Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: The DNA of Psalm 34
In previous articles about Psalm 34 we focused on David’s life lesson (vv. 8–14)1 and the “righteous one” at the end (vv. 19–21)—in other words, the instruction of the Lord and the Messiah. Those two themes—Torah and God’s anointed—are the double helix in the DNA of the whole Psalter. Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 introduce that DNA, and both strands are evident in Psalm 34.
The Psalm 1 Strand
Psalm 1 states that every human being is traveling along one of two ways: the way of the righteous or the way of the wicked. The last verse of Psalm 1 pronounces a divine verdict: “The Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.”
Starting in Psalm 34:8, David’s life lesson includes many imperatives: taste, see, fear, come, listen, keep, turn, do, seek, and pursue. Beginning at verse 15, however, the psalm turns to third-person, contrastive, verdict-language, echoing Psalm 1. It stays that way to the end. Two examples:
- The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous; his face is against those who do evil.
- The righteous call out, and the Lord hears; evil slays the wicked.
The Psalm 2 Strand
Psalm 34 also shows its genetic resemblance to Psalm 2. At the beginning of the lesson (v. 8) and at the end (v. 22), David echoes the last words of Psalm 2: “Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” This verbal connection indicates that those who fear the Lord are the people who fear, love, and trust in his Son—the King installed on Zion.
Last time, we saw how the Spirit of Christ placed a Messianic promise into an envelope near the end of Psalm 34. It looked like this: righteous one—not one of his bones will be broken—righteous one. In the same way, the Spirit of Christ places a glorious statement into an envelope at the very end. It looks like this: found guilty—the Lord redeems the life of his servants—(not) found guilty. The righteous are not those who escape judgment because of their own goodness; they are those whom the Lord has redeemed. Those who hate this redeeming Lord will be found guilty. Those who take refuge in him will not.
Psalm 34 highlights this redeeming work another way: The word “redeem” at the beginning of the last verse breaks the acrostic pattern of the entire psalm by adding another pe-line. In a psalm that teaches the fear of the Lord from A to Z, the spotlight remains on redemption.
The Messiah does not need to be imported from the outside; he is in the DNA of Psalm 34.
We do well to think about every psalm in the light of Psalm 1 and Psalm 2. Such “genetic testing” will help us to speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, always giving thanks to our heavenly Father in the name of Jesus, his beloved Son (see Eph. 5:19–20).
Prof. Bradley Wordell serves as professor of Old Testament and Director of Grow in Grace at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon, WI.
1 I use the English versification for my references throughout.
Systematic Theology: Causes of Salvation, Part Three: The Mediate Cause
These past two months we have considered the causes of our salvation, including the prompting cause—our Father’s love for us—and the meritorious cause—Christ’s labor on our behalf. This month we will consider the mediate cause of our salvation. You might guess that, in good Trinitarian fashion, it especially has to do with God the Holy Spirit. In this case, there are also some interesting corollaries on which Lutheran Christian doctrine has uniquely picked up.
To start, just as rightly as we say, “God saves us,” and, “Jesus saves us,” we also say, “The Spirit saves us.” After all, “no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). The Holy Spirit has regenerated us: “Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh. Whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). The Holy Spirit is a full-service rescuer, vivifying both body and soul. “If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit, who is dwelling in you” (Rom. 8:11).
Here’s where perhaps it gets especially interesting: How does the Holy Spirit do this saving work of his? It’s through the means of grace, the gospel in Word and Sacrament. Therefore, we may say that the gospel, the Word, and the sacraments save us as well.
God’s word saves us. “God revealed [what God has prepared for those who love him] through his Spirit. … We also speak about these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10, 13). After all, “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message comes through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Plus, it was the Spirit who inspired the writings of the prophets and apostles (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13-14; 2 Tim. 3:16).
Now, non-Lutheran Protestants might readily enough agree that God’s word saves us. But if you want to make some of them sputter—not that this should be our intention—assert that Holy Baptism saves us. The unctuous retort—I’ve been on the receiving end of some of these—may be, “No! Baptism does not save us! Only Jesus saves us!” That’s the time to turn to 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism now saves you” (ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς…νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα). Holy Baptism is our right to claim before God a good conscience (συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν). Holy Baptism is our washing (Acts 22:16), our regeneration (John 3:5), our adoption (Gal. 3:26-27), and our anointing (Titus 3:5-7). So we rightly say that Holy Baptism saves us.
From there it is a small step to assert with Scripture that Holy Communion saves us too. Why else did Jesus institute it “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28)?
So we conclude: The Holy Spirit’s work by the means of grace is the mediate cause of our salvation.
Rev. Karl Walther serves at St. Mark’s Lutheran in Watertown, WI.
Historical Theology: Lessons from the Protéstant Controversy
A century after the first protests were lodged and the first suspensions occurred in the Western Wisconsin District, the Protéstant Conference, formed in 1927 as a result of the Protéstant Controversy, is down to a couple of congregations, a few scattered individuals, and a website.1 However, there are still lessons to be learned from the controversy.
First, WELS leadership has learned to be patient when dealing with matters of discipline and suspension. During the controversy, it was apparent that certain lines were drawn in the sand. When those lines were crossed, suspensions were almost immediate. There was also a reluctance to pull back from positions that had been taken and rethink matters. J. P. Koehler urged this strategy, but he had few takers on either side. Since the controversy, district officials have been consistently patient in dealing with brothers in the ministry.2 When it involves doctrine and practice, “make haste slowly” has been the motto. I am convinced that this was a factor in the patience that the Wisconsin Synod demonstrated toward the Missouri Synod in the 1940s and 1950s (certainly not the only factor, but one of them).
Second, the Protéstant Controversy ought to lead us to appreciate the blessings of established procedures and structures when it comes to things like issuing calls, carrying out discipline of called workers, and appealing suspensions. The newly merged synod had not developed such things in the 1920s, and it showed. Teachers under discipline received calls to another congregation in the same district. There was confusion over who exactly was to enact disciplinary measures. Was it the district president or the district in convention? Those who were suspended really had no recourse to appeal. So they just protested louder. (Their protests were especially heard on the pages of Faith-Life, the Protéstant Conference’s publication.) This hardened everyone in their positions and exacerbated already-tense relationships. Having orderly and clear policies and procedures allows congregations and called workers to know how to proceed when a pastor resigns or a call list is needed. Confusion is avoided.
Finally, appreciate this thing we call a “synod.” By God’s grace and the power of his Word, we have brothers and sisters all over the country (and the world) with whom we “walk together” in a united confession of the truths of Scripture. That is a blessing that needs to be continually treasured, cultivated, and defended. Sadly, the Protéstant Controversy splintered that brotherhood. It wasn’t the first and hasn’t been the last time this has happened to our synod. But each time is an opportunity to prize this “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” that we enjoy and experience in WELS. Years after the controversy had settled down, seminary students routinely asked J. P. Meyer to talk to them about the controversy. After he finally did so somewhat reluctantly, he concluded by saying, “Prize the brotherhood. Prize the brotherhood.”3
Prof. Joel Otto serves as Dean of Students and Professor of History and Education at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon, WI.
1 According to the website, Pastor Timothy Chang is the chairman and Pastor Paul Hinz is the secretary. Individuals with ties to the conference include Dr. Carl Springer of Chattanooga, TN, and Rev. Dr. Michael Albrecht, a retired pastor living in Texas who is also listed as the editor of Faith-Life. However, Faith-Life has not been published since 2019. Interestingly, the Protéstant Conference, in collaboration with a number of LCMS people, just published Te Deum Laudamus, a new hymnal supplement. For information on this new resource, see https://www.telaudamus.org/. A special kickoff event was held on June 26-27, 2026, at Trinity Lutheran Church, the LCMS congregation in downtown Milwaukee.
2 The exception is when a moral lapse is involved. Then disciplinary action tends to be rightly swift.
3 John M. Brenner and Peter M. Prange, Jars of Clay: A History of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (1863-2013) (Mequon: Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, 2013), 181. For a longer treatment of the centennial of the Protéstant Controversy, see Joel D. Otto, “Protes’tant Beginnings—One Hundred Years Later,” in Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 121, no. 2 (Spring 2024): 121-127.
Practical Theology: Common Vestments for Public Worship
This article (and the four articles that will follow it, God willing) is intended to be easily adapted and printed in a church’s Sunday worship folder as a brief explanation about vestments.
The judge at trial wears a black academic robe, with origins from English legal attire in several centuries past. Military officers wear their formal uniforms at state events, sometimes featuring brass buttons, high collars, and tailored styles from an earlier era. For formal ceremonies, members of the British House of Lords wear long scarlet robes with roots in medieval times. More examples could be given, but in any case, participants in an official event often wear the attire of a past era as a symbol of their representative office.
Christians have, in freedom, adopted similar practices for those who lead public worship. Presiding and assisting ministers may vest in special clothing that traces its roots to the time of Christ and the first few centuries of Christian history—a subtle statement of our connection with believers who have gone before us, and a subtle way that we “imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7).
The most common vestment for clergy is called the alb1 , a simple, white, long-sleeved robe that reaches down to one’s feet. The alb may resemble the common tunic of Jesus’ day. It became a recognized vestment for worship by at least the fifth century. In worship today, the alb may be worn by anyone who has an official function in worship, whether ordained or not.
The vestment most associated with pastors in the WELS is called the stole, a long scarf worn over the shoulders, extending to the wearer’s knees or ankles. There are two theories about its origins. One is that Roman officials would wear one or two stripes on the front of their albs to designate their position. The other theory connects the stole to a long towel that first century servants wore over or around the shoulders. The practical towel eventually became a symbolic cloth, worn in different ways by deacons, priests, and bishops to signify their office. In modern practice, the stole is worn by ordained pastors over the alb. The color of the stole reflects the symbolic color of the church season.
While not as common in the WELS, a third vestment in this group is the chasuble. This poncho-shaped vestment also displays the color of the church season, and is worn over the alb and stole by the pastor presiding at Holy Communion. Paul may have had the equivalent of this garment in mind when he asked Timothy to bring him his cloak in 2 Timothy 4:13.
Symbolic meanings have become connected to some vestments. For example, the white alb might be seen as a symbol of the robe of Jesus’ righteousness that covers our sin (Rev. 7:9). The pastor’s stole has been viewed as a symbol of Jesus’ “yoke” (Matt. 11:29-30). While these symbolic connections may be devotionally useful, they were likely later developments and not the original understanding of these vestments. Rather, according to the phenomenon that has occurred across ages and cultures, the Church adopted the clothing of Jesus’ day and its earliest centuries as visual symbols of the divine office held by those who serve as the Lord’s representatives in public worship.
Rev. Johnold Strey serves as pastor at Crown of Life Lutheran Church in Hubertus, WI.
1Additional information about other vestments is included in Chapter 11 of Christian Worship: God Gives His Gospel Gifts (Northwestern, 2021).