range of meaning to Jeromes translation, adorate. He subsequently takes
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 59 Jeromes translation of as the Latin adjective pure to be the point of departure for his own translation of both the verb and the adjective.89 The exegetical strategy of Antonomasia, Luther claims, is correctly applied to this case because it ts the way a Hebrew adjective functions. Luther argues that the adjective must be taken as a proper noun that stands as the exemplary representative of its class.90 With this move, Luther detours around both the LXX and the Vulgate in order to arrive at the adjectives original Aramaic sense as the noun Son.91 On the basis of this specication, Luther turns to the verb, agreeing initially with the sense Jerome conveys when translating as adorate. With osculamini, Luther retains the ceremonial connotation of adorate but adds to Jerome by stressing the intimacy of an adoring posture.92 It is the inner-trinitarian milieu that overarches Luthers translation. Love perfectly characterizes the Fathers disposition towards the Son. By semantically equivocating Psalm 2:12 with New Testament passages disclosing the Fathers address of love to the Son (Mt. 3:17; Mt. 17:5; John 3:35), Luther species to be the beloved Son of the Father.93 Specied as the Fathers object of love, the Son is conjugated through the Psalms perspective to arrive at my Lord as the object of the Psalmists love. The Psalm refers to my love, my pure one, my elected one, the one in whom I rejoice, my heart and my joy.94 Luther chooses osculamini in order to capture the double posture of intimate love and adoration towards my Lord. By conjoining a technical point from Hebrew grammar with an argument of semantic equivalence, Luther species the Psalms christological referent once again in terms of the divine and the human nature. The royal Psalms seem to provide the biblical model for Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic. The increasing attention paid to this model is evident in exegetical restrictions that Luther imposes on classic trinitarian proof texts, for example, Genesis 18, the story of the three men visiting Abraham at Mamre. In the 1535 Genesis Lectures, Luther passionately argues at great length for the texts exhortation of Christian hospitality, not for a trinitarian interpretation. In an almost apologetic manner, he nally gestures to a trinitarian reading, permitting it only as a decoration of a trinitarian faith grounded, with more certainty, elsewhere.95 Even more dramatic is the difference between Luthers 1527 exegesis of Genesis 1:3, 6 and the later Genesis Commentary. In 1527 and still visibly under the aegis of Augustine, Luther correlates God with the Father, spoke with the Son, and the entire phrase, God saw that it was good with the Holy Spirit.96 In the Commentary of 1535, Luther claims that unrestricted access to Scripture distorts its sense, results in exegetical products of human fantasy, and eliminates any power the text might have to comfort and establish certainty.97 Luther explicitly turns to the literal,98 clear testimony99 of Scripture in order to base the trinitarian explication on the literal meaning of the Hebrew root , meaning a spoken word (verbum prolatum), is used in Genesis 1:6, . rather than , which signies an essence-thing (res).100 The christological
60
Christine Helmer
referent is grounded solely by the literal Hebrew word , not as its allegorical sense. The above example shows how Luther equivocates the christological semantics of both the Genesis/Johannine model and the royal Psalms model of the Trinity. According to the speech structure, the two models differ. For both Genesis 1 and Johns Prologue, God and the word are distinguished as speaker and spoken word, whereby the word is identied with its content. In the royal Psalms, the addressee is distinguished from both the speaker and the speechs content. Although the two models differ in terms of a monological and a dialogical type, Luther identies the oral aspect of the royal Psalms with the literal translation of in his Genesis 1 interpretation. In both cases, the word is a spoken word. By recovering the oral connotation of , Luther relates the Genesis/Johannine identity between word and content to the dialogical speech situation marking the royal Psalms. By this move, Luther departs from the classic Augustinian tradition of translating as verbum internum, possibly appropriating Tertullians translation of the Greek term into the Latin sermo.101 In both cases, the oral nature of the speech situation supplies Luthers trinitarian hermeneutics with the distinction between speaker and a second person. The exegetical controls for theological interpretation are located in the text itself. Luthers particular contribution consists in his recovery of the Old Testament for trinitarian theology, specically Hebrew terms, grammar and the royal Psalms. The trinitarian underdetermination of YHWH as speaker preserves the distinct Old Testament perspective, while the overdetermination of the addressee discloses the christological scope unifying both testaments. By concentrating on the Hebrew text, Luther on the one hand restricts allegorical exegesis that would raise the semantic level of the Old Testament to conform to the New Testament. On the other hand, he privileges the texts sense (res) that establishes the trinitarian framework within which philological study is executed. A close study of language, however, cannot be limited to philology. Luthers trinitarian hermeneutics demonstrates the essential connection between language and its referent. The question of semantics engages the theological dimension that infuses the text with richer meaning. Conversely, the text itself exercises hermeneutical controls on the degree to which the text opens up the theologically determined referent. At the literal level, text is inextricably bound together with the Trinity. 3. Hebrew syntax and trinitarian semantics In addition to terms and grammar, Hebrew syntax plays a further role in Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic. In this section, I will show how Luther recovers the syntactical foundation for a trinitarian understanding from the Hebrew text, preserving it in his German translation. The royal Psalms will once again form the exegetical basis.
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 61 Luther is no exception in the theological tradition that mines Psalm 2:7 for its theological signicance.102 In his 1532/1546 Commentary, Luther translates the passage as follows. Praedicabo statutum, quod DOMINUS ad me dixit: Filius meus Tu, Ego te hodie genui.103 The translation, Luther argues, should not confuse the reader. Although the texts sense is rendered less penetrable, the shifts in the pronouns marking each clause of the verse are common in Hebrew.104 The pronominal density in German reproduces the original Hebrew distinction between the subject of the introductory narrative formula [Ich wil von einer solchen Weise predigen, Das der HERR zu mir gesagt hat, ], and both the subject and object of the direct speech [Du bist mein Son, Heute hab ich dich gezeuget]. The unfamiliar shift in persons from Ich in the rst part of the verse to Du in the second part is used in order to retain what is perfectly normal in Hebrew. Luther is not blind to his stretching the rules of German syntax. Rather, the change in person marks the shift from an indirect narrative style to direct speech. By translating literally the pronominal shift to reect a change in subject, the switch from the narrative genre to direct speech is emphasized. Luther entertains an alternative that would render the texts sense more easily in translation. In order to apply pronominal consistency throughout verse seven, Luther refers back to verse six, translating as follows. Ego constitui Regem meum super Zion montem sanctum meum, ut praedicet decretum meum, Quod sit Filius meus, quem hodie genui.105 After toying with this possibility, Luther rejects the transparency of sense for the transparency to the original Hebrew grammar. Even though he admits a distortion in sense, Luther insists on accustomizing oneself to the Hebrew idiosyncrasies in their translation.106 The text conveys a meaning that is imposed by the change in persons. One key trinitarian hermeneutical question consists of identifying the one who speaks. The complication in verses six and seven is due to the insertion of a second I in verse 7a. The question concerns the identity of the I in verse six, its relation to the second I of verse seven, and the I speaking in verse 7c.107 The distinct difficulty in verse six has to do with identifying the speaker of a narrative section. Luthers trinitarian hermeneutical distinction between speaker and addressee seems to be complicated by a narration that admits only of an indirect distinction between a speaker and my king. Given the difficulty, Luther directs his attention to the speechs content. According to the precedent set by this royal Psalm, the one speaking is identied by the name YHWH. This Lord (HERR) is the divine Majesty, the one who laughs in derision at his enemies (Ps. 2:4), who threatens to destroy those who plot against him (Ps. 2:6).108 Is the speaker not the one who created heaven and earth out of nothing, everything by the power of his word?109 The speaker is the one who has all power over humans and over Satan.110 After using the speechs content as the clue to identify the one initiating speech, Luther turns to the referent of my king. The narrative style
62
Christine Helmer
stresses the immediate relation of the content to the speaker. No literary wedge is driven between the I and my king. Instead, the narrative transparency signies the special relation between the king and the divine Majesty whom the latter alone establishes on Mount Zion. The possessive pronoun my distinguishes this king from all other human kings, and the noun king refers to the power given to this king by the eternal Father.111 The literary structure of narration, coupled with the term my king, is semantically determined as the co-equality between the divine Majesty and Jesus Christ. Once this trinitarian relation is xed, the question arises as to the identity of the I in verse 7a and b. In this verse, YHWH is mentioned, not as the origin of speech, but in an introduction prefaced by the oblique form, quod DOMINUS ad me dixit. Another I has been inserted into the narrative. The determination of the Is identity represents a sophisticated feat of trinitarian exegesis. Luther mines an entire trinitarian theology from Psalm 2:7, grounded in the shift from one speech to the speech of another. The question concerns the identity of the second I who speaks. Luther lays the building-blocks of his interpretation by rst turning to the texts subject matter. In this regard, Luther agrees with the medieval tradition. The passages subject matter is the divine decree in eternity.112 Luther then determines the content of this decree by analyzing the term statutum (Praedicabo statutum) in order to arrive at its christological referent. After mentioning the wide range of meaning that the term statutum covers, Luther settles on the equally wide German word, Recht.113 The speechs content is a new sermon on the new right, which signies, for Luther, the preaching of the abolition of the law.114 The speaker of the gospel is Christ. It is not a spiritual, silent, inner word, but a verse recounted in the direct form of a sermon.115 By insisting on spoken speech, Luther brings the immediacy of the Hebrew syntax into the foreground of his trinitarian hermeneutic. Christs oral sermon introduces the speech concerning the divine decree, that itself is conveyed as YHWHs direct speech to the Son.116 The seamless transition from one speech to another signies the transparency of the relation between Father and Son. The immediacy of the transition signies the transparency of the trinitarian relation. The Son refers his entire speech exclusively to the Father; and the Father does nothing without the Son. As Christs speech refers immediately to YHWHs speech, so too does YHWHs speech refer directly to the Son. The speechs content is not a teaching on a topic, but its content identies the addressee in the form of direct speech. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (KJV). Although this phrase is considered to be, at least since Lombard, a classic trinitarian proof text, Luther concentrates on the passages terminology and form in order to tease out his particular interpretative angle. The fact that the Father speaks has, for Luther, the trinitarian signicance of identifying the Father as the active source of the Son, and the eternal generation as the identifying marker of the Son. According to classic trinitarian theology, only the relations
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 63 of origin, such as active and passive generation, serve as the characteristics distinguishing between Father and Son. These relations of origin are eternal, not temporal. Luther discusses the two terms in verse seven, hodie and the verb genui in view of their signication.117 Although the terms are inevitably temporalized, they are not to be understood as introducing change into the divine essence. Borrowing from Augustines understanding of eternity as uninterrupted by past or future, Luther locates hodie beyond time.118 Even the perfect past tense of genui signies a complete and perfect generation in eternity that knows only an eternal present.119 In addition to its eternal referent, the form of the direct speech is saturated with a trinitarian claim. Luther entertains an alternative formulation before considering the signicance of the literal text. For pronominal clarity, the Son could have said I am the Son, rather than introducing the Fathers address, You are my Son.120 Luther rejects the alternative, claiming that the switch in speaker is crucial to conveying the passages trinitarian meaning. The literary exchange signies the trinitarian reciprocity between the Father who alone introduces the Son, and the Son who alone introduces the Father. The Son introduces the Father in a way relating all he is and has to the Father.121 Conversely, the Father introduces the Son, expressing his desire to be known exclusively through the Son. The mutual introduction signies the transparency of the divine essence held in common between Father and Son, and the distinct speeches signify the way in which the nature is distinguished through the relations of origin. Perfect unity is marked by the way in which the Son speaks through the mouth of the Father, and conversely by the Father, who speaks through the mouth of the Son.122 For Luther, the texts immediacy of direct speech signals the deep mystery of inner-trinitarian reciprocity. The Son is perpetually attuned to the Father; he cannot for a moment look away and refer to the origin of his being in the third person. Conversely, the Fathers gaze is xed solely on the Son, his delight and love. The nal trinitarian hermeneutical claim concerning textual transparency refers back to the earlier view of the Holy Spirit. Luther attributes the composition of the entire passage to the Holy Spirit who grants epistemological access through the text to the inner-trinitarian intimacy. The paradigmatic example of the Spirits special grammar is the seamless transition from Christs speech to the Fathers speech in Psalm 2:7. Luther refers to the Fathers speech as an inner sermon, spoken exclusively to the Son.123 The direct form Du (verse 7c) designates the Son as the only intended hearer. This inner-trinitarian speech can be heard and understood only by the speaker and addressee.124 That this sermon is communicated beyond the inner relation between Father and Son at all is a function of Christs direct speech, spoken to another audience, the hearers of the text (verse 7ab). The Sons outer sermon functions as the literary embrace to the Fathers speech, thereby rendering the inner accessible to be heard, although not understood, on its outer side.125 By its embeddedness in Christs speech, the Fathers
64
Christine Helmer
speech is brought to us out from the inapproachable light in which God dwells.126 Both the inner and outer speech are brought to literary light by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit attributes the inner words to the Father in order to expose the central mystery of the Fathers relation to the Son.127 The Spirit also attributes the outer speech to the Son in order to show Christs desire to refer all that he has to the Father.128 Through the seamless literary transitions from one speech to another, the Spirit reveals the transparency between Father and Son. God desires to speak and act through the Son, and the Son offers all he has and does to the Father. The inner-trinitarian transparency is the ground for the certainty of salvation. Christ loves us and dies for us in complete accordance with the eternal Fathers will.129 In her role of granting access to the FatherSon relation, the Spirit participates in the transparency marking the trinitarian reciprocity. The Spirit is transparent to the text, retreating from any direct self-revelation by pointing to the FatherSon semantics. Luther solves the distinct binitarian difficulty with the royal Psalms dialogical model by enclosing the Spirit in the structure of reciprocal transparency. The Spirit speaks of the eternal mystery through the prophets. What has been heard in eternity is spoken through the prophets in time. Neither separated from the inner-Trinity nor from her prophetic voice, the Spirit renders eternity transparent to time and time transparent to eternity. The speech structure renders transparent the inner-trinitarian relations. Textual transitions permit each distinctive voice to be heard, yet the distinctiveness is mediated through the seamlessness of the transitions. The Fathers intimate inner speech is woven into the Sons outer speech; the outer speech discloses its speaker only by referring to the content of the inner speech. The outer speech reveals the inner-Trinity to be constituted by the relations of origin. By its embeddedness in the outer speech, the inner is revealed to be truly the inner side of God. Access to the inmost heart is granted solely through the Son. The complex between inner and outer speech is further rendered to be truly outer by the Holy Spirits identication with the text. No wedge is driven between the prophets word and the Spirits word that would render the revelation opaque. Rather, the text is transparent to its inner-trinitarian referent in such a way as to disclose the Spirits relation in the inner-Trinity. The Spirit, who knows the inmost depths of God, moves from inner-trinitarian silence to outer-trinitarian speech by building a seamless bridge to the speech recorded in the text. The Spirit knows no other speech than Christs speech, yet the Spirit has no other words than the prophets words. The same seamless transition marking the inner-trinitarian relations characterizes the transition from the inner to outer-Trinity. All three persons are transparent to each other, yet the location of the transparency discloses the personal characteristics, marking the way the essence is circulated among them. Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic represents a speculation on the innerTrinity that itself is fed by the speech structure of the royal Psalms. Almost
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 65 anticipating Schleiermachers severe antipathy towards the Trinity in the Old Testament,130 Luther insists on the Old Testaments distinct voice, sounding out the speculative dimension to trinitarian theology. Without this testaments living voice, the whole gospel would become dead history.131 The Old Testament writing refers to speech, not silence. This testaments voice is fixed by the texts semantics, and its referent is moored in textual transparency. Conclusion A close study of the Hebrew text, its terms, grammar and syntax discloses Luthers exegetical focus that is intimately coupled with a trinitarian semantics. Grounded in the royal Psalms of the Old Testament, Luthers trinitarian understanding centers on their speech structure as the bearer of the innertrinitarian mystery. With this view, Luther is perhaps pointing to what the philosopher Walter Benjamin has also articulated. The Hebrew language is the bearer of revelation.132 The goal of this essay was to claim that literary features could not be isolated from a semantics. By showing that a trinitarian hermeneutic was, on the one hand, regulated by literary rules, and on the other hand, invested with referential capacity, I considered how it might be possible to bring philology in closer proximity to Christian doctrine. Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic of the Old Testament provided an intriguing example of a literary semantics in reciprocal relation. By mooring a semantics in the text, Luther was able to mine the peculiar textual features for their specic trinitarian signicance; by orienting the text to its referent, Luther was able to suspend many textual features in their trinitarian light. The exclusive focus on the literary text points out the lack of any analogy to comprehend the referent. With respect to the Trinity, the only material is the letter that points beyond itself, to a subject matter in eternity. The transparency of the letter to the Spirit renders transparent the inner-Trinity to its outer side. Language itself becomes the vehicle of communicating the mystery of the essential transparency through the distinguishing marks of three persons. This is Luthers insight: the mystery of the eternal word, incarnate in the Hebrew text.
NOTES 1 Cf. Klaus Scholder, The Birth of Modern Critical Theology. Origins and Problems of Biblical Criticism in the Seventeenth Century, trans. by John Bowden (London and Philadelphia, PA: SCM Press and Trinity Press International, 1990). 2 Schleiermachers position on Old Testament proofs for Christian doctrine represents the modern shift in critical exegesis. so da erst davon grndliche Verbesserung zu erwarten sein wird, wenn man die alttestamentischen Beweise fr eigentmlich christliche Lehren ganz aufgibt und was sich vornehmlich auf solche sttzt, lieber ganz beiseite stellt. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundstzen der Evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt (1830/31), seventh ed., Martin Redeker (ed), in de Gruyter Studienbuch (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 132.2, vol. 2, p. 307.
66
Christine Helmer
With respect to the Trinity, Schleiermacher rejects the Old Testament as a warrant for diese bersinnliche Tatsache of jene[r] Sonderung im hchsten Wesen. Cf. Ibid., 170.3, vol. 2, p. 461. Pannenberg regards the JesusAbba relationship as the historical basis for trinitarian theology, but does designate Jesus Father as the God of Jewish faith according to the witness of the OT. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 260. Two recent articles on the Old Testaments discussion of the divine unity and distinctions are: Thomas Krger, Einheit und Vielfalt des Gttlichen nach dem Alten Testament, Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie, vol. 10, Trinitt, Wilfried Hrle and Reiner Preul (eds) [=Marburger Theologische Studien, no. 49, Wilfried Hrle and Dieter Lhrmann (eds)] (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1998), pp. 1550; Benedict Thomas Viviano, The Trinity in the Old Testament: From Daniel 7:1314 to Matt 28:19, Theologische Zeitschrift 54/3 (1998), pp. 193209. R. Kendall Soulen, YHWH The Triune God, Modern Theology 15/1 (January 1999), pp. 2554. Ibid., pp. 2935. While admitting the difficulty in the move from historical possibility to dogmatic necessity, Jngel argues that [e]ine konsequente Interpretation der neutestamentlichen berlieferung von Jesus als dem Christus fhrt notwendig zur Erkenntnis des dreieinigen Gottes, Eberhard Jngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Zur Begrndung der Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus, fth ed. (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986), p. 480. In his investigation of Pauls letters to the Corinthians, Mauser shows that the trinitarian speech forms are not merely proto-trinitarian formulas, but that they signal the threefold unity of Gods being and activity. Ulrich Mauser, Trinitarische Sprachformen in den Korintherbriefen des Paulus, in Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein and Hermann Lichtenberger (eds), Jesus Christus als Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. FS Peter Stuhlmacher (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), pp. 288295. Gotthold Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power, in Henry Chadwick (ed), Lessings Theological Writings (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967) p. 53. For example: Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, third ed. (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958), 11, pp. 109123; Emanuel Hirsch, Das Alte Testament und die Predigt des Evangeliums (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958), pp. 116 and 6787. Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, vol. 1, The Pentateuch, trans. of the third German edition (1936) by A. B. Crabtree (London: Lutterworth, 1949), pp. 734. See Childs summary criticism of Vischers argument in: Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Theological Reection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 477481. Bornkamm interprets Luthers understanding regarding the prophetic references to Christ not as prediction but as proclamation. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1948), pp. 86103. Regarding the Trinity, Bornkamm concludes that [d]as Alte Testament hat zu Luthers Trinittslehre keinen wesentlichen selbstndigen Beitrag geleistet. Ibid., p. 102. Bornkamms category of proclamation reects the usual tendency of Luther scholarship to limit Luthers christological statements to proclamation. For a criticism of this shrinking that marginalizes Luthers contribution to christological and trinitarian doctrinal formulation, see: Christine Helmer, The Trinity and Martin Luther: A Study on the Relationship Between Genre, Language and the Trinity in Luthers Late Works (15231546), in Verffentlichungen des Instituts fr Europische Geschiche/ Abteilung Abendlndische Religionsgeschichte, no. 174, Gerhard May (ed) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999), pp. 191205. Furthermore, Bornkamm reduces Luthers use of the Bible to biblical proofs for the two natures dogma and to decorations for the trinitarian dogma. The latter, Bornkamm argues, is due to Luthers elimination of allegorical proofs for the Trinity in the Old Testament. Bornkamm, pp. 9598. Bornkamms results do not do justice to the complex hermeneutical circle that Luther establishes between text and semantic reference. It is furthermore the thesis of this paper that the Old Testament is constitutive for Luthers contribution to trinitarian theology. Preus historical study is limited to the pre-Reformation Luther (15131515) and the christological hermeneutics of the Old
5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 67

Testament playing into and ultimately obscuring the exegetical breakthrough on grace. James Samuel Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969). Luther preached thirty more times on New Testament texts than on Old Testament texts because he followed the traditional lectionary. Regarding the genre of sermon series (Reihenpredigten), the ratio of Old Testament to New Testament sermons is roughly 5:7. Bornkamm, pp. 67. The Old Testament sermon series were held primarily on the Pentateuch and the Psalms. For an index of the sermons and sermon series on the Old Testament, see: J. R. F. Knaake et al. (eds), D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Bhlaus Nachf., 18831999), vol. 22, xliixlv. [Subsequent references to this work will be indicated by WA.] See: WA 3, 11652 and WA 4, 1526 (Dictata super Psalterium, 15131516); WA 5, 19673 (Operationes in Psalmos, 15191521); WA 40/II, 193312 (Enarratio Psalmi II, 1532/1546); Ibid., 315470 (Enarratio Psalmi LI, 1532/1538); Ibid., 472610 (Praelectio in psalmum 45, 1532/1533); WA 40/III, 9475 (Vorlesung ber die Stufenpsalmen 120134, 15321533/ 1540); Ibid., 484594 (Enarratio Psalmi XC, 15341535/1541). The 1517 commentary on the penitential Psalms was the rst exegetical work that Luther published. WA 1, 158220 (Die sieben Bupsalmen. Erste Bearbeitung, 1517); WA 18, 479530 (Die sieben Bupsalmen. Zweite Bearbeitung, 1525). WA 13, 2703 (Praelectiones in prophetas minores, 15241526); WA 19, 185251 (Der Prophet Jona ausgelegt. 1526); Ibid., 345435 (Der Prophet Habakuk ausgelegt. 1526); WA 20, 7203 (Vorlesung ber den Prediger Salomo, 1526/Annotationes in Ecclesiasten, 1532); WA 23, 485664 (Der Prophet Sacharja ausgelegt. 1527); WA 25, 89401 (Vorlesung ber Jesaia, 15271529/In Esaiam scholia ex D. Martini Lutheri praelectionibus collecta, 1532/ 1534); WA 31/II, 1585 (Vorlesung ber Jesaias, 15271530/In Esaiam prophetam D. Doc. Martini Lutheri Enarraciones, 1527); Ibid., 586771 (Vorlesung ber das Hohelied, 15301531/ In Cantica Canticorum brevis, sed admodum dilucida enarratio). WA 4244. WA 40/III, 597682 (Enarratio capitis noni Esaiae, 15431544/1546); Ibid., 685746 (Enarratio 53. Capitis Esaiae, 1544/1550); Ibid., 760775 (Additio in locum Hoseae cap. 13, to verses 1214, 1545). Bernhard Lohse, Die Entscheidung der lutherischen Reformation ber den Umfang des alttestamentlichen Kanons, in Bernhard Lohse, Evangelium in der Geschichte. Studien zu Luther und der Reformation, Leif Grane, Bernd Moeller and Otto Hermann Pesch (eds) (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), pp. 212213. WA 59, 527, 2935528, 2939 (Disputatio inter Ioannem Eccium et Martinum Lutherum, 1519) [=WA 2, 324, 1012]. Hans Volz, Vorwort, in WADB 12, xx. Regarding the translation of the Apocrypha, Volz writes that Luther translated only the Wisdom of Solomon and parts of Ben Sirach. Ibid. Apocrypha: Das sind Bu(e)cher: so der heiligen Schrifft nicht gleich gehalten, vnd doch nu(e)tzlich vnd gut zu lesen sind. Ibid., 3, 14. According to Volz (Ibid., xx), Luther included the apocryphal books in the 1523 Bible translation and the above mentioned four New Testament books in the 1522 September Testament, but without numbering them. From this historical data, Lohse concludes that Luther assumed the same canonical judgment for both text groups. Lohse, 227, n. 50. Critical of the consensus in Luther scholarship regarding Luthers privileging of the res, Birgit Stolt offers a differentiated analysis of the way Luther intimately relates the res to the verba in his Bible translation. Birgit Stolt, Die Bibelbersetzung, ch. 4 in Martin Luthers Rhetorik des Herzens, Uni-Taschenbcher no. 2141 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 84126. After defending the insertion of the German allein into his translation of Rom. 3:28, Luther claims, [d]och hab ich widerumb nicht allzu frey die buchstaben lassen faren, Sondern mit grossen sorgen sampt meinen gehlffen drauff gesehen, das, wo etwa an einem ort gelegenn ist, hab ichs nach den buchstaben behalten, und bin nicht so frey davon gangen, WA 30/II, 640, 1922 (Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, 1530). Hie wirstu die Windeln vnd die Krippen nden, da Christus innen ligt, Da hin auch der Engel die Hirten weiset. Schlecht vnd geringe Windel sind es, Aber thewr ist der schatz Christus, der drinnen ligt. WADB 8, 13, 68 (Vorrede auff das Alte Testament, 1545).
13
14
15 16
17 18 19
20 21 22 23
24
25
26
68
Christine Helmer
27 Luther follows the traditional medieval view, since Lombard, that designates the christological referent in the Old Testament according to the future Christ. For example, cf. WA 41, 81, 30 (Preface to the sermon series on Psalm 110, 1535). 28 Lohse writes that the 15391541 revisions to the Old Testament translation did not concern the apocryphal books. Lohse, p. 229, citing Volz, WADB 12, lv. 29 According to the historical records, three conferences were devoted to the ongoing translation revisions. The Psalm translation was revised in 1531. The protocol for the 1534 has been lost. Between 1539 and 1541, both the Old and the New Testament translations were revised. Rrers protocol of the 1531 Psalms revision is found in: WADB 3, 1166. The 15391541 protocol as well as Luthers handwritten insertions into his Bible are found in: Ibid., 169577 (Gen. 1 to Psalm 150) and WADB 4, 1278 (Proverbs to Malachi) and Ibid., 281418 (New Testament). For further documentation on the 15391541 revisions, see: Heinrich Ernst Bindseil and Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, Dr. Martin Luthers Bibelbersetzung, 7 volumes (Halle: Verlag der Cansteinschen Bibel-Anstalt, 18501855); Lic. Reichert, Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1531 bis 1541 und ihr Ertrag fr die deutsche Lutherbibel, in Gustav Koffmane, Die handschriftliche berlieferung von Werken D. Martin Luthers. Kritische Untersuchungen, vol. 1 (Liegnitz: Carl Seyffarth, 1907), pp. 97252. 30 Disputationes de articulis dei exstinctas voluit Deus pater, dum dicit de Deo lio suo: Hunc audite. WA 39/II, 287, 56 (Thesis 1 of the Doctoral Disputation of Georg Major and Johannes Faber, Dec. 12, 1544). 31 For example, see: WA 34/I, 498, 21. 500, 34. 500, 13501, 1 (Sermon on Trinity Sunday, June 4, 1531, Rrer variant). 32 quales fuerunt Servetus et Campanus qui dixerunt, hunc articulum non esse tractatum ante Ioannem Baptistam, et cavillantur scripturas. WA 39/II, 290, 1517 (Major, Preface). The footnote indicates Luthers mistake in confusing John the Evangelist with John the Baptist. Ibid., 290, n. 2. See the following for Luthers comments on Servetus and Campanus: WATR 2, 325, 1922 (no. 2112, 1531); Ibid., 640, 6641, 2 (nos. 2759a and 2759b, 1532); WATR, 4, 131, 2118 (no. 4094, 1538); Ibid., 153, 13154, 6 (no. 4127, 1538); WATR 5, 615, 4616, 14 (no. 6351, Tischreden aus verschiedenen Jahren). 33 WA 39/II, A305, 14, 1424. 34 Esell sein Eccius und Cochleus, qui non per scripturas, sed per doctores et papam articulum trinitatis stabilitum et conrmatum esse dicunt. Das ist erlogen. Ibid., A305, 2426. Luther participated in early debates with both Eck in Leipzig (1519) [cf. footnote 20]. 35 John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces. Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church (1541), trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), c. 1, p. 2, pp. 910 and c. 1, p. 4, pp. 1117. In the disposal to the objections against proposition 4, Eck refers to the Trinity in the context of New Testament, not Old Testament passages, such as Matthew 28:19f. Ibid., p. 14. 36 For a study on how Eck and the Reformers determine the relation between church and canon, see: Ekkehard Mhlenberg, Scriptura non est autentica sine authoritate ecclesiae (Johannes Eck). Vorstellungen von der Entstehung des Kanons in der Kontroverse um das reformatorische Schriftprinzip, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 97/2 (June 2000), pp. 183209. 37 Johannes Cochlaeus, Philippica Quinta in tres libellos Phil. Melanchthonis (Ingolstadt, 1543), FIGI. See: WA 39/II, 304, n. 2. Ecks own text mentions Cochlaeus book, On the Authority of the Church. See: Eck, p. 17. 38 See Baintons discussion of Servetus 1531 and 1532 treatises on the Trinity in: Roland H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus 15111553 (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1978), pp. 2140. 39 WA 39/II, 290, 1213 (Major, Preface). 40 Ibid., A305, 2223. 41 Semper est et fuit una et eadem invocatio et una des, sed tempora fuerunt dissimilia, alii ritus et caeremonia fuerunt. Ibid., 270, 12 (Doctoral Disputation of Theodor Fabricius and Stanislaus Rapagelanus, May 23, 1544). 42 Lombard, Sent. I, d. 41, c. 3 (183). The citation from Augustine is found in the treatment of John 10:110. Tempora variata sunt, non des. Quia et ipsa verba pro tempore variantur, cum varie declinantur: . In: Joannis Evangelium tractatus, tr. 45 (9) [PL 35, p. 1722].

43 Luther insists on using correct terminology in order to teach the simple and to convey the subject matter as clearly as possible. Trinitas macht ein seltzam cogitation, man mu aber propter inrmos et docendi causa also reden. Ita vocabulum originale non est valde proprium, nostrum Erbsundt ist besser. Et tamen docendi causa ad res ipsas tradendas propria vocabula tenenda sunt. WA 39/II, A305, 1922. 44 It is often a simple attening of Luthers position that misreads his privileging of scripture over the tradition. 45 See footnote 30. 46 WA 54, 34, 30. The treatise Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543) is the sole treatise that Luther devotes exclusively to the Trinity. It is a commentary in German on 2 Samuel 23:17. 47 Luther cites 2 Peter 1:21. Es ist noch nie keine weissagung aus menschlichem willen erfurbracht. Sondern die heiligen Menschen Gottes haben geredt aus eingebunge des Heiligen Geistes. Ibid., 34, 3638. 48 Ibid., 35, 12. 49 In the Introduction to Von den letzten Worten Davids, Cohrs documents the 1541 revision to verse 2b. The earlier translation, und sein Wort ist durch meine Zunge geschehn is replaced with, und seine Rede ist durch meine Zunge geschehn. F. Cohrs, Introduction in Ibid., p. 19. The substitution of Wort with Rede discloses a signicant shift in Luthers trinitarian understanding. At the philological level, the shift alludes to Tertullians translation of the Greek term into sermo, rather than Augustines translation into verbum. This choice reects Luthers appropriation of a dialogical trinitarian model that is based on the royal Psalms. Found in Tertullian, the exegetical strategy of prosopographic exegesis is employed to determine the term person as speaker of an oral address. In the trinitarian treatise, Luther mentions the exegetical principle. Die Grammatica ist auch gewis, Das Wo ein Sprecher ist, da ist ein Logos, Wort oder Rede. Ibid., 55, 3637. By the fourth century, the method was abandoned because it could not be applied to the Holy Spirit; the royal Psalms model accounts for two speakers in the innerTrinity, the Father and the Son, and not the Holy Spirit. For an excellent and detailed study of prosopographic exegesis and the concept of trinitarian person, see: Carl Andresen, Zur Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes, Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche 52 (1961), pp. 139. 50 Das wird nicht sein David, Jsai son, in sunden geborn, sondern der zum Propheten durch Gottes verheissung erweckt ist. WA 54, 35, 1315. In his commentaries on the Psalms, Luther frequently refers to David as the prophet, not the Psalmist. 51 By virtue of the semantic equivalence argument, Luther can frequently refer to the agreement between the biblical authors on the trinitarian subject matter. For example: Hie stimmet Mose mit Johanne uberein, das im anfang der Creatur ein Wort sey gewest, durch welchs Gott alles gesprochen, das ist, geschaffen und gemacht hat. Ibid., 55, 3334. 52 Preus discusses Augustines exegetical difficulty in reading the Old Testament at the literal level. In order to salvage the Old Testaments relevance for theology, Augustine read it according to its gurative or allegorical sense. Most medieval theologians followed Augustine in this regard. Preus, pp. 1516. 53 Cf. WA 54, 38, 315. 54 Ibid., 36, 1. The question regarding the trinitarian determination of the God of Israel is a topic that will be treated in the next section. 55 Denn solch hoch heimlich ding kundte niemand wissen wo es der Heilige Geist nicht durch die Propheten offenbart, wie droben offt gesagt, das die heilige Schrifft durch den Heiligen Geist gesprochen ist. Ibid., 48, 2023. 56 In numerous passages, Luther ascribes authorial agency to the Holy Spirit. For example: a Spiritusancto per sanctos Prophetas admonitus es, . WA 40/II, 212, 2627 (Enarratio Psalmi II, to verse 3); Haec est Spiritussancti vox, per os Prophetae emissa Ibid., 217, 26 (to verse 4); sicut Spiritus sanctus hoc in loco vaticinatur, Ibid., 217, 35. 218, 12 (to verse 4). 57 Following scripture and the Creed, Luther attributes die eusserliche wirckung, da er [the Holy Spirit] durch die Propheten, Aposteln und Kirchen diener mit uns leiblich redet, teuffet und regiret to the Spirit. WA 54, 35, 3537. Luthers insight is recapitulated in article five of the Augsburg Confession. Cf. Die Augsburgische Konfession, in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, eleventh ed. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 5859.
70
Christine Helmer
58 Oswald Bayer isolates the promissio, the constituting word of promise, to be the content of Luthers Reformation breakthrough and the center of the Reformers theology. A summary of Bayers interpretation is the following. The promissio is constituted by the identity between the literary sign (signum), the absolution based on Matthew 16:19, and the content (res), the forgiveness itself. Christine Helmer, The Subject of Theology in the Thought of Oswald Bayer, Lutheran Quarterly 14/1 (Spring 2000), p. 24. 59 Oportet enim nos servare phrasin scripturae sanctae, et manere in verbis Spiritus sancti, . WA 42, 23, 2324 (Lectures on Genesis, to Gen. 1:6). 60 For Luther, terms are shared among various discursive regions. The meanings of the terms are, however, particular to the region on which they are used. Cf. Ibid., 35, 3036 (to Gen. 1:14). In the theological region, the term word can denote either the uncreated word or a creature created by God. Ad hunc modum igitur videmus Spiritum sanctum suam habere linguam et phrasin, nempe quod Deus dicendo creaverit omnia et per verbum operatus est, et omnia eius opera sunt verba quaedam Dei, per verbum increatum creata. Ibid., 35, 3740. Regarding the distinction between a Hebrew and a philosophical determination of time, cf. Ibid., 36, 711. 61 Soulen diagnoses the supercessionist trinitarian model as follows. When the canons witness to the gospel is interpreted according to the traditional trinitarian rule of faith (the One God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), Gods identity as the God of Israel is made ultimately dispensable for the purposes of articulating Gods eternal identity and Gods enduring and universal purposes for creation. What results is a latently gnosticizing account of the canons theological and narrative unity. Soulen, p. 47. 62 WA 41, 79239. Luther preached eight sermons on Psalm 110 in 1535: May 8, May 10, May 29, May 30, June 5, June 9, June 12, and June 13. The series is recorded in two variants: Rrer (R), and Dietrich (Dr). 63 Luther begins the sermon series by summarizing the Psalms scope. Das ist der psalm, qui factus de ascensione et toto regno domini nostri Iesu Christi. Ibid., 79, 5. 80, 1 (R). Psalm 110:1 is cited in: Mt. 22:44, Acts 2:3435, 1 Cor. 15:25, and Heb. 1:13, 10:1213. 64 WA 41, 82, 2122. 65 Alfred Rahlfs (ed), Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), p. 124; Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem, third ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), p. 193. 66 In the sermon on Psalm 110:1, Luther claims that he writes the rst Lord with capital letters. Dominus dixit. Es ist unterschieden. Herr 1. Mit grossen buchstaben, . WA 41, 82, 45 (R). Luther reiterates the same principle in Von den letzten Worten Davids. Denn hie stehet der grosse name Gottes Jehova, den wir in unser Biblia mit diesen grossen Buchstaben Schreiben: HERR, zum unterschied der andern namen, . WA 54, 47, 46. See also Luthers Preface to the 1523 translation of the Old Testament in WADB 8, 30, 1928. 67 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand (Ps. 110:1, KJV). All citations of the English Bible are taken from the KJV in: The Original African Heritage Study Bible (Nashville, TN: The James C. Winston Publishing Company, 1993). 68 In the commentary to Psalm 2:11, Luther writes, Ac addit causam: Quia, inquit, hic Rex est DOMINVS seu verus Deus. Positum enim hic est nomen tetragrammaton, quod vocant et soli Deo tribuitur in scriptura. WA 40/II, 281, 3638 (Dr). 69 Ibid., 282, 14 (Dr). Cf. WA 39/II, 255, 34 (Doctoral Disputation of Erasmus Alberus, Aug. 24, 1543, thesis 29). 70 Luthers trinitarian hermeneutics is based on the distinction between speaker and addressee. Und zwar, wer so viel verstehet in der Schrifft , das er mercken kan, wo die Person eine von der andern redet, als weren mehr denn eine da, der hat balde ersehen die unterscheid, welchs des Vaters oder des Sons person ist, . WA 54, 85, 3686, 4. 71 Das ist: Ein jeder neme die Propheten fur sich, lese mit vleis drinnen und mercke, wo der HERR Jehova, Jhesus Christus, unterschiedlich redet, oder wo von jm geredt wird Wo aber die Person nicht unterschiedlich sich mit reden offenbart, Das es scheinet keine mehr denn Eine person sein, Da magestu die Regel halten, droben geben, das du nicht unrecht thust, wo du den namen Jehova deutest auff unsern HERRN, Jhesum Christum, Gottes Son, . Ibid., 85, 2931. 86, 2023. 72 WA 41, 82, 47. 73 Cf. WA 54, 58, 1630.

74 Luthers translation reads, Das Scepter deines Reiches wird der HERR aus senden aus Zion. WA 41, 122, 89. 75 The subject of sending is Der HERR. Ibid., 124, 17. Luther refers to this Lord with the pronoun Er (i.e., Ibid., 124, 18; Ibid., 128, 36), or Gott (i.e., Ibid., 127, 23). The underdetermination of the pronouns can be confusing, particularly when one pronoun er has two distinct referents. In his interpretation of Psalm 110:2, Herrsche mitten unter deinen feinden (Ibid., 132, 17), Luther refers the same pronoun to both Christ and the divine Majesty. Denn er sol (spricht er) durch sein Scepter gewaltiglich herrschen, Ibid., 132, 2021 (Dr). 76 Das ander Herr, Adon, heist auff deudsch landher, hausher etc. Ideo laut de 2 dominis i.e. verus, naturalis deus dixit ad dominum i. e. verum hominem. Sic homo est dominus. Ibid., 82, 79 (R). 77 The narrative formula preceding the direct speech introduces the speaker and addressee. According to Andresen, Tertullian used the prosopographic exegetical strategy to determine the actors as trinitarian persons. See Andresen, pp. 914. 78 In Matthew 22:45, Jesus asks the question concerning the subject of my Lord (Ps. 110:1). Matthew writes that no one could answer the question (Mt. 22:46). 79 Luther remarks on the semantic agreement between both testaments. Das newe Testament kan nicht feilen, Also das Alte Testament auch nicht, wo sichs reimet, und dem newen ehnlich ist. WA 54, 44, 2931. 80 WA 30/I, 186, 1011 (Large Catechism, 1529). 81 WA 41, 83, 2830. 82 Denn das wort Meinem ist ein wort des glaubens, der sich des verheissenen Christi an nimpt, . Ibid., 83, 3133 (Dr). 83 Ibid., 86, 22. 84 sondern verkleret die selbige, wie er warhafftiger, ewiger Gott mit dem vater ist, . Ibid., 91, 89 (Dr). For a study of the term verklren and its role in Luthers trinitarian theology of glory, see: Christine Helmer, Luthers Theology of Glory, Neue Zeitschrift fr Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 42 (October 2000), pp. 237245. 85 See footnote 30. 86 der droben jnn der Go(e)ttlichen Maiestet sitzet und doch meines eisches und bluts und mein Bruder ist. WA 41, 99, 3334 (Dr). 87 WA 40/II, 296, 31. The 1545 German translation is: Ku(e)sset den Son, Das er nicht zu(e)rne, . WADB 10/I, 111. The KJV reads, Kiss the Son, lest he be angry. 88 Quod ad grammaticam attinet, norunt Ebraice docti legendum hic non ut latinus textus habet: Apprehendite, sed: osculamini. Itaque consilium suum permittimus septuaginta Interpretibus, nos tamen a veritate Ebraica idea non discedemus. WA 40/II, 297, 2427. 89 Quod septuaginta verterunt , in Ebraeo est Bar, ac late patet eius signicatio, est enim adiectivum nomen et signicat purum, electum. Ideo Hieronymus vertit: Adorate pure. Ibid., 297, 2830. 90 Per antonomasiam autem, quae ex communi nomine facit proprium, postea transfertur ad alias res, et propter excellentiam individui vocatur sic triticum seu frumentum, tanquam electa res. Ibid., 297, 3033. Luther refers to the following examples in order to argue his case. Sic Apostolum intelligimus: Paulum, Prophetam: Davidem, Philosophum, Aristotelem, Militem: Georgium a Fronsberg etc. Ibid., 297, 3334. Based on this rule, Luther argues that Christ, as the exemplary representative of his class, is denoted by the class term. For example, [s]ic Christus per excellentiam dicitur: iustus, sapiens, sacerdos, Filius hominis, Rex, etc. Ibid., 297, 3536. Luther argues that the Hebrew must be taken as a proper noun for an exemplary son, beloved by his parents. Ad hunc modum Bar substantive signicat etiam Filium, tanquam rem maxime electam, caram, iucundam parentibus. Ibid., 298, 1718. Luther concludes that the grammatical rule of Antonomasia is used in order to confound the devil and the godless, who are not worthy to see the signication of the term. Ibid., 280, 1921. Luthers insight dovetails with that of contemporary biblical scholarship. Klaus Koch indicates that the singular bar must be taken in the book of Daniel to mean the single representative of a class. See Klaus Koch, Das Reich der Heiligen und des Menschensohns, in Martin Rsel (ed), Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn. Gesammelte Aufstze, vol. 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), pp. 140172, esp. 156162.
72
Christine Helmer
91 Luther criticizes Jerome for translating the Hebrew as the adjective pure. Ibid., 299, 2124. 92 Cf. Ibid., 299, 2122; 298, 24. 93 Ibid., 299, 2830. 94 The Psalm speaks, Ipse est meum dilectum, meum purum, meum electum, quo unice gaudeo, mein hertz, mein freude. Ibid., 299, 3132. 95 Cf. WA 43, 11, 1814, 17. 96 Die ander ist, Das er die drey Person hat mu(e)ssen ordenlich nacheinander anzeygen. Zum ersten den pater, da er sagt: Gott schuff. Zum andern den son, da er sagt: Gott sprach, Darnach den heiligen geist da er sprach: Gott sahe es fu(e)r gut an. WA 24, 31, 1922 (ber das 1. Buch Mose. Predigten, 1527, to Gen. 1:3). 97 Cf. WA 42, 18, 1415 (Lectures on Genesis, to Gen. 1:6). 98 Against Augustine, Luther states that Moses spoke literally, not allegorically or guratively. Ibid., 5, 1516 (Introduction). 99 Ibid., 18, 14. 100 Luther notes the distinction in the Hebrew that is not maintained by the Latin synonyms dicere and loqui. According to Luther, Moses uses the term meaning the spoken word, in order to expose the distinction between the one who speaks, the Father, and the word that is spoken, the Son. Cf. Ibid., 13, 1929 (to Gen. 1:3). 101 See footnote 49. 102 Luther remarks on the familiarity of this verse in churches and monasteries. However, these words are nullo modo intellecta, quod tam ponderosa sint et tam magnas res complectantur. WA 40/II, 242, 2728. 103 Ibid., 242, 2425. Luther translates the verse into German. Ich wil von einer solchen Weise predigen, Das der HERR zu mir gesagt hat, Du bist mein Son, Heute hab ich dich gezeuget. WADB 10/I, 109 (1545). The KJV reads, I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 104 WA 40/II, 244, 3031. 105 Ibid., 244, 3334. 106 Cf. Ibid., 244, 3537. 107 (6) Ego autem constitui Regem meum super Zion montem sanctum meum. (7a) Praedicabo statutum, (7b) quod DOMINUS ad me dixit: (7c) Filius meus Tu, Ego te hodie genui. Ibid., 234, 3031. 242, 2425. 108 The biblical text does not explicitly name this one who laughs at his enemies. Cf. Ibid., 218, 3334 (to verse 4). In his remarks to verse six, Luther claims that the divine Majesty threatens to destroy all those who oppose Gods word. Cf. Ibid., 234, 3233. 109 Luther asks the familiar question of identity. Quis enim est, qui dicit: Ego? The answer is given as a question. An non Dominus coeli et terrae, qui omnia virtute verbi sui ex nihilo condidit? Ibid., 236, 2223. 110 Sed huius Regis domus est ipsum coelum, ubi nec hominem nec Satanae potentia aliquid valet. Ibid., 218, 3132. 111 Luther shifts to the trinitarian language of Father when describing the relation of coequality between the two persons. Sed hic Rex, Dominus noster Ihesus Christus, immediate ab ipso Patre aeterno ordinatur, ut Rex sit, et vocatur Patris Rex, seu a Patre constitutus Rex. Ibid., 236, 3234. 112 sicut Psalmus hic loquitur, Praedicare, narrare de Dei decreto. Ibid., 244, 2223. 113 Ibid., 245, 37. 114 Cf. Ibid., 242, 2829. 115 Nam hic locus omnino de vocali praedicatione et non de spirituali intelligendus est. Ibid., 245, 2425. 116 Cf. Ibid., 245, 1617. 117 Cf. Ibid., 256, 2631. 118 Luther claims that hodie genui can refer only to an event beyond time. Est Deus extra tempus, . Ibid., 250, 34. Luther agrees with Augustines comparison between the verbs past tense and the present tense implied by the adverb. The discussion concludes by asserting that in eternity, all things exist in the present tense. Cf. Ibid., 257, 2127. See also a similar discussion on hodie genui in the Major disputation: WA 39/II, 293, 613. 119 WA 40/II, 257, 25.

120 Cf. Ibid., 254, 1617. 121 Fit autem hoc ideo, ut omnia referat ad Patrem, tanquam autorem; Sicut Christus solet in suis concionibus, ubique allegat autoritatem patris, ut omnes per Christum Patrem agnoscant, in Patrem credant et Patrem praedicent. Ibid., 254, 1719, 2122. 122 Loquitur enim Filius ex ore Patris, et vicissim Pater ex ore lii, Pater enim et Filius unum sunt. Ibid., 255, 3536. Luther articulates a similar reciprocity of revelation in the Lectures on Genesis. Ad hunc modum neque obiective Deus potest separari. Neque enim Pater cognoscitur, nisi in Filio, et per Spiritum sanctum. WA 42, 44, 89 (to Gen. 1:26). 123 Prima est interna, quando Dominus cum Filio loquitur. WA 40/II, 257, 1415. 124 Ibid., 257, 1516. 125 Altera praedicatio est externa, quando Filius nobiscum loquitur: Dominus dixit a me: Filius meus et tu. Hanc audimus quidem, sed etiam non intelligimus, sola enim de apprehendi vult et potest. Ibid., 257, 1719. 126 Ibid., 256, 3434. The passage alludes to 2 Tim. 6:16. 127 Ibid., 255, 1920. 128 Ibid., 254, 3435. 129 Ibid., 255, 2324. 130 With his usual brilliance of insight, Schleiermacher notes that the warrants for the eternal distinctions in God are to be found in the Old Testament. See footnote 2. 131 Luther asserts that without the doctrine of eternal generation, the entire gospel would become dead history. The words and facts of Christs eternal birth are not dead history, but living things through which we live. Itaque qui hanc tenent, apud hos dicta et facta Christ non sunt mortuae historiae, sed res viventes, nobis ideo a Filio Dei obietae, ut nos per eas viveremus. WA 40/II, 259, 3032. 132 Walter Benjamin, ber Sprache berhaupt und ber die Sprache des Menschen, in Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhuser (eds), Walter Benjamin. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. II/1 (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1977), pp. 140157.

Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and The OT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and The OT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Theology 18:1 January 2002 ISSN 0266-7177

LUTHERS TRINITARIAN HERMENEUTIC AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.

Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 67

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.

Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 69

Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 71

Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 73

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.

You might also like