Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the OT

8/22/2019 Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the OT

1/26

LUTHERS TRINITARIAN

HERMENEUTIC AND THE

OLD TESTAMENT

CHRISTINE HELMER

The gap between the biblical canons relative closure and the formulationof church teaching has, since the seventeenth century, been regarded as ahistorical truism. Since the rise of biblical criticism, the dogmas of the churchhave been challenged, criticized and eroded by historical arguments.1 History

has been privileged as the terrain on which the reasonableness of the Christianreligion and its doctrines are demonstrated; dogma and dogmatic claimsconcerning its authority are banished beyond the bounds of reasonableassent. Both popular opinion and scholarly consensus concede to historicalcriticism the better arguments, leaving the burden of proof on dogmatictheologians to articulate theological positions that would filter the Christiantradition through categories evident to reason. Within the historical para-digm, the trinitarian dogma is rendered problematic on two accounts. Oneargument denies the legitimacy of the Old Testament as a warrant for

the Trinity. Neither Christ nor the Spirit of Christ appear historically priorto Christs birth from Mary. The typological or figurative preparations of theTrinity in the Old Testament are rejected on historical grounds;2 only theNew Testament can accurately be appropriated as a point of departure forreflecting on the JesusAbba relationship.3 With the revitalization of trinitariantheology in the twentieth century, the question of the unity of the God strad-dling both testaments has been raised.4 Soulen has pointed out the erasure ofthe God of Israel in classic trinitarian theological proposals.5 The Old Testa-ment is not rejected on strictly historical grounds. Rather, YHWH is deter-

mined entirely in terms of the triune name, Father, Son, Spirit, a designation

Modern Theology 18:1 January 2002ISSN 0266-7177

Christine HelmerClaremont School of Theology, 1325 N. College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, USA

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 MainStreet, Malden, MA 02148, USA.


2/26

reflecting the supercessionism indigenous to Christian theology as a whole.6

A second argument admits the distance between the proto-trinitarian formu-lations available in the New Testament and the articulation of trinitarian

dogma in the fourth century. Proposals have been advanced to close the gapby providing either historical or theological reasons.7 The move from his-torical contingency to dogmatic necessity, however, represents the difficultygnawing at the biblical-theological field since Lessing. [A]ccidental truthsof history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.8 Thedual exegetical and theological interests in the Trinity reflect the split betweentwo distinct argumentative paths.

With the retreat of theological claims to accommodate the results of his-torical criticism, the question of how the Old Testament can inform Christian

theology continues to be posed. The question is even more pressing in lightof the early twentieth-century controversy concerning the Old Testamentsstatus within the Christian Bible.9 It was this criticism that prompted somescholars, notably Wilhelm Vischer, to repristinate pre-Enlightenment positionsin order to raise the issue of christological referentiality in Old Testamenttexts.10 Although the project stumbled on the rock of a quasi-allegorical inter-pretation, the effort inspired a renewed look at Luthers Old Testamentinterpretation.11 Both H. Bornkamm and J. S. Preus investigated Luthersturn to the literal sense of the Old Testament and his arguments for a semantic

equivalence between biblical texts and the early churchs trinitarian andchristological dogmas.12 It is the purpose of this essay to orient the discussionto Luthers explication of the trinitarian doctrine and its exegetical founda-tion in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Neither does Luther reducethe Old Testament to a series of trinitarian proof texts; nor does he raise thesemantic level of the text to accommodate an allegorical interpretation,thereby relativizing the textual anchor. Rather, Luther articulates a complextrinitarian hermeneutic that moves between a trinitarian semantics and theHebrew text. In the first section, I will map out a possible historical explan-

ation for Luthers concern to tie the Trinity to the Old Testament. By connectingthe Holy Spirit to the text, Luther advocates a semantics of the inner-Trinitythat imbues the Hebrew with a special dignity. The privileged status of theHebrew original informs Luthers ongoing revisions to his Old Testamenttranslations. In the second section, Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic will bediscussed in view of both the specific translation into German of the Hebrewnames for God, and the semantic claims justifying the translation. Finally, Iwill argue that Luther roots his trinitarian understanding in the grammaticaland syntactical features of the royal Psalms. The Psalms speech structure

renders a trinitarian grammar of transparency. The triune mystery is one inwhich the divine essence is transparent through the characteristics distinguish-ing between the three persons.

50 Christine Helmer

Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.


3/26

1. Text and Sense

Luthers late revisions to his translation of the Old Testament reflect his

intensified concern with the trinitarian doctrine. In this section, I focus ona particular historical controversy that may explain Luthers insistence onpreserving the trinitarian semantic referent of the literal Hebrew text. ForLuther, the referent of the text is the third person of the Trinity, the HolySpirit. Only on the basis of this claim can the turn to the Father and Son bemade.

In Luthers lifelong preoccupation with the Old Testament, the academiclectern, rather than the preaching pulpit, provided the forum.13 Luther beganhis teaching career by lecturing on the Psalms (15131516), a book he was

to interpret two more times (15191521; 15321535).14

Two commentaries onthe penitential Psalms were published in 1517 and 1525.15 Throughout themiddle portion of his career, Luther lectured on the twelve minor prophets,Ecclesiastes, Isaiah and the Song of Songs.16 The Book of Genesis occupieda full ten years of Luthers academic efforts (15351545),17 while the lastlectures he published were devoted to Isaiah 9 and 53, and Hosea 14:1214.18

Not only the object of the lectures and commentaries, the Old Testament textwas the particular focus of Luthers canonical modifications. Luther followedJerome, not Augustine, in advocating the canonical authority of the Masoretic

text.19

This move seems to have been motivated by early doubts concerningthe appeal to Deutero-canonical books. Particularly in the disputation withEck in Leipzig (1519), Luther had raised the issue of biblical warrants for thedoctrine of purgatory. Luther argued against the churchs teaching on pur-gatory by denying the canonical authority of 2 Maccabees 12:46.20 There is,furthermore, enough evidence for the later Luthers doubts concerning thecanonicity of the apocryphal texts. In his Bible translation, at least after 1534,he marked them off as the Apocrypha,21 recommending their use for piousedification, not for church teaching.22 He insisted that these books were not

to be regarded as equal to the canon, a claim he can also be interpreted tohave made for four New Testament books: Hebrews, James, Jude and JohnsApocalypse.23 Luthers position is neither to be misunderstood as a simpleprivileging of the canon over church teaching; nor is it to imply a consistentrejection of the canonical status of these texts. Rather, canonicity is deter-mined by the subject matter; the text is servant to Christ that it must convey.

Flexibility characterizes Luthers canonical decisions, but in a way thatcannot undermine the literal text. In discussions of Luthers Bible trans-lations, there is scholarly consensus regarding Luthers sense to sense method

of translation.24

Luther promoted the accessibility of the texts subject matterthrough a translation reflecting vernacular use, while also taking greatcare to conserve the [original] letter.25 The insistence on accessibility inthe mother tongue must be interpreted together with Luthers convictionregarding the anchor of the subject matter in the text. Particular passages

Luthers Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament 51



4/26

convey the promises of Christ in a way creating certainty. With respect to thechristological referent, the Old Testament differs from the New Testamentonly according to the temporal orientation to Christ. The New Testament is

written from the perspective of the Christ who has come, whereas the OldTestament is the cradle of Christ,26 conveying the Christ who is to come.27

Following this principle, Luther took great care to translate the Old Testa-ment into German. Luther added major revisions to the Old Testament aslate as 1539154128 that he included in the last Bible published during hislifetime (1545).29 When analyzing the records of the translation process,especially at its later stages, it is curious to note that Luther moves beyonda christological commitment. Documented is an explicit interest in rooting atrinitarian sense in the translation. The following question needs to be

addressed. Why does Luther skew his translation in the direction of atrinitarian interpretation? The issue turns not on a christological, but on apneumatological pivot: the historical dispensation of the Spirit.

Although the historical reasons for Luthers later interest in the Trinityare not entirely clear, a possible explanation can be reconstructed. In the1544 doctoral disputation of Major and Faber, Luther discusses the Trinityin view of two seemingly distinct issues. The context of the disputation isestablished by the first thesis. In the thesis, Luther cites Matthew 17:5. Godthe Father desired that all disputations concerning the articles of faith should

cease. Therefore he said concerning God his Son, Listen to him.30

In othertexts, Luther joins disobedience to the Son with the denial of the Sonsdivinity. Both Arius and the devil represent, for Luther, a similar disobedi-ence and consequently a similar heresy.31 By equivocating the refusal to hearthe Son with the rejection of the eternal co-equality between Father andSon, Luther is insisting on the doctrinal requirements for true hearing. Thedoctrine of co-equality determines the way in which Christs speech mustbe received. In another section of the disputation, Luther turns to the secondissue, the biblical moorings of Christs speech. At this point, a curious polemic

erupts against two Catholic theologians, Johannes Eck and Johannes Cochlaeusthat is connected to an attack against both Michael Servetus, the theologianwho was burnt at the stake on charges of the antitrinitarian heresy, andWolfgang Campanus. Luther unites the orthodox with the heretical factionby complementing the issue of obedience to the Son with the Spirits dis-pensation in the Old Testament.

The context of Luthers explicit argument against both Servetus andEck concerns the issue of technical trinitarian terminology in scripture. Inthe disputations preface, Luther mounts a specific attack against Servetus.

According to Luther, Servetus and Campanus say that this article [of theTrinity] is not represented before John the Baptist, and [hence] they mock thescriptures.32 During the disputation, the charge against Eck is also prefacedby the issue of terminology,33 yet the difficulty seems to be heightened bythe insertion of an additional argument regarding church authority. With

52 Christine Helmer



5/26

respect to Eck and Cochlaeus, Luther claims that they establish the doctrineof the Trinity on the authority of the doctors and the pope, not on scripture.34

When Ecks own treatise, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, is considered, it

appears that Eck advances an argument on the churchs authority withoutspecifically mentioning the issue of biblical terminology. Eck explicitly refersto the Holy Spirits dispensation to the church, and in a separate proposition,to the authority of the church for interpreting scripture.35 Eck claims thehistorical precedence of the church over scripture in order to argue that thechurch attests to scriptures authenticity, and not the other way around.36

Using the argument on the churchs authority, Cochlaeus writes that Servetusposition cannot be combated by scripture, but by the church that establishesthe articles of faith.37 When Luther accuses both Servetus/Campanus and

Eck/Cochlaeus of undermining the Trinity, he seems to be equivocating thetwo theological positions on the historical articulation of the doctrine afterthe canons fixation. Luther collapses two distinct arguments to make onepoint. Although for different reasons, both Servetus and Eck tie the trinitariandoctrine to the church, rather than anchor it in scripture. Servetus rejects thetrinitarian doctrine by deferring its articulation to its creedal formulations inthe third and fourth centuries,38 while Eck restricts scriptures authority byamplifying the churchs authority in view of the Holy Spirits guiding activity.Luther sees a structural similarity between a position that relativizes church

teaching on historical grounds and a position that establishes dogmatic truthby limiting the Spirit to a historical dispensation after Christs ascension.In order to combat his opponents views, Luther must explicate the relationbetween the trinitarian subject matter and the Old Testament text.

In the Major disputation, only one side of the argument is formulated. Theissue of doctrinal distance and terminological discrepancy from scripture iscountered by elevating the discussion to the level of the res itself. The Trinityest res supra nostrum intellectum posita39 and its truth overrides anydoctrinal formulation. Rem mussen wir behalten, wir redens mit Vocabln,

wie wir wllen.40

Luthers translation strategy that frees the res from theliteral letter reappears in the context of debate on scriptures relation tochurch doctrine. In another doctoral disputation, Luther sharpens his positionby alluding to Augustine and Lombard. One discussion in the Fabriciusdisputation concentrates on the relation between the temporal diversity ofrites and the unity of faith. Luthers statement on the identity of the faith thatis preserved throughout differing historical epochs is a direct allusion toLombard, who also addresses the possibility of introducing change into theobject of faith by tensed verbs.41 Lombard cites Augustine in claiming that

tensed verbs do not posit change in the content of the faith. [N]ec tamendiversa credimus nos et illi, sed eadem. Tempora enim, ut ait Augustinus,variata sunt, et ideo verba mutata, non fides.42 In spite of temporal dis-tinctions at the level of linguistic tense, the res remains the same in eternity.Luthers allusion to Lombard can help explain his concern in the Major




6/26

disputation with the transcendent res, whose truth is preserved in spite ofterminological flexibility. The res is conveyed as the semantic referent of adiversity of terms and descriptions. When Luther appeals to the transcend-

ence argument, he is neither advocating laxity in language,43

nor appealingto the argument that locates doctrinal authority solely in church tradition.44

Rather, Luther makes the point that, although language is inevitably his-torically located, it cannot be understood to introduce diversification into thesubject at the semantic level. What this element of the discussion shows isLuthers concern with preserving the trinitarian res as an eternal unity, abovetime and beyond reason. The argument then shapes Luthers handling of theTrinity in relation to the time prior to John the Evangelist.

The issue of the textual basis for the Trinity can only be treated once the

argument for the trinitarian res in the Old Testament is advanced. The pointof entry into the semantic question is established by the first thesis in theMajor disputation: the Fathers injunction to listen to the Son.45 With respectto the Trinity before John the Evangelist, the thesis opens up the question ofhow the Son can be heard historically prior to the appearance of Jesus ofNazareth. Given the paucity of interpretative clues within the disputationitself, Luthers position must be reconstructed from other texts in view of theOld Testaments access to the Sons speech. For Luther, access to the inner-trinitarian mystery is granted solely by the third person of the Trinity. In the

Old Testament, the Spirits inspiration of the prophets serves to open up thetrinitarian res. In order to ground this claim, Luther equivocates the referentof the third article of the Creed with the Old Testament prophecies. In thetreatise, Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543), Luther cross-references thepassage, Der Geist des HERRN hat durch mich geredt (2 Samuel 23:2)46

with both 2 Peter 1:2147 and the phrase in the Nicene Creed, Der durchdie Propheten geredet hat.48 In order to emphasize the semantic equivalencebetween scripture and the Creed, Luther unifies his translation of the rele-vant passages by using the term reden. The philological choice captures

the semantic equivalence pertaining to the Spirit, whose eternity is notdisrupted by her temporally diverse dispensations. Even the 1541 revision tohis Old Testament translation marks this uniformity. For 2 Samuel 23:2b,Luther changes Wort to Rede in order more clearly to expose the versessemantic equivalence with the Spirits speaking through the prophets.49

The self-same Spirit inspires the human author of the Psalms, David, so thathe speaks not anymore as the Son of Jesse, born in sin, but as the oneawakened by God to be a prophet.50 The Spirit creates the historical actualityof access into the divine subject matter. By virtue of the Spirits self-same

identity throughout history, Luther can, on the one hand, advocate agree-ment between biblical authors, specifically Moses and John, on the semanticreferent of their writings.51 On the other hand, Luther can valorize thedistinct ways of referring to the Trinity. Luther does not raise the semanticlevel of the Old Testament to suit the referent of the New Testament in order

54 Christine Helmer



7/26

to force a trinitarian interpretation at a spiritual level removed from the text.52

Rather, he privileges pneumatological equivalence in order to claim thedignity of various dispensations at their distinct historical sites. The Old

Testaments dignity is grounded at the semantic level, that in turn guaranteesthe identity between prophetic utterances and the Spirits own speech.Access to the semantic referent is a second element driving Luthers

hermeneutic. Luther discusses the Spirit not only in terms of semanticequivalence, but he also begins with the Spirit as the trinitarian person whofacilitates access to the inner-trinitarian mystery. What no eyes have seen,nor ears heard is the subject matter of scripture and the Creed to which theHoly Spirit has access by virtue of her identity with the divine nature.53 Thecontent of the Spirits speech is the God of Israel,54 a referent that cannot

be attributed to human or angelic knowledge, but to one who plumbs thedepths of the divine Majesty itself.55 For Luther, authorial agency must bedivine because of the subject matter that is eternal. When Luther describesthe text from the perspective of its eternal referent, he attributes authorshipto the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the author who warns, writes, teaches,comforts, brings to remembrance.56 On the other hand, Luther ties access intothe mystery to historically concrete sites. The literal speech of the prophets,apostles and church is valorized because the Spirit is responsible for creatingthese tangible means to access the mystery.57 The referent opens up historical

speech to unseen things, thereby establishing the dignity of the speechswritten records.The texts referent ascribes dignity to the literal level of scripture. Luthers

trinitarian-theological presupposition regarding the Spirits epistemologicalfunction grounds the claim that the external text is capable of referring to asubject matter too high for human words. In Luther scholarship, the textsrelation to the referent is often understood as an identity of constitution.According to this view, the tangible and localized word of thepromissio con-stitutes the actuality of its meaning.58 The question that begs to be answered,

however, concerns the power of the constituting function of the word. ForLuther, the word constitutes the spiritual reality only by virtue of its divineauthority. Authorial agency provides the explanation for the words dignity.With respect to the biblical text, Luther privileges its trinitarian semanticsthat consequently establishes the original Hebrew, not the translation, as thevehicle for trinitarian knowledge. Hebrew is the language the Spirit uses torefer to a theological subject matter.59 The meaning of the Hebrew terms dif-fer from meanings given to the same words in different fields of philosophyor astronomy. For example, Hebrew terms referring to time connote feasts

and festivals; philosophical terms of time refer to motion.60 Concentratedlistening to the Hebrew words, its grammar and syntax is required as a firststep in grasping the trinitarian reality.

The epistemological point of entry into the trinitarian mystery is guaranteedby the semantic referent that ascribes dignity to the Hebrew text. Luther




8/26

presupposes the trinitarian work of the Spirit in order to ground the textsdignity, but conversely, Luther makes strong claims regarding the textsavenue into the mystery of co-equality between Father and Son. Text and

Trinity are intimately connected.

2. The Names for God

Once the texts epistemological capacity is established, a fuller trinitariansemantics can be developed. The Holy Spirit opens up the eternal mystery ofthe Father and the Son. In the following section, I will show how Luther refersto the Father and Son by translating the two Hebrew names for God, YHWHand Adonai. By representing the distinction in the German translation, Luther

determines the semantics of the terms in order to interpret the speech patternof the royal Psalms as the hermeneutical basis for his trinitarian understanding.The trinitarian supercessionist model, as Soulen argues, erases the Hebrew

name YHWH and as a result, determines the God of Israel according to thetrinitarian rule of faith, Father, Son and Spirit.61 Whereas the thesis mayaccurately describe the majority of trinitarian representations, Luthers OldTestament translation proves to be a surprising exception. One text in whichLuther explains his principle for translating the Hebrew names for God isthe series of sermons, held on Psalm 110 in 1535.62 Known by Old Testament

scholars as a royal Psalm, Psalm 110 was acknowledged as an ascensionPsalm by medieval theologians who noticed the citations of this Psalm in theNew Testament.63 Luther translates verse one as follows: Der HERR sprachzu meinem HErrn: Setze dich zu meiner rechten (Ps. 110:1).64 The tworeferences to Herr at the audible level of perception suggest agreementwith the LXX and the Vulgate. The latter texts also use one term to standin both locations, respectively (LXX Ps. 109:1) and dominus(Ps. 109:1).65 When the audible sound of Herr is compared with Luthersvisual text, however, a difference can be observed. At the visual level of the

text, Luther represents a distinction between the terms that is immediatelyevident in the Hebrew original: the distinction between YHWH and Adonai.For YHWH, Luther uses four capital letters: HERR; for Adonai, Luther cap-italizes only the first two letters: HErr. The visual difference in the Germanbetween the two representations ofHerr reveals the distinction in theHebrew, a rule Luther admits he follows throughout his translation of theOld Testament.66 What Luther has succeeded in doing is recover the originalHebrew distinction and to recover, at the visual level, the Greek and Latinerasures of the distinction. Luthers principle is retained in editions of

the Luther-Bibel, as well as in the King James Version of the English Bible.67

The Weimarer Ausgabe of Luthers works also reproduces Luthers practice,whereas Walchs German edition of Luthers writings does not.

The Hebrew distinction between YHWH and Adonai denotes, for Luther,a distinction in referent. In his writings, Luther refers to YHWH as the sacred

56 Christine Helmer



9/26

tetragrammaton,68 the divine Majesty. Following standard medieval pointingof YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, Luther identifies the term Jehova withthe sublime name for God.69 This identification is predicated on the speech

structure in which the distinction in names is embedded.70

In cases where adistinction between speaker and addressee is found, such as the royal Psalms,the rule of referentiality is different from cases in which only one speaker ispresent. When one person speaks about or to another, the rule demands thepredication of Jehova to the speaker. When only one speaker is present,Jehova can be predicated of that person, namely Christ, without injustice.71

With respect to the distinction in the speech situation, Luther identifies thetrinitarian referent of the first Lord as the Father. He argues that this personis the true God,72 the origin of the inner-trinitarian relations.73 The order of

inner-trinitarian speaking mirrors the relations of origin. A differentiatedclaim must, however, be made regarding the determination of the first Lordin terms of a strict trinitarian referent. In the exegetical text, Von den letztenWorten Davids, Luther explicitly interprets 2 Samuel 23:17 as a warrantfor the Trinity. The trinitarian context shapes the overdetermination ofthe speaker as the Father or the first person of the Trinity. In exegeticalcommentaries on the Psalms, Luther is more reticent in overdetermining thespeaker. For example, in his interpretation of Psalm 110:2,74 Luther does notidentify HERR with the first person of the Trinity, but tends to refer to this

Lord as God, God of Israel, or with the pronoun, Er.75

The underdeter-mination may disclose Luthers retention of the literal Hebrew, while at thesame time, showing that the distinction in speakers is the literal ground forany further trinitarian claims.

On the other hand, Luther consistently and strictly identifies the secondLord with Jesus Christ. Luther takes the second Lord, Adon, to mean thecommon German name by which servants and subordinates call the lord ofthe house, or the lord of the land.76 The reason for this exclusive denotationof the second Lord is given by the possessive pronoun my. Literally trans-

lating the Hebrew Adonai, Luther takes the possessive pronoun my todistinguish both grammatically and semantically the second from the firstLord. The subject of my determines the christological denotation. Not part ofthe address content, my is located in the narrative formula introducing theaddress:77 Der HERR sprach zu meinem HErrn: . This location indicatesthe subject of my to be, not the first Lord, but another. For Luther, theintroduction is narrated from the perspective of someone who is witnessingthe scene: the author of the Psalm. Witnessing the inner-trinitarian conversa-tion, David narrates what he sees.78 Luther further justifies the christological

referent of my Lord by semantically equivocating the Old Testamentpassage with the Creed and the New Testament.79 In his explanation to thesecond article of the Creed in the Large Catechism, Luther converts theconfession of faith into an oblique description of who Christ is. Ich gleube,das Jhesus Christus, warhafftiger Gottes son, sey mein HErr worden.80 The




10/26

catechetical my is taken further as a semantic equivalent to Romans 1:3. Inhis commentary on Psalm 110:1, Luther refers to my in Pauls sense of myLord, according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3), and inserts this sense into

Davids narrative. Davids Lord is the one who will come after him as theChrist, promised according to the flesh, the right and true man.81 ForLuther, the word my is a word of faith, that accepts the Christ who ispromised.82 The subject of my is the human observer who confesses JesusChrist as Lord according to his human nature.

The claim for Christs divinity necessitates a second determination of thepossessive pronoun my. In order to argue this semantics, Luther turns tothe direct speech in Psalm 110:1: Setze dich zu meiner rechten.83 At thisjuncture, the speaker differs from the speaker of the narrative introduction.

Hence the subject of my also differs. In order to determine this subject,Luther cross-references the passage with Romans 1:4 [And declared to bethe Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness] in orderto claim that the Father speaks directly to his Son. By speaking, the Fatherreveals the Sons divinity, how he is the true, eternal God with the Father. 84

Although with different addressees, the same inner-trinitarian speech struc-ture is also rehearsed in Matthew 17:5.85 In this passage, the Father speaksnot to the Son, as is the case in the royal Psalm, but speaks directly to thosestanding by. This is my Son; Listen to him. The subject of the possessive

pronoun my is the Father, who speaks about his Son. For Luther, theFathers speech is the exegetical warrant for the Sons divine nature.At the intersection between my Son and my Lord, the second Lord is

denoted by the possessive pronoun my that has two subjects, a divine anda human subject. Luther concludes his interpretation of the narrative formulaand direct speech in Psalm 110:1 by determining the christological referentof my Lord by virtue of both the divine and the human nature. My Lordis the object of faith that spans the infinite amplitude between divinity andhumanity. He is the one who sits above in the divine Majesty and is yet my

flesh and blood and my brother.86

Basing his determination on the literalrendering of Adonai as my Lord, Luther identifies the christological referentin terms of the incarnation.

Luther does not only translate literally from the Hebrew, but also digs intothe grammatical idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew language. In another case,that of Psalm 2:12, Luther refers explicitly to a rule of Hebrew grammar inorder to support his christologically focused interpretation. Luther translatesverse 12a with, Osculamini Filium, ne irascatur, .87 In the commentary,Luther explains why his particular translation swerves away from the LXX

and makes Jeromes translation more precise. Regarding the translationof the Hebrew , Luther argues against the inaccuracy of the LXX, appearing in the Vetus Latina as apprehendite, on the basis of howHebrew grammar must be understood.88 Luther initially shrinks the termsrange of meaning to Jeromes translation, adorate. He subsequently takes

58 Christine Helmer



11/26

Jeromes translation of as the Latin adjective pure to be the point ofdeparture for his own translation of both the verb and the adjective.89 Theexegetical strategy of Antonomasia, Luther claims, is correctly applied to

this case because it fits the way a Hebrew adjective functions. Luther arguesthat the adjective must be taken as a proper noun that stands as theexemplary representative of its class.90 With this move, Luther detoursaround both the LXX and the Vulgate in order to arrive at the adjectivesoriginal Aramaic sense as the noun Son.91 On the basis of this specification,Luther turns to the verb, agreeing initially with the sense Jerome conveyswhen translating as adorate. With osculamini, Luther retains the cere-monial connotation ofadoratebut adds to Jerome by stressing the intimacyof an adoring posture.92 It is the inner-trinitarian milieu that overarches

Luthers translation. Love perfectly characterizes the Fathers dispositiontowards the Son. By semantically equivocating Psalm 2:12 with New Testa-ment passages disclosing the Fathers address of love to the Son (Mt. 3:17;Mt. 17:5; John 3:35), Luther specifies to be the beloved Son of the Father.93

Specified as the Fathers object of love, the Son is conjugated through thePsalms perspective to arrive at my Lord as the object of the Psalmists love.The Psalm refers to my love, my pure one, my elected one, the one in whomI rejoice, my heart and my joy.94 Luther chooses osculamini in order tocapture the double posture of intimate love and adoration towards my

Lord. By conjoining a technical point from Hebrew grammar with an argu-ment of semantic equivalence, Luther specifies the Psalms christologicalreferent once again in terms of the divine and the human nature.

The royal Psalms seem to provide the biblical model for Luthers trinitar-ian hermeneutic. The increasing attention paid to this model is evident inexegetical restrictions that Luther imposes on classic trinitarian proof texts,for example, Genesis 18, the story of the three men visiting Abraham atMamre. In the 1535 Genesis Lectures, Luther passionately argues at greatlength for the texts exhortation of Christian hospitality, not for a trinitarian

interpretation. In an almost apologetic manner, he finally gestures to atrinitarian reading, permitting it only as a decoration of a trinitarian faithgrounded, with more certainty, elsewhere.95 Even more dramatic is the dif-ference between Luthers 1527 exegesis of Genesis 1:3, 6 and the laterGenesis Commentary. In 1527 and still visibly under the aegis of Augustine,Luther correlates God with the Father, spoke with the Son, and the entirephrase, God saw that it was good with the Holy Spirit.96 In the Com-mentary of 1535, Luther claims that unrestricted access to Scripture distortsits sense, results in exegetical products of human fantasy, and eliminates any

power the text might have to comfort and establish certainty.97

Lutherexplicitly turns to the literal,98 clear testimony99 of Scripture in order tobase the trinitarian explication on the literal meaning of the Hebrew root

. , meaning a spoken word (verbum prolatum), is used in Genesis 1:6,rather than , which signifies an essence-thing (res).100 The christological




12/26

referent is grounded solely by the literal Hebrew word , not as itsallegorical sense.

The above example shows how Luther equivocates the christological sem-

antics of both the Genesis/Johannine model and the royal Psalms model ofthe Trinity. According to the speech structure, the two models differ. Forboth Genesis 1 and Johns Prologue, God and the word are distinguished asspeaker and spoken word, whereby the word is identified with its content.In the royal Psalms, the addressee is distinguished from both the speakerand the speechs content. Although the two models differ in terms of amonological and a dialogical type, Luther identifies the oral aspect of theroyal Psalms with the literal translation of in his Genesis 1 interpre-tation. In both cases, the word is a spoken word. By recovering the oral

connotation of , Luther relates the Genesis/Johannine identity betweenword and content to the dialogical speech situation marking the royalPsalms. By this move, Luther departs from the classic Augustinian traditionof translating as verbum internum, possibly appropriating Tertullianstranslation of the Greek term into the Latin sermo.101 In both cases, the oralnature of the speech situation supplies Luthers trinitarian hermeneuticswith the distinction between speaker and a second person. The exegeticalcontrols for theological interpretation are located in the text itself.

Luthers particular contribution consists in his recovery of the Old Testa-

ment for trinitarian theology, specifically Hebrew terms, grammar and theroyal Psalms. The trinitarian underdetermination of YHWH as speaker pre-serves the distinct Old Testament perspective, while the overdeterminationof the addressee discloses the christological scope unifying both testaments.By concentrating on the Hebrew text, Luther on the one hand restrictsallegorical exegesis that would raise the semantic level of the Old Testamentto conform to the New Testament. On the other hand, he privileges the textssense (res) that establishes the trinitarian framework within which philo-logical study is executed. A close study of language, however, cannot be

limited to philology. Luthers trinitarian hermeneutics demonstrates theessential connection between language and its referent. The question ofsemantics engages the theological dimension that infuses the text with richermeaning. Conversely, the text itself exercises hermeneutical controls on thedegree to which the text opens up the theologically determined referent. Atthe literal level, text is inextricably bound together with the Trinity.

3. Hebrew syntax and trinitarian semantics

In addition to terms and grammar, Hebrew syntax plays a further role inLuthers trinitarian hermeneutic. In this section, I will show how Lutherrecovers the syntactical foundation for a trinitarian understanding from theHebrew text, preserving it in his German translation. The royal Psalms willonce again form the exegetical basis.

60 Christine Helmer



13/26

Luther is no exception in the theological tradition that mines Psalm 2:7for its theological significance.102 In his 1532/1546 Commentary, Luthertranslates the passage as follows. Praedicabo statutum, quod DOMINUS ad

me dixit: Filius meus Tu, Ego te hodie genui.103

The translation, Lutherargues, should not confuse the reader. Although the texts sense is renderedless penetrable, the shifts in the pronouns marking each clause of the verseare common in Hebrew.104 The pronominal density in German reproducesthe original Hebrew distinction between the subject of the introductorynarrative formula [Ich wil von einer solchen Weise predigen, Das derHERR zu mir gesagt hat, ], and both the subject and object of the directspeech [Du bist mein Son, Heute hab ich dich gezeuget]. The unfamiliarshift in persons from Ich in the first part of the verse to Du in the second

part is used in order to retain what is perfectly normal in Hebrew. Lutheris not blind to his stretching the rules of German syntax. Rather, the changein person marks the shift from an indirect narrative style to direct speech.By translating literally the pronominal shift to reflect a change in subject,the switch from the narrative genre to direct speech is emphasized. Lutherentertains an alternative that would render the texts sense more easily intranslation. In order to apply pronominal consistency throughout verseseven, Luther refers back to verse six, translating as follows. Ego constituiRegem meum super Zion montem sanctum meum, ut praedicet decretum

meum, Quod sit Filius meus, quem hodie genui.105

After toying with thispossibility, Luther rejects the transparency of sense for the transparency tothe original Hebrew grammar. Even though he admits a distortion in sense,Luther insists on accustomizing oneself to the Hebrew idiosyncrasies in theirtranslation.106 The text conveys a meaning that is imposed by the change inpersons.

One key trinitarian hermeneutical question consists of identifying the onewho speaks. The complication in verses six and seven is due to the insertionof a second I in verse 7a. The question concerns the identity of the I in

verse six, its relation to the second I of verse seven, and the I speakingin verse 7c.107 The distinct difficulty in verse six has to do with identifying thespeaker of a narrative section. Luthers trinitarian hermeneutical distinctionbetween speaker and addressee seems to be complicated by a narration thatadmits only of an indirect distinction between a speaker and my king.Given the difficulty, Luther directs his attention to the speechs content.According to the precedent set by this royal Psalm, the one speaking isidentified by the name YHWH. This Lord (HERR) is the divine Majesty, theone who laughs in derision at his enemies (Ps. 2:4), who threatens to destroy

those who plot against him (Ps. 2:6).108

Is the speaker not the one whocreated heaven and earth out of nothing, everything by the power of hisword?109 The speaker is the one who has all power over humans and overSatan.110 After using the speechs content as the clue to identify the one in-itiating speech, Luther turns to the referent of my king. The narrative style




14/26

stresses the immediate relation of the content to the speaker. No literary wedgeis driven between the I and my king. Instead, the narrative transparencysignifies the special relation between the king and the divine Majesty whom

the latter alone establishes on Mount Zion. The possessive pronoun mydistinguishes this king from all other human kings, and the noun king refersto the power given to this king by the eternal Father.111 The literary struc-ture of narration, coupled with the term my king, is semantically determinedas the co-equality between the divine Majesty and Jesus Christ. Once thistrinitarian relation is fixed, the question arises as to the identity of the I inverse 7a and b. In this verse, YHWH is mentioned, not as the origin of speech,but in an introduction prefaced by the oblique form, quod DOMINUS adme dixit. Another I has been inserted into the narrative.

The determination of the Is identity represents a sophisticated feat oftrinitarian exegesis. Luther mines an entire trinitarian theology from Psalm2:7, grounded in the shift from one speech to the speech of another. Thequestion concerns the identity of the second I who speaks. Luther lays thebuilding-blocks of his interpretation by first turning to the texts subjectmatter. In this regard, Luther agrees with the medieval tradition. The pas-sages subject matter is the divine decree in eternity.112 Luther then deter-mines the content of this decree by analyzing the term statutum (Praedicabostatutum) in order to arrive at its christological referent. After mentioning

the wide range of meaning that the term statutum covers, Luther settleson the equally wide German word, Recht.113 The speechs content is a newsermon on the new right, which signifies, for Luther, the preaching of theabolition of the law.114 The speaker of the gospel is Christ. It is not a spiritual,silent, inner word, but a verse recounted in the direct form of a sermon.115

By insisting on spoken speech, Luther brings the immediacy of the Hebrewsyntax into the foreground of his trinitarian hermeneutic. Christs oralsermon introduces the speech concerning the divine decree, that itself isconveyed as YHWHs direct speech to the Son.116 The seamless transition

from one speech to another signifies the transparency of the relation betweenFather and Son. The immediacy of the transition signifies the transparencyof the trinitarian relation. The Son refers his entire speech exclusively to theFather; and the Father does nothing without the Son.

As Christs speech refers immediately to YHWHs speech, so too doesYHWHs speech refer directly to the Son. The speechs content is not a teach-ing on a topic, but its content identifies the addressee in the form of directspeech. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (KJV). Althoughthis phrase is considered to be, at least since Lombard, a classic trinitarian

proof text, Luther concentrates on the passages terminology and form inorder to tease out his particular interpretative angle. The fact that the Fatherspeaks has, for Luther, the trinitarian significance of identifying the Fatheras the active source of the Son, and the eternal generation as the identifyingmarker of the Son. According to classic trinitarian theology, only the relations

62 Christine Helmer



15/26

of origin, such as active and passive generation, serve as the characteristicsdistinguishing between Father and Son. These relations of origin are eternal,not temporal. Luther discusses the two terms in verse seven, hodie and the

verbgenui in view of their signification.117

Although the terms are inevitablytemporalized, they are not to be understood as introducing change into thedivine essence. Borrowing from Augustines understanding of eternity asuninterrupted by past or future, Luther locates hodiebeyond time.118 Even theperfect past tense ofgenui signifies a complete and perfect generation ineternity that knows only an eternal present.119 In addition to its eternalreferent, the form of the direct speech is saturated with a trinitarian claim.Luther entertains an alternative formulation before considering the signifi-cance of the literal text. For pronominal clarity, the Son could have said

I am the Son, rather than introducing the Fathers address, You are mySon.120 Luther rejects the alternative, claiming that the switch in speaker iscrucial to conveying the passages trinitarian meaning. The literary exchangesignifies the trinitarian reciprocity between the Father who alone introducesthe Son, and the Son who alone introduces the Father. The Son introducesthe Father in a way relating all he is and has to the Father. 121 Conversely, theFather introduces the Son, expressing his desire to be known exclusivelythrough the Son. The mutual introduction signifies the transparency of thedivine essence held in common between Father and Son, and the distinct

speeches signify the way in which the nature is distinguished through therelations of origin. Perfect unity is marked by the way in which the Sonspeaks through the mouth of the Father, and conversely by the Father,who speaks through the mouth of the Son.122 For Luther, the textsimmediacy of direct speech signals the deep mystery of inner-trinitarianreciprocity. The Son is perpetually attuned to the Father; he cannot for amoment look away and refer to the origin of his being in the third person.Conversely, the Fathers gaze is fixed solely on the Son, his delight and love.

The final trinitarian hermeneutical claim concerning textual transparency

refers back to the earlier view of the Holy Spirit. Luther attributes the com-position of the entire passage to the Holy Spirit who grants epistemologicalaccess through the text to the inner-trinitarian intimacy. The paradigmaticexample of the Spirits special grammar is the seamless transition fromChrists speech to the Fathers speech in Psalm 2:7. Luther refers to theFathers speech as an inner sermon, spoken exclusively to the Son.123 Thedirect form Du (verse 7c) designates the Son as the only intended hearer.This inner-trinitarian speech can be heard and understood only by thespeaker and addressee.124 That this sermon is communicated beyond the

inner relation between Father and Son at all is a function of Christs directspeech, spoken to another audience, the hearers of the text (verse 7ab). TheSons outer sermon functions as the literary embrace to the Fathers speech,thereby rendering the inner accessible to be heard, although not understood,on its outer side.125 By its embeddedness in Christs speech, the Fathers




16/26

speech is brought to us out from the inapproachable light in which Goddwells.126 Both the inner and outer speech are brought to literary light by theHoly Spirit. The Spirit attributes the inner words to the Father in order to

expose the central mystery of the Fathers relation to the Son.127

The Spiritalso attributes the outer speech to the Son in order to show Christs desire torefer all that he has to the Father.128 Through the seamless literary transitionsfrom one speech to another, the Spirit reveals the transparency betweenFather and Son. God desires to speak and act through the Son, and the Sonoffers all he has and does to the Father. The inner-trinitarian transparency isthe ground for the certainty of salvation. Christ loves us and dies for us incomplete accordance with the eternal Fathers will.129 In her role of grantingaccess to the FatherSon relation, the Spirit participates in the transparency

marking the trinitarian reciprocity. The Spirit is transparent to the text,retreating from any direct self-revelation by pointing to the FatherSonsemantics. Luther solves the distinct binitarian difficulty with the royalPsalms dialogical model by enclosing the Spirit in the structure of reciprocaltransparency. The Spirit speaks of the eternal mystery through the prophets.What has been heard in eternity is spoken through the prophets in time.Neither separated from the inner-Trinity nor from her prophetic voice, theSpirit renders eternity transparent to time and time transparent to eternity.

The speech structure renders transparent the inner-trinitarian relations.

Textual transitions permit each distinctive voice to be heard, yet the dis-tinctiveness is mediated through the seamlessness of the transitions. TheFathers intimate inner speech is woven into the Sons outer speech; theouter speech discloses its speaker only by referring to the content of the innerspeech. The outer speech reveals the inner-Trinity to be constituted by therelations of origin. By its embeddedness in the outer speech, the inner is re-vealed to be truly the inner side of God. Access to the inmost heart is grantedsolely through the Son. The complex between inner and outer speech isfurther rendered to be truly outer by the Holy Spirits identification with the

text. No wedge is driven between the prophets word and the Spirits wordthat would render the revelation opaque. Rather, the text is transparent toits inner-trinitarian referent in such a way as to disclose the Spirits relationin the inner-Trinity. The Spirit, who knows the inmost depths of God, movesfrom inner-trinitarian silence to outer-trinitarian speech by building a seam-less bridge to the speech recorded in the text. The Spirit knows no other speechthan Christs speech, yet the Spirit has no other words than the prophetswords. The same seamless transition marking the inner-trinitarian relationscharacterizes the transition from the inner to outer-Trinity. All three persons are

transparent to each other, yet the location of the transparency disclosesthe personal characteristics, marking the way the essence is circulated amongthem.

Luthers trinitarian hermeneutic represents a speculation on the inner-Trinity that itself is fed by the speech structure of the royal Psalms. Almost

64 Christine Helmer



17/26

anticipating Schleiermachers severe antipathy towards the Trinity in theOld Testament,130 Luther insists on the Old Testaments distinct voice, sound-ing out the speculative dimension to trinitarian theology. Without this

testaments living voice, the whole gospel would become dead history.131

TheOld Testament writing refers to speech, not silence. This testaments voice isfixed by the texts semantics, and its referent is moored in textual transparency.

Conclusion

A close study of the Hebrew text, its terms, grammar and syntax disclosesLuthers exegetical focus that is intimately coupled with a trinitarian semantics.Grounded in the royal Psalms of the Old Testament, Luthers trinitarian

understanding centers on their speech structure as the bearer of the inner-trinitarian mystery. With this view, Luther is perhaps pointing to what thephilosopher Walter Benjamin has also articulated. The Hebrew language isthe bearer of revelation.132 The goal of this essay was to claim that literaryfeatures could not be isolated from a semantics. By showing that a trinitarianhermeneutic was, on the one hand, regulated by literary rules, and on theother hand, invested with referential capacity, I considered how it might bepossible to bring philology in closer proximity to Christian doctrine. Lutherstrinitarian hermeneutic of the Old Testament provided an intriguing ex-

ample of a literary semantics in reciprocal relation. By mooring a semanticsin the text, Luther was able to mine the peculiar textual features for theirspecific trinitarian significance; by orienting the text to its referent, Lutherwas able to suspend many textual features in their trinitarian light. Theexclusive focus on the literary text points out the lack of any analogy to com-prehend the referent. With respect to the Trinity, the only material is the letterthat points beyond itself, to a subject matter in eternity. The transparency ofthe letter to the Spirit renders transparent the inner-Trinity to its outer side.Language itself becomes the vehicle of communicating the mystery of the

essential transparency through the distinguishing marks of three persons.This is Luthers insight: the mystery of the eternal word, incarnate in theHebrew text.

NOTES

1 Cf. Klaus Scholder, The Birth of Modern Critical Theology. Origins and Problems of BiblicalCriticism in the Seventeenth Century, trans. by John Bowden (London and Philadelphia, PA:SCM Press and Trinity Press International, 1990).

2 Schleiermachers position on Old Testament proofs for Christian doctrine represents themodern shift in critical exegesis. so da erst davon grndliche Verbesserung zuerwarten sein wird, wenn man die alttestamentischen Beweise fr eigentmlich christlicheLehren ganz aufgibt und was sich vornehmlich auf solche sttzt, lieber ganz beiseite stellt.Friedrich Schleiermacher, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundstzen der EvangelischenKirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt (1830/31), seventh ed., Martin Redeker (ed), in deGruyter Studienbuch (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 132.2, vol. 2, p. 307.




18/26

With respect to the Trinity, Schleiermacher rejects the Old Testament as a warrantfor diese bersinnliche Tatsache of jene[r] Sonderung im hchsten Wesen. Cf. Ibid.,170.3, vol. 2, p. 461.

3 Pannenberg regards the JesusAbba relationship as the historical basis for trinitarian

theology, but does designate Jesus Father as the God of Jewish faith according to thewitness of the OT. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by Geoffrey W.Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 260.

4 Two recent articles on the Old Testaments discussion of the divine unity and distinctionsare: Thomas Krger, Einheit und Vielfalt des Gttlichen nach dem Alten Testament,Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie, vol. 10, Trinitt, Wilfried Hrle and Reiner Preul (eds)[=Marburger Theologische Studien, no. 49, Wilfried Hrle and Dieter Lhrmann (eds)](Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1998), pp. 1550; Benedict Thomas Viviano, The Trinity in the OldTestament: From Daniel 7:1314 to Matt 28:19, Theologische Zeitschrift 54/3 (1998),pp. 193209.

5 R. Kendall Soulen, YHWH The Triune God, Modern Theology 15/1 (January 1999),pp. 2554.

6 Ibid., pp. 2935.7 While admitting the difficulty in the move from historical possibility to dogmatic necessity,Jngel argues that [e]ine konsequente Interpretation der neutestamentlichen berliefer-ung von Jesus als dem Christus fhrt notwendig zur Erkenntnis des dreieinigen Gottes,Eberhard Jngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Zur Begrndung der Theologie des Gekreuzigtenim Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus, fifth ed. (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),1986), p. 480. In his investigation of Pauls letters to the Corinthians, Mauser shows that thetrinitarian speech forms are not merely proto-trinitarian formulas, but that they signal thethreefold unity of Gods being and activity. Ulrich Mauser, Trinitarische Sprachformen inden Korintherbriefen des Paulus, in Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein andHermann Lichtenberger (eds), Jesus Christus als Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutikdes Evangeliums. FS Peter Stuhlmacher (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997),

pp. 288295.8 Gotthold Lessing, On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power, in Henry Chadwick (ed),Lessings Theological Writings (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1967) p. 53.

9 For example: Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, third ed. (Tbingen: J. C. B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958), 11, pp. 109123; Emanuel Hirsch, Das Alte Testament und diePredigt des Evangeliums (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958), pp. 116 and 6787.

10 Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, vol. 1, The Pentateuch, trans. ofthe third German edition (1936) by A. B. Crabtree (London: Lutterworth, 1949), pp. 734.

11 See Childs summary criticism of Vischers argument in: Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theologyof the Old and New Testaments. Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, MN:Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 477481.

12 Bornkamm interprets Luthers understanding regarding the prophetic references to Christ

not as prediction but as proclamation. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament(Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1948), pp. 86103. Regarding the Trinity, Bornkammconcludes that [d]as Alte Testament hat zu Luthers Trinittslehre keinen wesentlichenselbstndigen Beitrag geleistet. Ibid., p. 102. Bornkamms category of proclamation reflectsthe usual tendency of Luther scholarship to limit Luthers christological statements toproclamation. For a criticism of this shrinking that marginalizes Luthers contribution tochristological and trinitarian doctrinal formulation, see: Christine Helmer, The Trinity andMartin Luther: A Study on the Relationship Between Genre, Language and the Trinity in LuthersLate Works (15231546), in Verffentlichungen des Instituts fr Europische Geschiche/Abteilung Abendlndische Religionsgeschichte, no. 174, Gerhard May (ed) (Mainz: Philippvon Zabern, 1999), pp. 191205. Furthermore, Bornkamm reduces Luthers use of the Bibleto biblical proofs for the two natures dogma and to decorations for the trinitariandogma. The latter, Bornkamm argues, is due to Luthers elimination of allegorical proofsfor the Trinity in the Old Testament. Bornkamm, pp. 9598. Bornkamms results do not dojustice to the complex hermeneutical circle that Luther establishes between text andsemantic reference. It is furthermore the thesis of this paper that the Old Testament is con-stitutive for Luthers contribution to trinitarian theology. Preus historical study is limitedto the pre-Reformation Luther (15131515) and the christological hermeneutics of the Old

66 Christine Helmer



19/26

Testament playing into and ultimately obscuring the exegetical breakthrough on grace.James Samuel Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine tothe Young Luther (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969).

13 Luther preached thirty more times on New Testament texts than on Old Testament texts

because he followed the traditional lectionary. Regarding the genre of sermon series(Reihenpredigten), the ratio of Old Testament to New Testament sermons is roughly 5:7.Bornkamm, pp. 67. The Old Testament sermon series were held primarily on the Penta-teuch and the Psalms. For an index of the sermons and sermon series on the Old Testament,see: J. R. F. Knaake et al. (eds), D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar:Hermann Bhlaus Nachf., 18831999), vol. 22, xliixlv. [Subsequent references to this workwill be indicated by WA.]

14 See: WA 3, 11652 and WA 4, 1526 (Dictata super Psalterium, 15131516); WA 5, 19673(Operationes in Psalmos, 15191521); WA 40/II, 193312 (Enarratio Psalmi II, 1532/1546);Ibid., 315470 (Enarratio Psalmi LI, 1532/1538); Ibid., 472610 (Praelectio in psalmum 45,1532/1533); WA 40/III, 9475 (Vorlesung ber die Stufenpsalmen 120134, 15321533/1540); Ibid., 484594 (Enarratio Psalmi XC, 15341535/1541).

15 The 1517 commentary on the penitential Psalms was the first exegetical work that Lutherpublished. WA 1, 158220 (Die sieben Bupsalmen. Erste Bearbeitung, 1517); WA 18,479530 (Die sieben Bupsalmen. Zweite Bearbeitung, 1525).

16 WA 13, 2703 (Praelectiones in prophetas minores, 15241526); WA 19, 185251 (DerProphet Jona ausgelegt. 1526); Ibid., 345435 (Der Prophet Habakuk ausgelegt. 1526); WA20, 7203 (Vorlesung ber den Prediger Salomo, 1526/Annotationes in Ecclesiasten, 1532);WA 23, 485664 (Der Prophet Sacharja ausgelegt. 1527); WA 25, 89401 (Vorlesung berJesaia, 15271529/In Esaiam scholia ex D. Martini Lutheri praelectionibus collecta, 1532/1534); WA 31/II, 1585 (Vorlesung ber Jesaias, 15271530/In Esaiam prophetam D. Doc.Martini Lutheri Enarraciones, 1527); Ibid., 586771 (Vorlesung ber das Hohelied, 15301531/In Cantica Canticorum brevis, sed admodum dilucida enarratio).

17 WA 4244.

18 WA 40/III, 597682 (Enarratio capitis noni Esaiae, 15431544/1546); Ibid., 685746(Enarratio 53. Capitis Esaiae, 1544/1550); Ibid., 760775 (Additio in locum Hoseae cap. 13,to verses 1214, 1545).

19 Bernhard Lohse, Die Entscheidung der lutherischen Reformation ber den Umfang desalttestamentlichen Kanons, in Bernhard Lohse, Evangelium in der Geschichte. Studienzu Luther und der Reformation, Leif Grane, Bernd Moeller and Otto Hermann Pesch (eds)(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), pp. 212213.

20 WA 59, 527, 2935528, 2939 (Disputatio inter Ioannem Eccium et Martinum Lutherum,1519) [=WA 2, 324, 1012].

21 Hans Volz, Vorwort, in WADB 12, xx. Regarding the translation of the Apocrypha, Volzwrites that Luther translated only the Wisdom of Solomon and parts of Ben Sirach. Ibid.

22 Apocrypha: Das sind Bu(e)cher: so der heiligen Schrifft nicht gleich gehalten, vnd doch

nu(e)tzlich vnd gut zu lesen sind. Ibid., 3, 14.23 According to Volz (Ibid., xx), Luther included the apocryphal books in the 1523 Bible

translation and the above mentioned four New Testament books in the 1522 SeptemberTestament, but without numbering them. From this historical data, Lohse concludes thatLuther assumed the same canonical judgment for both text groups. Lohse, 227, n. 50.

24 Critical of the consensus in Luther scholarship regarding Luthers privileging of theres, Birgit Stolt offers a differentiated analysis of the way Luther intimately relates the resto the verba in his Bible translation. Birgit Stolt, Die Bibelbersetzung, ch. 4 in MartinLuthers Rhetorik des Herzens, Uni-Taschenbcher no. 2141 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000),pp. 84126.

25 After defending the insertion of the German allein into his translation of Rom. 3:28,Luther claims, [d]och hab ich widerumb nicht allzu frey die buchstaben lassen faren,Sondern mit grossen sorgen sampt meinen gehlffen drauff gesehen, das, wo etwa aneinem ort gelegenn ist, hab ichs nach den buchstaben behalten, und bin nicht so frey davongangen, WA 30/II, 640, 1922 (Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, 1530).

26 Hie wirstu die Windeln vnd die Krippen finden, da Christus innen ligt, Da hin auch derEngel die Hirten weiset. Schlecht vnd geringe Windel sind es, Aber thewr ist der schatzChristus, der drinnen ligt. WADB 8, 13, 68 (Vorrede auff das Alte Testament, 1545).




20/26

27 Luther follows the traditional medieval view, since Lombard, that designates thechristological referent in the Old Testament according to the future Christ. For example,cf. WA 41, 81, 30 (Preface to the sermon series on Psalm 110, 1535).

28 Lohse writes that the 15391541 revisions to the Old Testament translation did not concern

the apocryphal books. Lohse, p. 229, citing Volz, WADB 12, lv.29 According to the historical records, three conferences were devoted to the ongoingtranslation revisions. The Psalm translation was revised in 1531. The protocol for the 1534has been lost. Between 1539 and 1541, both the Old and the New Testament translationswere revised. Rrers protocol of the 1531 Psalms revision is found in: WADB 3, 1166. The15391541 protocol as well as Luthers handwritten insertions into his Bible are found in:Ibid., 169577 (Gen. 1 to Psalm 150) and WADB 4, 1278 (Proverbs to Malachi) and Ibid.,281418 (New Testament). For further documentation on the 15391541 revisions, see:Heinrich Ernst Bindseil and Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, Dr. Martin Luthers Bibelbersetzung,7 volumes (Halle: Verlag der Cansteinschen Bibel-Anstalt, 18501855); Lic. Reichert,Die Wittenberger Bibelrevisionskommissionen von 1531 bis 1541 und ihr Ertrag frdie deutsche Lutherbibel, in Gustav Koffmane, Die handschriftliche berlieferung von

Werken D. Martin Luthers. Kritische Untersuchungen, vol. 1 (Liegnitz: Carl Seyffarth, 1907),pp. 97252.30 Disputationes de articulis fidei exstinctas voluit Deus pater, dum dicit de Deo filio suo:

Hunc audite. WA 39/II, 287, 56 (Thesis 1 of the Doctoral Disputation of Georg Major andJohannes Faber, Dec. 12, 1544).

31 For example, see: WA 34/I, 498, 21. 500, 34. 500, 13501, 1 (Sermon on Trinity Sunday,June 4, 1531, Rrer variant).

32 quales fuerunt Servetus et Campanus qui dixerunt, hunc articulum non esse tractatumante Ioannem Baptistam, et cavillantur scripturas. WA 39/II, 290, 1517 (Major, Preface).The footnote indicates Luthers mistake in confusing John the Evangelist with John the Baptist.Ibid., 290, n. 2. See the following for Luthers comments on Servetus and Campanus: WATR2, 325, 1922 (no. 2112, 1531); Ibid., 640, 6641, 2 (nos. 2759a and 2759b, 1532); WATR, 4,

131, 2118 (no. 4094, 1538); Ibid., 153, 13154, 6 (no. 4127, 1538); WATR 5, 615, 4616, 14(no. 6351, Tischreden aus verschiedenen Jahren).33 WA 39/II, A305, 14, 1424.34 Esell sein Eccius und Cochleus, qui non per scripturas, sed per doctores et papam articu-

lum trinitatis stabilitum et confirmatum esse dicunt. Das ist erlogen. Ibid., A305, 2426.Luther participated in early debates with both Eck in Leipzig (1519) [cf. footnote 20].

35 John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces. Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church (1541),trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), c. 1, p. 2, pp. 910and c. 1, p. 4, pp. 1117. In the disposal to the objections against proposition 4, Eck refersto the Trinity in the context of New Testament, not Old Testament passages, such asMatthew 28:19f. Ibid., p. 14.

36 For a study on how Eck and the Reformers determine the relation between church and

canon, see: Ekkehard Mhlenberg, Scriptura non est autentica sine authoritate ecclesiae(Johannes Eck). Vorstellungen von der Entstehung des Kanons in der Kontroverse umdas reformatorische Schriftprinzip, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 97/2 (June 2000),pp. 183209.

37 Johannes Cochlaeus, Philippica Quinta in tres libellos Phil. Melanchthonis (Ingolstadt, 1543),FIGI. See: WA 39/II, 304, n. 2. Ecks own text mentions Cochlaeus book, On the Authorityof the Church. See: Eck, p. 17.

38 See Baintons discussion of Servetus 1531 and 1532 treatises on the Trinity in: Roland H.Bainton,Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus 15111553 (Gloucester: PeterSmith, 1978), pp. 2140.

39 WA 39/II, 290, 1213 (Major, Preface).40 Ibid., A305, 2223.41 Semper est et fuit una et eadem invocatio et una fides, sed tempora fuerunt dissimilia, alii

ritus et caeremonia fuerunt. Ibid., 270, 12 (Doctoral Disputation of Theodor Fabricius andStanislaus Rapagelanus, May 23, 1544).

42 Lombard, Sent. I, d. 41, c. 3 (183). The citation from Augustine is found in the treatment ofJohn 10:110. Tempora variata sunt, non fides. Quia et ipsa verba pro tempore variantur,cum varie declinantur: . In: Joannis Evangelium tractatus, tr. 45 (9) [PL 35, p. 1722].

68 Christine Helmer



21/26

43 Luther insists on using correct terminology in order to teach the simple and to convey thesubject matter as clearly as possible. Trinitas macht ein seltzam cogitation, man mu aberpropter infirmos et docendi causa also reden. Ita vocabulum originale non est valde prop-rium, nostrum Erbsundt ist besser. Et tamen docendi causa ad res ipsas tradendas propria

vocabula tenenda sunt. WA 39/II, A305, 1922.44 It is often a simple flattening of Luthers position that misreads his privileging of scriptureover the tradition.

45 See footnote 30.46 WA 54, 34, 30. The treatise Von den letzten Worten Davids (1543) is the sole treatise that

Luther devotes exclusively to the Trinity. It is a commentary in German on 2 Samuel 23:17.47 Luther cites 2 Peter 1:21. Es ist noch nie keine weissagung aus menschlichem willen

erfurbracht. Sondern die heiligen Menschen Gottes haben geredt aus eingebunge desHeiligen Geistes. Ibid., 34, 3638.

48 Ibid., 35, 12.49 In the Introduction to Von den letzten Worten Davids, Cohrs documents the 1541

revision to verse 2b. The earlier translation, und sein Wort ist durch meine Zunge

geschehn is replaced with, und seine Rede ist durch meine Zunge geschehn. F. Cohrs,Introduction in Ibid., p. 19. The substitution of Wort with Rede discloses a signifi-cant shift in Luthers trinitarian understanding. At the philological level, the shift alludesto Tertullians translation of the Greek term into sermo, rather than Augustinestranslation into verbum. This choice reflects Luthers appropriation of a dialogical trini-tarian model that is based on the royal Psalms. Found in Tertullian, the exegetical strategyof prosopographic exegesis is employed to determine the term person as speaker ofan oral address. In the trinitarian treatise, Luther mentions the exegetical principle. DieGrammatica ist auch gewis, Das Wo ein Sprecher ist, da ist ein Logos, Wort oder Rede.Ibid., 55, 3637. By the fourth century, the method was abandoned because it could not beapplied to the Holy Spirit; the royal Psalms model accounts for two speakers in the inner-Trinity, the Father and the Son, and not the Holy Spirit. For an excellent and detailed study

of prosopographic exegesis and the concept of trinitarian person, see: Carl Andresen, ZurEntstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes, Zeitschrift fr die Neutest-amentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche 52 (1961), pp. 139.

50 Das wird nicht sein David, Jsai son, in sunden geborn, sondern der zum Propheten durchGottes verheissung erweckt ist. WA 54, 35, 1315. In his commentaries on the Psalms,Luther frequently refers to David as the prophet, not the Psalmist.

51 By virtue of the semantic equivalence argument, Luther can frequently refer to theagreement between the biblical authors on the trinitarian subject matter. For example: Hiestimmet Mose mit Johanne uberein, das im anfang der Creatur ein Wort sey gewest, durchwelchs Gott alles gesprochen, das ist, geschaffen und gemacht hat. Ibid., 55, 3334.

52 Preus discusses Augustines exegetical difficulty in reading the Old Testament at the literallevel. In order to salvage the Old Testaments relevance for theology, Augustine read

it according to its figurative or allegorical sense. Most medieval theologians followedAugustine in this regard. Preus, pp. 1516.

53 Cf. WA 54, 38, 315.54 Ibid., 36, 1. The question regarding the trinitarian determination of the God of Israel is a

topic that will be treated in the next section.55 Denn solch hoch heimlich ding kundte niemand wissen wo es der Heilige Geist nicht

durch die Propheten offenbart, wie droben offt gesagt, das die heilige Schrifft durch denHeiligen Geist gesprochen ist. Ibid., 48, 2023.

56 In numerous passages, Luther ascribes authorial agency to the Holy Spirit. For example: a Spiritusancto per sanctos Prophetas admonitus es, . WA 40/II, 212, 2627(Enarratio Psalmi II, to verse 3); Haec est Spiritussancti vox, per os Prophetae emissa Ibid., 217, 26 (to verse 4); sicut Spiritus sanctus hoc in loco vaticinatur, Ibid., 217,35. 218, 12 (to verse 4).

57 Following scripture and the Creed, Luther attributes die eusserliche wirckung, da er [theHoly Spirit] durch die Propheten, Aposteln und Kirchen diener mit uns leiblich redet, teuffetund regiret to the Spirit. WA 54, 35, 3537. Luthers insight is recapitulated in article five ofthe Augsburg Confession. Cf. Die Augsburgische Konfession, in Die Bekenntnisschriften derevangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, eleventh ed. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 5859.




22/26

58 Oswald Bayer isolates thepromissio, the constituting word of promise, to be the content ofLuthers Reformation breakthrough and the center of the Reformers theology. A summaryof Bayers interpretation is the following. The promissio is constituted by the identitybetween the literary sign (signum), the absolution based on Matthew 16:19, and the content

(res

), the forgiveness itself. Christine Helmer, The Subject of Theology in the Thought ofOswald Bayer, Lutheran Quarterly 14/1 (Spring 2000), p. 24.59 Oportet enim nos servare phrasin scripturae sanctae, et manere in verbis Spiritus

sancti, . WA 42, 23, 2324 (Lectures on Genesis, to Gen. 1:6).60 For Luther, terms are shared among various discursive regions. The meanings of the

terms are, however, particular to the region on which they are used. Cf. Ibid., 35, 3036(to Gen. 1:14). In the theological region, the term word can denote either the uncreatedword or a creature created by God. Ad hunc modum igitur videmus Spiritum sanctumsuam habere linguam et phrasin, nempe quod Deus dicendo creaverit omnia et per verbumoperatus est, et omnia eius opera sunt verba quaedam Dei, per verbum increatum creata.Ibid., 35, 3740. Regarding the distinction between a Hebrew and a philosophical deter-mination of time, cf. Ibid., 36, 711.

61 Soulen diagnoses the supercessionist trinitarian model as follows. When the canonswitness to the gospel is interpreted according to the traditional trinitarian rule of faith(the One God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), Gods identity as the God of Israel is madeultimately dispensable for the purposes of articulating Gods eternal identity and Godsenduring and universal purposes for creation. What results is a latently gnosticizingaccount of the canons theological and narrative unity. Soulen, p. 47.

62 WA 41, 79239. Luther preached eight sermons on Psalm 110 in 1535: May 8, May 10, May29, May 30, June 5, June 9, June 12, and June 13. The series is recorded in two variants: Rrer(R), and Dietrich (Dr).

63 Luther begins the sermon series by summarizing the Psalms scope. Das ist der psalm, quifactus de ascensione et toto regno domini nostri Iesu Christi. Ibid., 79, 5. 80, 1 (R). Psalm110:1 is cited in: Mt. 22:44, Acts 2:3435, 1 Cor. 15:25, and Heb. 1:13, 10:1213.

64 WA 41, 82, 2122.65 Alfred Rahlfs (ed), Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), p. 124; BibliaSacra Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem, third ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983),p. 193.

66 In the sermon on Psalm 110:1, Luther claims that he writes the first Lord with capital letters. Dominus dixit. Es ist unterschieden. Herr 1. Mit grossen buchstaben, . WA 41, 82,45 (R). Luther reiterates the same principle in Von den letzten Worten Davids. Dennhie stehet der grosse name Gottes Jehova, den wir in unser Biblia mit diesen grossenBuchstaben Schreiben: HERR, zum unterschied der andern namen, . WA 54, 47, 46. Seealso Luthers Preface to the 1523 translation of the Old Testament in WADB 8, 30, 1928.

67 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand (Ps. 110:1, KJV). All citations ofthe English Bible are taken from the KJV in: The Original African Heritage Study Bible

(Nashville, TN: The James C. Winston Publishing Company, 1993).68 In the commentary to Psalm 2:11, Luther writes, Ac addit causam: Quia, inquit, hic Rex

est DOMINVS seu verus Deus. Positum enim hic est nomen tetragrammaton, quod vocantet soli Deo tribuitur in scriptura. WA 40/II, 281, 3638 (Dr).

69 Ibid., 282, 14 (Dr). Cf. WA 39/II, 255, 34 (Doctoral Disputation of Erasmus Alberus,Aug. 24, 1543, thesis 29).

70 Luthers trinitarian hermeneutics is based on the distinction between speaker andaddressee. Und zwar, wer so viel verstehet in der Schrifft , das er mercken kan, wo diePerson eine von der andern redet, als weren mehr denn eine da, der hat balde ersehen dieunterscheid, welchs des Vaters oder des Sons person ist, . WA 54, 85, 3686, 4.

71 Das ist: Ein jeder neme die Propheten fur sich, lese mit vleis drinnen und mercke, wo derHERR Jehova, Jhesus Christus, unterschiedlich redet, oder wo von jm geredt wird Woaber die Person nicht unterschiedlich sich mit reden offenbart, Das es scheinet keine mehrdenn Eine person sein, Da magestu die Regel halten, droben geben, das du nicht unrechtthust, wo du den namen Jehova deutest auff unsern HERRN, Jhesum Christum, GottesSon, . Ibid., 85, 2931. 86, 2023.

72 WA 41, 82, 47.73 Cf. WA 54, 58, 1630.

70 Christine Helmer



23/26

74 Luthers translation reads, Das Scepter deines Reiches wird der HERR aus senden ausZion. WA 41, 122, 89.

75 The subject of sending is Der HERR. Ibid., 124, 17. Luther refers to this Lord with thepronoun Er (i.e., Ibid., 124, 18; Ibid., 128, 36), or Gott (i.e., Ibid., 127, 23). The under-

determination of the pronouns can be confusing, particularly when one pronoun er hastwo distinct referents. In his interpretation of Psalm 110:2, Herrsche mitten unter deinenfeinden (Ibid., 132, 17), Luther refers the same pronoun to both Christ and the divineMajesty. Denn er sol (spricht er) durch sein Scepter gewaltiglich herrschen, Ibid., 132,2021 (Dr).

76 Das ander Herr, Adon, heist auff deudsch landher, hausher etc. Ideo laut de 2 dominisi.e. verus, naturalis deus dixit ad dominum i. e. verum hominem. Sic homo est dominus.Ibid., 82, 79 (R).

77 The narrative formula preceding the direct speech introduces the speaker and addressee.According to Andresen, Tertullian used the prosopographic exegetical strategy to deter-mine the actors as trinitarian persons. See Andresen, pp. 914.

78 In Matthew 22:45, Jesus asks the question concerning the subject of my Lord (Ps. 110:1).

Matthew writes that no one could answer the question (Mt. 22:46).79 Luther remarks on the semantic agreement between both testaments. Das newe Testamentkan nicht feilen, Also das Alte Testament auch nicht, wo sichs reimet, und dem newenehnlich ist. WA 54, 44, 2931.

80 WA 30/I, 186, 1011 (Large Catechism, 1529).81 WA 41, 83, 2830.82 Denn das wort Meinem ist ein wort des glaubens, der sich des verheissenen Christi an

nimpt, . Ibid., 83, 3133 (Dr).83 Ibid., 86, 22.84 sondern verkleret die selbige, wie er warhafftiger, ewiger Gott mit dem vater ist, .

Ibid., 91, 89 (Dr). For a study of the term verklren and its role in Luthers trinitariantheology of glory, see: Christine Helmer, Luthers Theology of Glory, Neue Zeitschrift fr

Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 42 (October 2000), pp. 237245.85 See footnote 30.86 der droben jnn der Go(e)ttlichen Maiestet sitzet und doch meines fleisches und bluts

und mein Bruder ist. WA 41, 99, 3334 (Dr).87 WA 40/II, 296, 31. The 1545 German translation is: Ku(e)sset den Son, Das er nicht

zu(e)rne, . WADB 10/I, 111. The KJV reads, Kiss the Son, lest he be angry.88 Quod ad grammaticam attinet, norunt Ebraice docti legendum hic non ut latinus textus

habet: Apprehendite, sed: osculamini. Itaque consilium suum permittimus septuagintaInterpretibus, nos tamen a veritate Ebraica idea non discedemus. WA 40/II, 297, 2427.

89 Quod septuaginta verterunt , in Ebraeo est Bar, ac late patet eiussignificatio, est enim adiectivum nomen et significat purum, electum. Ideo Hieronymusvertit: Adorate pure. Ibid., 297, 2830.

90 Per antonomasiam autem, quae ex communi nomine facit proprium, postea transfertur adalias res, et propter excellentiam individui vocatur sic triticum seu frumentum, tanquamelecta res. Ibid., 297, 3033. Luther refers to the following examples in order to argue hiscase. Sic Apostolum intelligimus: Paulum, Prophetam: Davidem, Philosophum, Aristotelem,Militem: Georgium a Fronsberg etc. Ibid., 297, 3334. Based on this rule, Luther arguesthat Christ, as the exemplary representative of his class, is denoted by the class term. Forexample, [s]ic Christus per excellentiam dicitur: iustus, sapiens, sacerdos, Filius hominis,Rex, etc. Ibid., 297, 3536. Luther argues that the Hebrew must be taken as a propernoun for an exemplary son, beloved by his parents. Ad hunc modum Bar substantivesignificat etiam Filium, tanquam rem maxime electam, caram, iucundam parentibus.Ibid., 298, 1718. Luther concludes that the grammatical rule ofAntonomasia is used inorder to confound the devil and the godless, who are not worthy to see the signification ofthe term. Ibid., 280, 1921. Luthers insight dovetails with that of contemporary biblicalscholarship. Klaus Koch indicates that the singular bar must be taken in the book ofDaniel to mean the single representative of a class. See Klaus Koch, Das Reich der Heiligenund des Menschensohns, in Martin Rsel (ed), Die Reiche der Welt und der kommendeMenschensohn. Gesammelte Aufstze, vol. 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995),pp. 140172, esp. 156162.




24/26

91 Luther criticizes Jerome for translating the Hebrew as the adjective pure. Ibid., 299,2124.

92 Cf. Ibid., 299, 2122; 298, 24.93 Ibid., 299, 2830.

94 The Psalm speaks, Ipse est meum dilectum, meum purum, meum electum, quo unicegaudeo, mein hertz, mein freude. Ibid., 299, 3132.95 Cf. WA 43, 11, 1814, 17.96 Die ander ist, Das er die drey Person hat mu(e)ssen ordenlich nacheinander anzeygen.

Zum ersten den pater, da er sagt: Gott schuff. Zum andern den son, da er sagt: Gott sprach,Darnach den heiligen geist da er sprach: Gott sahe es fu(e)r gut an. WA 24, 31, 1922 (berdas 1. Buch Mose. Predigten, 1527, to Gen. 1:3).

97 Cf. WA 42, 18, 1415 (Lectures on Genesis, to Gen. 1:6).98 Against Augustine, Luther states that Moses spoke literally, not allegorically or

figuratively. Ibid., 5, 1516 (Introduction).99 Ibid., 18, 14.

100 Luther notes the distinction in the Hebrew that is not maintained by the Latin synonyms

dicere and loqui. According to Luther, Moses uses the term meaning the spoken word,in order to expose the distinction between the one who speaks, the Father, and the wordthat is spoken, the Son. Cf. Ibid., 13, 1929 (to Gen. 1:3).

101 See footnote 49.102 Luther remarks on the familiarity of this verse in churches and monasteries. However,

these words are nullo modo intellecta, quod tam ponderosa sint et tam magnas rescomplectantur. WA 40/II, 242, 2728.

103 Ibid., 242, 2425. Luther translates the verse into German. Ich wil von einer solchen Weisepredigen, Das der HERR zu mir gesagt hat, Du bist mein Son, Heute hab ich dichgezeuget. WADB 10/I, 109 (1545). The KJV reads, I will declare the decree: the LORDhath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

104 WA 40/II, 244, 3031.

105 Ibid., 244, 3334.106 Cf. Ibid., 244, 3537.107 (6) Ego autem constitui Regem meum super Zion montem sanctum meum. (7a)

Praedicabo statutum, (7b) quod DOMINUS ad me dixit: (7c) Filius meus Tu, Ego te hodiegenui. Ibid., 234, 3031. 242, 2425.

108 The biblical text does not explicitly name this one who laughs at his enemies. Cf. Ibid.,218, 3334 (to verse 4). In his remarks to verse six, Luther claims that the divine Majestythreatens to destroy all those who oppose Gods word. Cf. Ibid., 234, 3233.

109 Luther asks the familiar question of identity. Quis enim est, qui dicit: Ego? The answeris given as a question. An non Dominus coeli et terrae, qui omnia virtute verbi sui exnihilo condidit? Ibid., 236, 2223.

110 Sed huius Regis domus est ipsum coelum, ubi nec hominem nec Satanae potentia aliquid

valet. Ibid., 218, 3132.111 Luther shifts to the trinitarian language of Father when describing the relation of co-

equality between the two persons. Sed hic Rex, Dominus noster Ihesus Christus, immediateab ipso Patre aeterno ordinatur, ut Rex sit, et vocatur Patris Rex, seu a Patre constitutusRex. Ibid., 236, 3234.

112 sicut Psalmus hic loquitur, Praedicare, narrare de Dei decreto. Ibid., 244, 2223.113 Ibid., 245, 37.114 Cf. Ibid., 242, 2829.115 Nam hic locus omnino de vocali praedicatione et non de spirituali intelligendus est. Ibid.,

245, 2425.116 Cf. Ibid., 245, 1617.117 Cf. Ibid., 256, 2631.118 Luther claims that hodie genui can refer only to an event beyond time. Est Deus extra

tempus, . Ibid., 250, 34. Luther agrees with Augustines comparison between the verbspast tense and the present tense implied by the adverb. The discussion concludes by assert-ing that in eternity, all things exist in the present tense. Cf. Ibid., 257, 2127. See also asimilar discussion on hodie genui in the Major disputation: WA 39/II, 293, 613.

119 WA 40/II, 257, 25.

72 Christine Helmer



25/26

120 Cf. Ibid., 254, 1617.121 Fit autem hoc ideo, ut omnia referat ad Patrem, tanquam autorem; Sicut Christus solet

in suis concionibus, ubique allegat autoritatem patris, ut omnes per Christum Patremagnoscant, in Patrem credant et Patrem praedicent. Ibid., 254, 1719, 2122.

122 Loquitur enim Filius ex ore Patris, et vicissim Pater ex ore filii, Pater enim et Filius unumsunt. Ibid., 255, 3536. Luther articulates a similar reciprocity of revelation in the Lectureson Genesis. Ad hunc modum neque obiective Deus potest separari. Neque enim Patercognoscitur, nisi in Filio, et per Spiritum sanctum. WA 42, 44, 89 (to Gen. 1:26).

123 Prima est interna, quando Dominus cum Filio loquitur. WA 40/II, 257, 1415.124 Ibid., 257, 1516.125 Altera praedicatio est externa, quando Filius nobiscum loquitur: Dominus dixit a me:

Filius meus et tu. Hanc audimus quidem, sed etiam non intelligimus, sola enim fideapprehendi vult et potest. Ibid., 257, 1719.

126 Ibid., 256, 3434. The passage alludes to 2 Tim. 6:16.127 Ibid., 255, 1920.128 Ibid., 254, 3435.

129 Ibid., 255, 2324.130 With his u

Documents

Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the OT