Is There A Middle Way With UOJ?

 

A few weeks ago, Pr Paul Rydecki (Confessional Lutheran Ministerium) alerted me to his response to Pr Magnus Sørensen's (COELC Superintendent) paper of 2017 entitled "The Justification of Christ as the Efficient Cause of Our Justification - The Narrow Lutheran Middle in the Controversy on Universal Objective Justification". 

Pr Magnus' associate, Pr Jake, a minister of COELC, gave me a link of this paper the first time it came out in 2017. Click the link here. I had a read of this paper and shared it with other ones who also reject UOJ. There Magnus believe that the UOJers are wrong and the JBFA people who are anti-UOJers are wrong too. Somewhere there is a middle view that avoids the two oppossite views. Frankly, the only word that came out of me after reading it was the word - mixed up. I apologise for this word that seems unkind, but I only use it for lack of better word I could find. Now this opinion will not surprize, Magnus. He and I both know that we disagree in many issues and I  was one time overjoyed when there were a couple of issues we agreed. In his paper, we will find a lot of historical context which traces how UOJ meant to be a good thing became bad. So many words have been invested to salvage a problematic teaching in the first place.The crux I think is in the use of this paper of Gerhard (and some from Calov). Specifically, this passage

͞

With respect to the actual absolution from sin. By delivering Christ into death for the sake of our sins, the heavenly Father condemned sin in His flesh through sin (Rom. 8:3). He condemned it because it had sinned against Christ by bringing about His death, even though He was innocent, and so He withdrew from sin its legal right against believers so that it cannot condemn them any longer. He also condemned it, in that He punished our sins in Christ, which were imposed on Him and imputed to Him as to a bondsman. So also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, He absolved Him from our sins that were imputed to Him, and consequently also absolves us in Him, so that, in this way, the resurrection of Christ may be both the cause and the pledge and the complement of our justification. The following passages pertain to this: 1 Cor. 15:17, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:12-13, Phil. 3:8-10, 1 Pet. 1:3.

(Gerhard, Johann, Paul A. Rydecki, and Rachel Melvin. Annotations on the first six chapters of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans: in which the text is stated, troublesome questions are answered, observations are made, and passages that appear to be in conflict are reconciled as concisely as possible: with preface and general prolegomena on the Pauline Epistles by the same author. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2014.)

Pr Paul and I are known to each other through the Internet and it is of no mystery of course, that we agree with the judgement that UOJ is not in Scripture. Click his response here. On the side other resources are available to the reader here

1. Pr Rydecki relayed in his paper the great analogy of how OT atonement worked and how in the NT this is exactlty the same as what happens to Christ! I thought this was very insightful, useful and quite edifying. I suggest the reader take a good cue from that exposition.
2. As normally happens in Modern Lutheranism, people appeal to an authority and in this case the authority chosen is Gerhard. I note that Gerhard was not a BoC author, in fact, he was post-Concordian. Meaning, he came to the scene after the BoC. So, what is left when people argue by authority and not by Scripture as prima facie evidence? People wind up spending tons of energy exegeting what the "authority" said - energy meant for the Bible is diverted to energy finding support for one's theory from what an authority said. This is a very Waltherian tradition. Walther was a citation theologian.
3. In the quote above of Gerhard, just by reading, he was addressing the believers, is this not correct? So, how does one take those possessive pronouns like our there? Is this for the whole world? In fact Gerhard used the word 'believer' you can read it there. 
4. Some try to defend the Sørensen paper's UOJ by appealing to Hebrews 7 and 8. This is like grasping at the straws, a kind of hallugenic exegesis, ie seeing things that are not there.
5. The paper in my mind, upholds the authority of Scripture versus popular so-called Lutheran Fathers. See here and realize even the BoC says this.  I side with Rydecki, Gerhard's use of bondsman is not an analogy found in Scripture. The bondsman concept is not found in Romans 4:25. Gerhard was of course trying to be helpful but importing a concept not even in the text does not honor the text but obscures it. In the OT atonement, the sacrificial animal is never treated and does not even come to view, of it being a guarantor. We should not be surprized if a Lutheran theologian in the past, mis-speak, after all they were humans too. Besides who has declared them to be infallible? 

Personally I find Pr Paul Rydecki's paper a great service. I am glad he wrote it. 

So, the answer to the question, is there a middle way with UOJ? Answer: NO

I join Pr Paul in prayer that Pr Magnus might abandon the project of trying to prop up a problematic language on justification. It is not worth it because, its Biblical evidence is weak if not missing.(I heard Pr Magnus has got a modification of his 2017 paper - I'd rather hear it retracted)

 

Semper Virgo and Confessional Commitment

 

Sempler Virgo (Latin for always virgin) is the teaching that the Virgin Mary was a virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Jesus all the way to heaven. Some think this is founded on Scriptural text. Others admit that the Scripture evidence is not decisive, and to believe she maintained her virginity until her death, can be tolerated as pious belief. No doubt, one’s belief in this assertion has nothing to do with one’s justification or salvation. Your eternal destiny has nothing to do with your belief or not in the semper virgo.  It is peripheral to one’s discipleship as a Christian.

It may however impact one’s commitment to a denomination’s hollowed confessional document. I will get to this below but first let’s deal with Scriptural arguments for pro semper virgo and the contra semper virgo.

Pro

It is no doubt readily available to the reader of the NT, that the Gospels speak of Jesus as having brothers and sisters. The NT Greek used is (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb"). We see this suggestion in the sample verses: Mk 6:3, Mt 13:55, Mk 3:35, Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31-35, Mt 12:46-50, Lk 8:19-21, Acts 1:14 and so on.

The Pro camp has explained that this usage of adelphoi did not mean the literal physical brothers/sisters of Christ, but they are next of kin, and it is a figurative usage. It is even suggested that these people were cousins of Jesus. Some also suggest that they were stepbrothers of Jesus from Joseph’s previous wife who was then deceased prior to him meeting Mary. For a good summary of the pro position, see here.

Con

Historians have noted that the suggestion of the perpetual virginity of Mary was first observed in a document called proto-evangelium of James, or the Gospel of James (2nd Century). Prior to the papacy, this idea was condemned by Pope Innocent I and Pope Gelasius of the Roman Church.

The argument that Jesus’ “brothers” were actually stepbrothers/sisters of Jesus has to find its justification extra-biblically so, most likely this line of argument will be deemed by critics as something that can be laid aside. The only one standing strongly for the semper virgo is that Jesus’ brothers are his cousins.

Now, here I bear my research out. I believe the weight of Scripture evidence is against semper virgo for the following reasons.

·         No one in the pro position, as far as I have not seen, any exposition on what it was for Joseph to ‘know’ Mary in Mt 1:25 - and ^[i][he] did not know her till she had brought forth her^[j] firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Here to know is not a stand-in for information. Bible translations that follow the KJV tradition mean to imply knowing a person, is to know that person intimately. We can see this how the people of Sodom and Gomorrah urged Lot to bring out his guests so they might “know” them. Gen 19:5. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.

 In other words, using this euphemism, it suggests that Joseph did have intimate relationship with her after Jesus was born, not before birth of Jesus for sure but after his birth, thus making the mention of brothers of Jesus as half-brothers, ie children of Joseph and Mary, sensible. This verse is skipped by the pro position or ignored.

·         The brothers as cousins idea does not cut it too. The word for cousin in NT Greek is ἀνεψιός, anephios. Scholars believe that to name a person a cousin of so and so, NT Greek speakers can also say ‘so and so, the son of …’. This phrasing is readily available to be used but this was not used to describe these relatives of Jesus, anephios was never used.

·          Another idea is the way the KJV translates συγγενεῖς -syngeneis – relatives as cousins. This word again is readily available – St Luke’s Gospel used this word a couple of times, but did not use it if the truth is that these are Jesus’ cousins. Yet, St Luke used brothers – see Luke 8:20-21.

·         Because of the above couple of points and the balance of probability of language usage, they mitigate against the belief that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.

 

So now we come to the issue of one’s confessional subscription. What is its implication to you?

1.      If you are Lutheran, then you must contend with this issue. If you believe in quia subscription to the Book of Concord, it includes the Smalcald Articles and there in Luther’s own writing in Latin – Part I, Article 4, and (the Son) was born of the pure, holy, and ever Virgin Mary. Some Smalcald translations do it his way:    and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary. I do not know why they have to bracket this part, is it because there is a German version of Smalcald that does not have this?

2.       If you are Calvinistic/Reformed, your confession says this as well.  2^nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter XI has this part referring to our Lord … but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever-virgin Mary. Calvin also believed in the semper virgo, in fact, this statement is just an echoing of his Mariology. Calvin believed in the cousin argument.

 During the Reformation, the Reformers were dealing with the major reform issues at that time - it is Justification and so they did not have enough time to bother with and re-visit secondary issues. They went along with some unquestioned (at that time) side beliefs. They had a bigger fish to fry - how is a man made right with God.

There is a constant challenge to a person who is following Jesus and this is right there until he is taken home by his Lord - will he follow His Word where ever it may lead him?