Jump to:
Exegetical theology: A Case Study in Why You Should Retain Your Hebrew: Psalm 110, Part 2
The NIV translation of Psalm 110:3 is smoother than the dulcet tones of Barry White selling you a Bacon Beef ‘n Cheddar in one of those vintage Arby’s commercials from yesteryear. Reading the Hebrew, however, is a skosh more strenuous.
To understand it, remember what David has written so far: the LORD (יְהוָה) will make the enemies of David’s Lord (אֲדֹנִי) a footstool (110:1) and extend his rule from Zion (110:2). That is clear. What follows is not as clear.
Verse 3 begins: עַמְּךָ נְדָבֹת בְּיוֹם חֵילֶךָ. The NIV translates עַם as “troops” because it can mean “army” (1 Sam 11:11) and there is plenty of military imagery in this psalm. נְדָבָה means “voluntariness” and can be used for a freewill offering (Exod 35:29).
The word חַ֫יִל means “strength” and what you receive from it (wealth, army, etc.). Many translations have “battle” (NIV, CSB, NJPS). The thought seems to be that on the day David’s Lord goes into battle, his people will freely follow him.
Verse 3 continues: בְּהַדְרֵי־קֹדֶשׁ, “in splendors of holiness.” BDB says that this refers to the Lord’s festal garments, and HALOT to his regalia. The apparatus cites Hebrew manuscripts to suggest reading הַדְרֵי as הַרְרֵי, the plural construct of הַר (changing a ד into a ר). “On mountains of holiness” could be an allusion to the previously mentioned צִיּוֹן (110:2).
The meaning of the next two words is even less certain. מֵרֶחֶם מִשְׁחָר most likely means “from womb of dawn.” מִשְׁחָר is a hapax. שַׁ֫חַר means “dawn,” and מִשְׁחָר probably means the same thing (שׁחר with the nominal affix מִ).[1] It is also possible that מ is the preposition מִן (“from womb, from dawn”) without the expected dagesh forte of the assimilated nun (i.e., מִשְּׁחָר).
The verse’s final words are the most cryptic of all: לְךָ טַל יַלְדֻתֶיךָ. Literally, “to you the dew of your youths.” The noun יַלְדוּת means “youth” (as the period of life). In Hebrew the suffix –וּת indicates an abstract concept.[2]
The meaning of this phrase is unclear. The thought could be that just as there is dew on the ground in the early morning so youthful vigor comes to David’s Lord (CSB, NJPS). The abstract “youths” could be used for the concrete “young men.” In this case then, just as dew covers the ground in the morning, many young men volunteer for his army (NIV).
This is a difficult verse. In cases like this it is important to remember that any English translation makes difficult decisions on some words, and it is not necessarily the only way to understand them. Keep utilizing the resources & commentaries at your disposal to help with your translating work.
Rev. Noah Headrick serves at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.
[1] Matthew McAffee, H. H. Hardy Jr., Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the Old Testament (B&H Publishing, 2024), §7.6.1.2.
[2] Mcaffee & Hardy, Going Deeper with Biblical Hebrew §7.5.2.
Systematic Theology: Natural Law: Natural to Lutheranism
“For, first of all, even though human reason or natural intellect may still have a dim spark of knowledge that a god exists or of the teaching of the law, nevertheless it is ignorant, blind, and perverted so that …” (FC SD II 9).
You can probably finish the sentence, at least in spirit. Lutherans with a robust doctrine of original sin and a high view of Scripture are quick to delineate the limits of natural law and the natural knowledge of God more generally. It knows nothing of Christ. It is obscured by selfishness. It is a playground of the opinio legis.
Yet the “dim spark” is not snuffed out. Luther wrote about natural law with productive ambivalence. God’s condemnation in Romans 1-2 comes because the Gentiles managed to tune out natural law, becoming “like people who purposely stop their ears or pinch their eyes shut to close out sound and sight” (AE 19:54). Yet they failed to erase what God had written on their hearts, as their consciences would still condemn them (Rom 2:15). Natural law persists post-Fall.
Luther viewed natural law as an ally in preaching for, “If the natural law were not written and inscribed by God on the heart, one would have to preach for a long time before the conscience was struck.”[1] When fanatics tried to remake society in the image of Mosaic law, Luther wrote: “Where [Moses] gives the commandments, we are not to follow him except so far as he agrees with natural law” (Martin Luther, LW 35:173).
In the Book of Concord, Melanchthon builds his argument against priestly celibacy in large part on its violation of natural law (Apology XXIII 7-12). He praises the brilliance of Aristotle’s ethics (Apology IV: 14), and even quotes him with admiration (Apology IV 23-24). In his Loci Communes of 1521, Melanchthon cautiously summarized the content of natural law as 1) worship God, 2) don’t hurt others, but help them, and 3) share.[2]
The dogmaticians of Lutheran orthodoxy followed Luther and Melanchthon in clearly recognizing the value and the limitations of natural law.[3] Lutheran scholars like Johann Oldendorp (1486-1567) and Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694) applied these insights to the legal realm, producing landmark works of jurisprudence.
Natural law, however, fell out of favor. One Lutheran scholar writes, “Natural law – once the backbone philosophy of western civilization – has died a slow and painful death, beginning in the Enlightenment, and accelerating as Modernism gave way to Postmodernism.”[4] In lieu of tracing this decline[5], I will simply note that in our circles natural law is conspicuous by its absence.[6] In my experience, I first encountered serious positive natural law arguments in Roman Catholic writings on marriage and homosexuality. Historically, however, there is nothing inherently anti-Lutheran about this type of argumentation. Another scholar comments, “However deeply entrenched the bias against natural law thinking is among Protestant thinkers, it cannot be attributed to the Reformers of the sixteenth century themselves.”[7]
The next article will examine how a working knowledge of natural law is useful in parish ministry.
Scott Henrich serves Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran – Knoxville, TN
[1] Martin Luther, Sermon on the Second Book of Moses (1 October 1525), WA 16:447. Quoted in The Natural Knowledge of God, Commission on Theology and Church Relations (LCMS), 42. http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/CTCRTheNaturalKnowledgeofGodinChristianConfessionandChristianWitness.pdf
[2] Philip Melanchthon, Commonplaces: Loci Communes 1521 (CPH), 63. Footnote 6 gives an expanded list from another writing: 1) God must be worshiped. 2) Life must be protected and propagated. 3) Life must be born. 4) Marriages must take place. 5) Offspring must be preserved. 6) Nobody should be harmed. 7) Property and income should be enjoyed in common. 8) To preserve life, things need to be bought and sold. 9) To preserve the life of the general populous, evil people must be detained and restrained.
[3] See Pieper’s summary in Christian Dogmatics Vol. 1, 374-376.
[4] Ryan MacPherson, “Natural Law in the Lutheran Reformation,” Logia XXIX 1, 14.
[5] For such a narration, see Carl Braaten, “Protestants and Natural Law,” First Things (January 1992). https://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/01/protestants-and-natural-law
[6] For a counter example, see Daniel Deutschlander, Grace Abounds (NPH), 7-13, etc. See also Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (CPH), published in 2011.
[7] J. Daryl Charles, “Protestants and Natural Law,” First Things (December 2006).
Historical Theology: Why the Wisconsin Synod?
I will utter hidden things, things from of old—things we have heard and known, things our ancestors have told us. We will not hide them from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has done.- Ps 78:2b-4
As millions of German Lutherans immigrated to the United States in the mid-1800s, those who wished to continue participating in public and organized worship needed to choose a church carefully. The mid-19th-century Lutheran immigrants were often very active in forming local congregations, calling pastors, and selecting synodical affiliation.
In 1849, the related Frank and Kerler families settled in and around Milwaukee. Their letters show that their spiritual needs were as important to them as building homes, clearing farmland, and establishing businesses. Seventy-five years later, J. P. Koehler wrote to praise them for having God’s Word as their main concern.[1] Yet the Lutherans in and around Milwaukee had several options when it came to joining an organized, visible church. In their letters, they described various German religious groups as being “pietist,” “Old Lutheran,” or “Evangelical-Protestant.”
At first, they tried a Pietist Old Lutheran pastor but rejected him for preaching “so much hatefulness.”[2] They also attempted to have a mixed union congregation with the Reformed, but they soon realized this would require compromising on doctrine and practice—particularly regarding the Lord’s Supper.
The Franks and Kerlers eventually found solid ground in the narrow Lutheran middle. While the Old Lutherans were represented in Wisconsin by the Buffalo and to some degree by the Missouri Synods, the Franks & Kerlers located in Greenfield and Milwaukee, along with hundreds of other immigrant Lutherans looked to Johannes Muehlhaeuser and his new synod. Muehlhaeuser’s synod, of course, was Die erste deutsch evang.-luth. Synode von Wisconsin. Organized in 1849 in Milwaukee, the synod constitution was adopted in the summer of 1850 at Granville.
Given many options, why did German Lutheran immigrants join the new Wisconsin Synod? Frank Kerler and his family joined the Wisconsin Synod because it was Evangelical-Lutheran. Frank’s pastor, Conrad Koester (was ordained by Muehlhaeuser in 1852), explained exactly with what kind of Lutheran synod the Franks & Kerlers had associated. His letter gives a valuable early definition of what it meant to be part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Koester wrote, “Our [Wisconsin] Synod is an Evangelical-Lutheran one, not the so-called Old Lutheran.”[3] A focus on proclaiming the gospel above enforcing uniformity characterized the early Wisconsinite version of Lutheranism.
It may seem that the private letters of 19th-century German immigrants contain little value. However, as Koehler pointed out, beneath the surface of unfamiliar settings and environments, one finds fellow human beings, fellow Lutherans, and fellow redeemed children of God served by the Means of Grace. It’s their story as well as ours.
For more on the early years of the Wisconsin Synod:
The Lutheran History Podcast (TLHP)
- TLHP 42 “We have joined the Synod of Muehlhaeuser”- Early Laity WELS Perspectives Part I
- TLHP 43 “Our Synod is Evangelical-Lutheran”- Early Laity WELS Perspectives Part II
Pr. James Langebartels has translated earlier histories of the synod that predate the well-known one by J.P. Koehler. The Pre-History of The History of the Wisconsin Synod
Rev. Ben Phelps serves at St. Matthew Lutheran in Marathon, WI.
[1] Koehler, John Philipp. Evangelisches-Lutherisches Gemeinde Blatt, 1912: 381.
[2] Frank, Louis F. German-American Pioneers in Wisconsin and Michigan: The Frank-Kerler Letters, 1849-1864. Edited by Harry H. Anderson. Translated by Margaret Wolff. Milwaukee: NAPCO Graphic Arts, 197. 140.
[3] Koehler, John Philipp. Evangelisches-Lutherisches Gemeinde Blatt, 1912: 381.
Practical Theology: The Pastor’s Impact on His Congregation’s Evangelism Efforts Part 2 – The Pastor Regularly Teaches a Next-Steps Class
It is one of my fondest memories from my parish ministry. I had scheduled a new Bible Information Class (BIC) to begin on a Tuesday evening. I promoted it as usual–eight weeks of bulletin inserts, verbal encouragements after worship and phone calls to prospects. I knew ten people had expressed interest, so I was excited. But not nearly as excited when I arrived for the class that evening. Twenty-three people showed up. Eight of them I had never met. They had been invited by members who accompanied them to the class.
This is one of my fondest memories because it was precisely what I had been working toward for years. Our church was not in a very visible location, so we had a limited number of drop-in first time worshipers. The neighborhood was older so there were few new movers looking for a church. For our congregation to reach unchurched people, we would need our people to invite their unchurched acquaintances. To encourage this, I worked at making the Sunday morning experience as visitor friendly as possible and promoting our BIC as a safe place to bring people who had questions about God, the Bible, the Church, etc. I thanked God that it seemed to be working.
I owe this strategy to seminary professor, David Valleskey. He encouraged us to regularly schedule BIC and encourage members to bring others. It makes sense because a BIC provides a different kind of door into the church than a worship experience. Done well, it allows sometimes skeptical people a safe place to ask their questions, knowing they will not be dismissed or demeaned.
It also aligns with author Rick Richardson’s findings in his research on what factors impacted the evangelism efforts of the fifteen hundred churches he surveyed.[1] One of the top ten factors identified was that the pastor regularly teaches a next steps class (what we call a BIC).
I wonder if we underestimate the gift we have in our BICs. Over and over, attendees would tell me how relieved they were to find a place where they could ask their questions and receive biblical answers. Many (most?) churches in the United States offer no such thing.
But we do. Let’s make the most of it, brothers!
Rev. Eric Roecker serves as the Director for the WELS Commission on Evangelism.
[1] You can read more about Rick’s findings in his book. Rick Richardson, You Found Me: New Research on How Unchurched Nones, Millennials, and Irreligious Are Surprisingly Open to Christian Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2023)