Jump to:
Exegetical Theology: The Righteous One of Psalm 34: “Not One of His Bones Will Be Broken”
Psalm 34 opens in the first person. “I will extol the LORD at all times. . . . My soul will boast in the LORD” (vv. 1–2). [1] In mid-verse David invites others to join in the praises: “Glorify the LORD with me; let us exalt his name together” (v. 3).
That movement between David and his listeners runs throughout the whole psalm. In the next section, David narrates his own deliverance in the third person: “This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him” (v. 6). He asserts that the LORD protects and delivers all believers: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them” (v. 7).
By the second half of the psalm, the focus has widened to all believers: “The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous. . . . The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them” (vv. 15, 17). David asserts that his rescue from Gath has meaning for all God’s people. Blessed is every person who takes refuge in the LORD!
This is a teaching psalm. David is the teacher, and the lesson is about the fear of the LORD. Those who learn the lesson will be blessed and thankful people. In response to the LORD’s goodness, they will actively seek and run after shalom. The lesson itself is at the center of the psalm, vv. 8–14.
The closing section (vv. 15–22) is reminiscent of Psalm 1 and draws the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. But in verses 19–21 (20–22 in Hebrew), the noun for “righteous” shifts from the plural (צַדִּיקִים) to the singular (צַדִּיק): “Many are the afflictions of the righteous [sing.]. . . . He protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken. . . . Those who hate the righteous [sing.] will be condemned.” But this time the focus is not back on David. The Spirit of Christ seems to have another righteous individual in mind. Who is this?
The New Testament gives us a strong clue. John 19:36 applies Psalm 34:20 to Jesus on the cross: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” As Carson and Beale note, [2] John’s Greek verb (συντριβήσεται) matches the Septuagint of Psalm 34:20 exactly, even though the content of the fulfillment—an unblemished sacrifice whose bones stay intact—comes from the Passover lamb regulations of Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12. John brings them together: Jesus is the Passover lamb and the vindicated righteous sufferer of Psalm 34.
Because of Jesus, God’s people can sing Psalm 34 with confidence. Jesus is the poor man who cried out and was heard, raised from the dead as the LORD’S deliverance from every trouble, including death. Jesus is the singular righteous one of the psalm’s final verses, the righteous one who makes the rest of us righteous. Because of Jesus we will extol the LORD at all times.
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.
[2] G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 503.
Systematic Theology: Causes of Salvation, Part Two: The Meritorious Cause
Last month we considered the causes of our salvation, starting with the prompting cause: our Father’s love for us. This month we’ll consider the meritorious cause of our salvation: Christ’s merit on our behalf. Although this is the most basic tenet of Christianity, let’s not for that reason fail to marvel at it once again.
How shall we merit salvation? Let’s start by realizing that we must match God’s holiness. “Be perfect…as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). “Without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). In front of God’s holiness at Sinai, “even Moses said, ‘I am trembling with fear’” (vs. 20). “Our God is a consuming fire” (vs. 29).
By nature, we are not holy (Rom. 3:10–12; 8:7). That’s why we need “the Lord Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6). Jesus is “wisdom from God, namely, our righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30). “Righteousness which comes through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:9) was Paul’s salvation. It is also our “bright, clean, fine linen to wear” (Rev. 19:8). Christ’s merit in his holiness is the cause of our salvation.
How shall we merit salvation? Let’s continue by saying we must be free from sin. “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (Isa. 59:2). A holy God hates sin—enough to torment sinners “day and night, forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10, 15). “They will go away to eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). “Their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched” (Isa. 66:24). Clearly God does not merely hate sin; he hates sinners: “You [God] hate all evildoers” (Ps. 5:5).
By nature, we are sinners (Rom. 5:12). To be right with God, we need to be rid of that sin. Jesus accepted our sin on himself, as if he himself had sinned. God said, “He will be my son. When he sins, I will discipline him with a rod used by men and with blows of the sons of men” (2 Sam. 7:14). Jesus took our sin in his flesh: “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to deal with sin. God condemned sin in his flesh” (Rom. 8:3). So completely did Jesus accept the curse of our sin that he became our curse: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” on the cross (Gal. 3:13). Christ’s merit in extending to us his forgiveness is the cause of our salvation.
“God made him, who did not know sin, to become sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Only the God-man could accomplish it (Gal. 4:4–5), and only by his blood (1 Pet. 1:19).
Yes, it is the first lesson of Christianity 101: We are saved by Christ’s merit. Let us not yawn. Let us savor this! “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all his benefits—who pardons all your guilt…who redeems your life from the pit” (Ps. 103:2–3).
Rev. Karl Walther serves at St. Mark’s Lutheran in Watertown, WI.
Historical Theology: Key Issues of the Protéstant Controversy
The numerous events of the Protéstant Controversy—the Watertown discipline case, the suspension of the Fort Atkinson teachers, the Gerhard Ruediger dismissal, the Beitz paper and “Gutachten,” and the termination of J. P. Koehler’s call—are too extensive to address in a short article like this one. The narrative of those events can be found in various writings,[1] and in chapters of the books mentioned in the previous article. However, one can identify several key issues that were at the heart of the controversy one hundred years ago.
The first issue was God’s judgment of “obduracy” or “hardening.” When seminary professors John Schaller and Herman Meyer died within two months of each other in 1920, some in the synod were questioning if God’s judgment was falling on the Wisconsin Synod for its lack of spiritual life and its pride in its pure doctrine. A few years later, the turmoil within the synod’s ranks caused by the disciplinary cases was seen by some as further evidence that the synod might be falling under God’s judgment. In his paper, William Beitz got more pointed when he specifically spoke of poor preaching, rote catechetical teaching, seminary training that didn’t address the spiritual life of students, and lack of repentance. He saw these problems as the synod hardening itself against God.
A second issue was “Beamtentum” or “officialdom.”[2] This meshed with both the additional layer of bureaucracy in the larger, newly merged Wisconsin Synod and the general anti-establishment sentiment in America. The protesters saw the board’s interference with the faculty’s discipline at Northwestern, the suspension of the Fort Atkinson teachers, the dismissal of Ruediger, and the role of the “Gutachten” in the Beitz paper mêlée as examples of bureaucratic tyranny and overreach.
Finally, there was the conflict within the seminary faculty over the evaluation of the Beitz paper which had been presented at several pastoral conferences and disseminated widely. August Pieper and J. P. Meyer insisted that the paper should be evaluated based on the actual words of the paper, while Koehler felt that the intentions of the author should be considered. Koehler was endeavoring to put the best possible construction on the paper. He felt that a more charitable reading of Beitz’s paper was possible, while Pieper and Meyer opined that the controversial nature of the paper rendered that option fruitless and divisive. The result was that the Beitz paper and “Gutachten” became a sort of “shibboleth” in the Wisconsin Synod. Support for the Beitz paper and rejection of the “Gutachten” resulted in suspension from the synod.[3]
Prof. Joel Otto serves as Dean of Students and Professor of History and Education at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon, WI.
[1] For succinct summaries, see Edward Fredrich, “The Protes’tant Controversy,” and Elmer Kiessling, The History of the Western Wisconsin District, 1918-1968 (published by the Western Wisconsin District), 11–28. For more extensive treatments, see Mark Jeske, “A Half-Century of Faith-Life: An Analysis of the Circumstances Surrounding the Formation of the Protes’tant Conference,” and Peter Prange, “Pastor E. Arnold Sitz and the Protes’tants: Witnessing to the Wauwatosa Gospel.” See also Frederich, “The Parting of J. P. Koehler and the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary,” WELS Historical Institute Journal 1, no. 2 (Fall 1983) 36–47.
[2] It can be difficult to determine in each case what exactly those critical of Beamtentum had in mind with that term—all the new synod officials as such (“officialdom” or “bureaucracy”), the perceived or actual behavior of those officials in their office (“officiousness”), or both.
[3] It can be difficult to determine in each case what exactly those critical of Beamtentum had in mind with that term—all the new synod officials as such (“officialdom” or “bureaucracy”), the perceived or actual behavior of those officials in their office (“officiousness”), or both.
Practical Theology: Fostering Brotherhood Among Pastors, Part Six: Concluding Ideas and Thoughts
I once attended a mentoring seminar where a young pastor, who had recently completed his three-year mentorship, reflected on the program. He said that he was initially skeptical of its value and viewed the process this way: Year 1: Form friendship. Year 2: Cultivate friendship. Year 3: Terminate friendship.
But after going through the process, he recognized its value. Sometimes, even with adults, you need to program a worthwhile endeavor in order to get better at it. Additionally, the programming itself can, in fact, be a Spirit-wrought, spontaneous fruit of the gospel on the part of the programmer(s).
Similarly, permit me to suggest that sometimes you need to program brotherhood in order to get better at brotherhood. Those involved still need to want to be better brothers to their fellow pastors, but organizing an event can help them do so.
A couple examples: The week after Labor Day, the Mankato and Minnesota River Valley Conferences hold a three-day pastors’ retreat every year at a retreat center on the St. Croix River. The organizers don’t just plan a conference in a beautiful and relaxing setting. They also intentionally hold it far from home so that it has to be intentionally attended, which also discourages early departure. The organizers want the brothers to be there for their brothers. They also purposefully build a rest-and-recreation afternoon into the schedule.
Every year in August, the circuit to which I belong holds a three-day getaway in the Black Hills. We have regular devotions and study two Luther sermons, but apart from that, it’s a time to relax and enjoy each other’s company and the handiwork of God on display around us. We also abide by an Airplane Mode Admonition, so that when we’re there, we’re there for each other. The meals together, one joint recreation event, and the campfire time in the evenings are highlights every year.
Whatever you might organize to help foster brotherhood, build it around the actual gospel of Jesus, that is, Christian doctrine. This alone has the power to kindle and strengthen true brotherhood. This alone has the power to make the event truly attractive. At one circuit getaway I attended, I overheard one brother remark to another, “This is the most at peace I’ve ever been.” That’s the power of gospel-fueled pastoral brotherhood.
Apart from special functions, put time and effort into your papers, presentations, and sermons at circuit meetings and conferences. (Don’t just put Sunday’s sermon in the microwave.) Create and embrace opportunities to carpool to pastoral events; sometimes the rides end up being the best part of those events. Phone a brother you haven’t talked to in a while and find out how he is doing. Ask a brother in your circuit out to lunch.
Not every circuit and conference will gel as naturally as another. The devil is always throwing wrenches into the gears. But with repentance and Spirit-wrought desire born of the gospel, we can be a church body known for fostering brotherhood among pastors.
Rev. Nathaniel Biebert serves as pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Winner, SD.