Jump to:
Eschatological Discourse, Part Three: Structure and Signs
In the “Beauty Destroyed” section,[1] Jesus prefaces the Eschatological Discourse (ED) with, “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Mt 24:2). This is a clear and specific reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
But in “When & What?”,[2] when the disciples ask, “When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt 24:3), are they asking one simple question or a twofold question? And does Jesus give a single or a twofold answer?
To assume that the disciples had a clear understanding of the difference between the events surrounding Jerusalem’s fall and those accompanying Jesus’ return at the end of the world is to give them too much credit. Here they seem to be blending two catastrophic events into one: the end of the world and the time when “not one stone” of the temple would be “left on another.”
Jeffrey Gibbs, on the other hand, argues at length that Jesus answers a twofold question with a decisively twofold response, thereby framing “the overall bipartite structure of the ED.” He writes, “As will become evident in my discussion, I regard the first half of the ED as Jesus’ response to the disciples’ first question in [Mt] 24:3 and the second half of the ED as Jesus’ response to the disciples’ second question in 24:3.”[3] “When examined carefully, the disciples’ approach and two-part question actually anticipates the two-part structure of the Eschatological Discourse and its message. Jesus will now teach the disciples about the events leading up to the destruction of the temple and the city, then about the consummation of the age and about the importance of not confusing the two.”[4]
I contend that dividing the disciples’ question into two separate inquiries and using this twofold question as the narrative framework for the ED not only imposes an artificial structure upon it that Jesus never intended, but also forces a preterite interpretation of certain verses in the first half of the ED, when a prophetic perspective interpretation would be much more appropriate. In the ED Jesus speaks as a prophet about two events and blends them together, in the same way the prophets before him blended future events together.
In “Signs”[5] and “More Signs,”[6] Jesus lists a number of events or signs that must happen before his Parousia. These signs are meant to remind us that the end is coming and that we must vigilantly prepare ourselves for it. “These signs span the New Testament era. Every time they occur, it is like a knock at the door, letting us know that Christ is coming.”[7] “More Signs” picks up where “Signs” leaves off. But between these two sections, Jesus makes a fascinating, temporary aside, which we will consider in the next article.
[1] Beauty Destroyed: Mt 24:1–2; Mk 13:1–2; Lk 21:5–6.
[2] When & What: Mt 24:3; Mk 13:3–4; Lk 21:7.
[3] Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia, 2000), 167.
[4] Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1—28:20 (St. Louis: Concordia, 2018), 1254.
[5] Signs: Mt 24:4–14; Mk 13:5–13; Lk 21:8–19.
[6] More Signs: Mt 24:22–28; Mk 13:20–23.
[7] Lyle W. Lange, God So Loved the World (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 2005), 614.
Rev. Kirk Lahmann serves as pastor at St. John Lutheran Church in Burlington, WI
Systematic Theology: The Origins of “Autopistia”
Autopistia (αὐτοπιστία). Does that Greek word ring a bell? It refers to the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. The Scriptures don’t depend on any outside source for their authority, such as the pope or ecumenical councils. Scripture is autopistos (αὐτόπιστος). It is “self-authenticating.”
Do you know where the term autopistia originated? It isn’t found in the New Testament. Surprisingly, you also won’t find any ancient church father who used the term autopistia or autopistos in reference to Scripture.
In fact, in all Greek literature from the days of Homer (8th century B.C.) to the fall of Byzantium (A.D. 1453), the term autopistos is only used 88 times in the works of 20 different authors. The word is usually used in philosophical contexts and often in reference to works by Aristotle.
So its theological usage must come from Luther, right? We might expect to hear that Luther coined the term autopistia to refer to the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. Nope! Luther never used the word in any of his writings, nor are the words autopistia or autopistos found anywhere in the Lutheran Confessions.
The term autopistia actually originated with John Calvin. In 2006, Reformed scholar H. van der Belt published an exhaustive, 350-page doctoral thesis with the title: Autopistia: The Self-Convincing Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology.[1] In his research, he discovered that Calvin was the first to bring this little-used Greek word into theological use at the time of the Reformation. Its first use in Calvin’s writings is found in his The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (1543). Calvin first applied the term to Scripture in the 1559 revision of his Institutes (1.7.5). Here is Belt’s translation of that passage: “Let this therefore stand: those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught, truly find rest in Scripture; it is indeed autopistos—it should not be submitted to demonstration by proofs.”
By 1572, autopistos was listed in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the most important Greek-Latin dictionary of the sixteenth century. It was given the following definition: “Per se probabilis seu credibilis, Cui per se fides adhibetur, sine argumentis.” That is, “probable or credible all by itself; that to which faith is applied all by itself, without proofs.”
From the humble beginnings of that single reference in Calvin’s Institutes, the word autopistia began to be used for the “self-authenticating” nature of Scripture as the Word of God. In future articles, we’ll see how the term was adopted and used by later Lutheran dogmaticians.
For today, reflect with gratitude on how God used the theologians of the Reformation, including non-Lutherans like John Calvin, to restore the Bible to its proper place of authority. Indeed, “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Pastor Nathan Nass serves at Christ the King Lutheran Church in Tulsa, OK. You can check out his blog at upsidedownsavior.home.blog.
[1]. Hendrik van der Belt, Autopistia: The Self-Convincing Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology (Leiden: Leiden University, 2006).
Historical Theology: The Life of Bo Giertz, Part 2
Adapted from the author’s 2021 essay, Dare to be a pastor: Meeting Bo Giertz
Bo Giertz went from an atheist to a Christian and then decided he wanted to be a pastor. He began public ministry (1932-1935) working with a high school ministry that organized youth rallies. Following this, he served rural parishes in eastern Sweden until the late 1940s.
Parish ministry led to spiritual struggle. Giertz was not preaching Christ the way the Bible did. The youth movement questioned or ignored Christ’s atoning work. Had he absorbed that? Did he need to rediscover that the forgiveness of sins is the life of the Church? Like the pastors he wrote about in The Hammer of God, Giertz confronted the truth that a pastor preaches the Word of God purely and administers the sacraments rightly. A pastor focuses on Jesus and the atonement.
During his parish years, Giertz married and had four children. His wife died after the birth of their fourth child. He remarried twice. While in the parish he wrote his most well-known work, The Hammer of God (a bestseller in Sweden), along with two religious novels, Faith Alone and With My Own Eyes.
His ministry coincided with World War II. While Sweden was neutral, the war entered the Giertz parsonage through refugees. Danish priests advised their people to find Giertz.
After a decade of parish work, Giertz became Bishop of Gothenburg. His election was unique because Giertz was a young (43) assistant pastor from a rural parish and an evangelical (in the sense our Lutheran fathers used the term). The parish was his heart, something he never wanted to leave; but from the one to whom much is given, much is expected.
As a bishop, Giertz stayed true to his parish pastor heart. He fought for the souls of his people. He sent out pastoral letters along with commentaries on Scripture and sermon texts. He spoke at meetings and conferences and was often preaching at ordinations. Through his work he became known as one to listen to when he spoke. People heard and saw profound piety.
His great professional crisis came in 1958, when the Church of Sweden approved the ordination of women. Giertz had always spoken against this. He was the driving force behind a confessional movement, and the only bishop openly involved. Advocacy for the biblical position caused him no end of pain. While many churchgoers and pastors rallied behind Giertz, the media and most of the public did not. They could only see misogynistic chauvinism. For the rest of his life (until 1998) he labored under this cross. He lived in a church drifting from the Word. He saw a church with a rich history now failing to stand for much of anything.
After retiring as bishop in 1970, he picked up the pen again and authored another religious novel (Knights of Rhodes, 1972), a year-long devotion book (To Live with Christ, 1973/1974), and a Swedish translation of the New Testament with extensive commentary (1976-1982).
In the next two articles, we will look at the writings of Bo Giertz.
Rev. Benjamin Tomczak serves as pastor at Bethel Evangelical Lutheran and School in Sioux Falls, SD.
Practical Theology: Fostering Brotherhood Among Pastors, Part 1: An Area for Improvement?
In 1907, a pastor who lived about twelve miles northwest of Wausau in rural Wisconsin passed his twenty-fifth year in the public ministry. According to our synod’s monthly periodical, he “was planning to observe this commemorative occasion quietly in his little chamber, alone with his God. But his family, his brothers in the ministry, and his congregations had other plans.” Without him “suspecting a thing, all the preparations for the celebration were arranged.” And this was by no means an unusual or abnormal occurrence. (And it wasn’t unusual for the synod’s periodical to publish detailed reports of such events, so that all the members of the synod could share in the celebration.)
More anecdotally, I grew up in a pastor’s family, and I remember our family attending an annual circuit corn roast with other pastors and their families three summers in a row. While the meal was being prepared, the pastors and their wives would enjoy conversation and laughs. The pastors’ kids, after the usual awkward period of hesitantly getting acquainted or re-acquainted, would play a rousing game of touch football. Even as a boy, the sense of brotherhood and fellowship among the pastors and their families was palpable to me. I was excited to attend the event each year.
With this series, I am not trying to resuscitate corn roasts or surprise ministry anniversary celebrations, as such. Nor am I simply venting a sigh for “the good old days.” Solomon says that is not wise (Eccles. 7:10).
But Christ does command and encourage brotherly love, hospitality, and carrying each other’s burdens, gives us his own example and the example of his apostles, and calls upon pastors to be models in this regard. So I am urging you to ask yourself some searching questions like these: Is the sense of brotherhood between you and your fellow pastors palpable to you? Do you view and treat your fellow pastors as companions, coworkers, and comrades, or as the competition? Do you look forward to getting together with them, or view it as just another to-do to add to your already-busy schedule? Do you look for any grounds to excuse yourself from getting together with them? Do the occasions you have to get together with them only consist of already-built-in opportunities, like meetings, conferences, the San Antonio retreat, or mentor-mentee meetings? Do you know if any of the pastors in your circuit recently celebrated a ministry anniversary milestone, or will be soon? Are you aware of at least one joy or struggle in their lives?
Over the next few months, we will consider how to foster increased brotherhood among pastors. In the meantime, do some brainstorming of your own and feel free to share out-of-the-ordinary brotherhood-fostering techniques and events you have found valuable.
Rev. Nathaniel Biebert serves as pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Winner, SD.