Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: Demonstrative Justification in James, Part One: The Lexical Framework
Justification by faith is the chief article upon which the Church stands or falls. We adore the comfort those Pauline passages bring as they emphasize forensic justification in a declarative sense, as God states we are “not guilty” of our sin. But how should we feel about those passages in James 2 that just as plainly talk about justification by works?
It helps me to know that James defined δικαιόω differently than Paul. In this series we will see that James intends a demonstrative use for δικαιόω, “to prove/show one’s righteousness.” We begin with the lexical framework surrounding the term δικαιόω.
The forensic, declarative sense of δικαιόω so familiar to us Lutherans is indeed its most common usage throughout ancient literature, but the word is also used in Greek literature in a demonstrative sense. BDAG reflects this under its fourth definition,[1] and if you comb through TDNT you will find other examples in extrabiblical writings.[2] Of special note are the large number of such references with the noun δικαιοσύνη, which emphasize the probative nature of righteousness in the upright conduct of individuals who could be declared “justified.” However, perhaps the most compelling example of this with the verb δικαιόω comes from shortly after the time of Christ.
Clement of Rome wrote late in the first century A.D.: “Seeing that we are a portion of a holy God…[let us] be justified (δικαιούμενοι) by deeds, not words” (1 Clement 30:1, 4). Are those the words of some crackpot Pelagian? No, the fourth bishop of Rome is regarded as a faithful church father and direct disciple of the Disciples (maybe even referenced in Philippians 4:3, as Origen and Eusebius claim). Furthermore, two chapters later Clement adds, “We who by his will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified (δικαιούμεθα) by ourselves, or by…piety or the deeds which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith by which Almighty God has justified all men” (32:4).
Clement is not an inspired author of Scripture, but he offers tremendous lexical value. If Greek-speaking Clement was able to utilize the term δικαιόω in a demonstrative sense when he clearly espouses it elsewhere in a declarative way, we can certainly allow James to do likewise as an inspired author of Scripture. The argument becomes even more compelling if James shared Clement’s concerns about the probative value of a saving faith that extends beyond words, and especially if James wrote before Paul. In future articles, we will see both are true.
For now, we conclude that δικαιόω is a legal word that paints a forensic picture, often of the declaration of innocence passed down by a judge. But it may also be employed to show the other side of the coin, when a person is able to present evidence such as in a courtroom that reflects a righteous verdict. In our next article we will examine the Scriptural framework that shows this is wholly consistent with the rest of the Bible.
Rev. Nate Walther serves as pastor at Eastside Lutheran Church in Madison, WI
[1] Frederick Wiliam Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 249.2.
[2] Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 211–19.
Systematic Theology: Analyzing a Modern Take on the Invocation of the Saints
“You ask your pastor to pray for you. I ask St. Mary to pray for me. We both ask the faithful for their petitions on our behalf. It’s the same thing. Both prayer requests fulfill Romans 15:30 and James 5:16, and mine also fulfills Revelation 6:9-10.” So claim the internet’s foremost Roman Catholic priests and apologists.[1] However, a quick visit to the Resources tab on the website of my local Roman Catholic parish tells a different tale.
Consider two prayers, one to St. Mary and the other to St. Thomas Aquinas, as representative of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of prayers commended to the Roman Catholic faithful.
O Virgin Immaculate…. Filled with confidence in your goodness and knowing full well your power, I beg you to extend to me your assistance in the journey of life, which is so full of dangers for my soul.[2]
Saint Thomas Aquinas, you are called by Holy Mother Church, the Angel of the Schools…. In this darkness, we need an angel like you who will protect, foster, and nourish the schools we have, and guide and strengthen us in establishing and building newer and more adequate schools.[3]
When taken at face value, these prayers betray the wise priest’s or apologist’s counsel. Both of them assume supernatural abilities of the respective saints and petition the respective saints themselves to dispense grace and aid.
But neither this assumption nor its resulting practice can be affirmed. Many arguments against invoking the saints can be offered,[4] but chiefly, the prayers cited above militate against the High Priestly Office of Christ Jesus. The Almighty Father has ordained that, of the only-begotten Son’s fullness, we all should receive grace for grace (John 1:16) and that the only-begotten Son should be the lone Mediator of assistance, preservation, and deliverance (1 Tim. 2:5). In short, salvation is of the LORD (Jon. 2:9). Though it should be acknowledged that the saints in heaven do pray (e.g. Rev. 6:10), it hardly follows that the saints assist (from the examples above, arguably usurp) our Lord in the dispensation of the mercies that pour from his holy wounds. Furthermore, since the Lord’s holy wounds sufficiently open the gateway to God’s listening ear, it certainly does not follow that the needy, the wanting, and the burdened of earth must first petition a gatekeeping saint in heaven.
In view of the evidence, it is impossible to reconcile Rome’s prayers with Rome’s apology. Allow the saints triumphant to pray of their own volition and without our asking. Encourage the saints militant to directly approach their Lord’s throne of grace in full confidence of his merits and his mercy (Heb. 4:14–16).
Rev. Barton Cox serves at Calvary Lutheran Church in Canyon Country, CA.
[1] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-supports-praying-to-the-saints.
[2] https://yenra.com/catholic/prayers/ovirginimmaculate.html. Accessed through https://saintkateriparish.org.
[3] https://yenra.com/catholic/prayers/forcatholicschools.html. Accessed through https://saintkateriparish.org.
[4] For a most thorough treatment, see Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1986), 370-507.
Historical Theology: Evaluating Bo Giertz
Adapted from the author’s 2021 essay, Dare to be a pastor: Meeting Bo Giertz
In Bo Giertz, we meet an enigma. We meet a Bible-believing, confessional Lutheran Christian. Yet he remained in an extremely liberal church for decades, even serving as a bishop. He served in the upper ranks of the Lutheran World Federation, yet he also advocated against the departures from the Word of God that his church and the LWF advocated.
Giertz yearned for the renewal of his church, but it did not happen for him as it did for Luther. The Church of Sweden did not reform while he was a bishop. This made Giertz a polarizing figure, a man loved, but also criticized, spoken against, and attacked.
He was polarizing among his own people. Perhaps that explains why he has not caught on among us. We don’t know what to make of him. Eric Andrae asks the question, “Who was Bo Giertz?” and answers:
The following labels have been variously applied to the man: high-church, low-church, old-church, the new view of the church, confessional, non-confessional, biblically traditional, not biblically traditional, man of awakening, arch-Lutheran, catholic, exegete, dogmatician, practical theologian, sacramentalist, not sacramental enough, non-Schartauan, non-pietist, Schartauan, pietist.[1]
Certainly, Giertz is not above criticism. He was human. We begin most obviously with his remaining in the Church of Sweden for forty years after they decided to ordain women, and everything that came after. Among the rare direct references to Giertz in Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, we find Siegbert Becker lamenting that Giertz does not seem to be doing anything. He has decided to co-exist in a church that ordains women. We could paraphrase Becker, “You may be against it, but to what end?”[2]
There are also other areas where some have criticized him. His readers today debate and discuss his theology, just as people discuss Luther, Melanchthon, Sasse, Pieper, etc. If you read his theological writings, you might raise your eyebrow here and there. You can see that his training was not like our training. He was like the men he wrote about in The Hammer of God.
For all of that, the label Giertz would most embrace, the one that we ought to consider most, is pastor. Bror Erickson calls him a “seelsorger’s seelsorger.”[3] A pastor’s pastor. God grant that we be known as such: pastors who faithfully do their duty as the Lord calls us to do it.
Rev. Benjamin Tomczak serves as pastor at Bethel Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Sioux Falls, SD
[1] Eric Andrae, ed., A Hammer for God (HFG) (Fort Wayne, IN: Lutheran Legacy, 2010), 26. Henrik Schartau (1757-1825) was a pastor who led a Swedish revival that, unlike others, remained a part of the national Lutheran church and thus remained connected to traditional liturgical and ceremonial features of the church rather than turning away towards conventicles and separatism. The preachers in this revival were ordained pastors, not lay people. He tried to moderate the excesses of emotionalism and subjectivism found in revivalism and pietism while also preaching powerfully about God’s law and moral living. Those who desired to remain orthodox Lutherans were fans of Schartau, since he also preached God’s plan of salvation and held on to the sacraments. He has been called a confessional pietist, someone who cared about both creeds and deeds.
[2] Cf. WLQ 67.1:67; 76.2:159.
[3] Bo Giertz, Then Fell the Lord’s Fire (Saginaw, MI: Magdeburg Press, 2012), v.
Practical Theology: Fostering Brotherhood Among Pastors, Part Four: The Important Role of the Circuit Pastor
Note: Since I myself have not served as a circuit pastor, I had two circuit pastors proofread this article and provide me with feedback. Also, I am indebted to exemplary circuit pastors I have had, whose faithful service inspired this article’s content.
The most basic unit of pastors in our church body is a circuit. It follows, then, that the leader of a circuit would have an incredibly important role to play in fostering brotherhood among pastors. Indeed, he does.
A circuit pastor in our church body used to be called a visitor—an apt label. He had a responsibility to visit the pastors in his circuit and to encourage them in person. This remains an eminently sound practice, and can take place in one of two ways: Either the circuit pastor can schedule regular visits with each pastor in his circuit and, say, meet with him over lunch, or he can regularly invite one or all of the brother pastors in his circuit to his home for a gathering, thereby also exemplifying the practice of hospitality. Even if he does nothing else, diligent visiting goes miles in fostering brotherhood.
The circuit pastor is also responsible for circuit meetings. He therefore does well to plan these meetings carefully in advance, and to center them on the gospel, since only the gospel has the power to unite on the deepest level a wide array of pastoral personalities. (A practical topic that involves little Bible study can be appropriate on occasion, but nothing can replace the study of Scripture and its doctrine, which produces thirty, sixty, or a hundred times what was sown [Mark 4:8].) If meetings are shallow, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants affairs, pastors will have negative associations of their time together with fellow pastors.
The circuit pastor is the one primarily responsible for broadcasting ordinations and installations, not only to the other pastors and congregations of his circuit, but also to neighboring circuits. If you have ever had a large number of pastors at your installation, you know how encouraging it is. He is also responsible for encouraging especially new pastors to host a gathering afterwards (the afterglow) and assisting them in doing so. This lays an important foundation for brotherhood.
Circuit pastors, delegation is a fine practice. If you’re not the best at planning circuit meetings or scheduling assignments on rotation, delegate that task. If any of the ideas in any of these installments appeals to you, identify a gifted and interested brother in your circuit and charge him with implementing it.
All of this should underscore the importance of circuit pastor elections. Pawning off this position on a guy perceived to be the least busy is unbiblical (Luke 12:48) and potentially devastating to pastoral brotherhood. The circuit pastor should be qualified for the job and a man who will take it seriously. Perhaps you have heard the saying, “As goes the pastor, so goes the congregation.” Similarly, as goes the circuit pastor, so goes the circuit and its brotherhood.
Rev. Nathaniel Biebert serves as pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Winner, SD.