The Passion of Christ

Newsletter article for April 2004

© 2004 by Rev. Paul A. Wolff

Christ’s “Passion” refers to His suffering. The work of Christ has long been identified with His suffering because that is what the Holy Scriptures tell is the work of Christ. Isaiah 53:5 tells us that “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” If you have seen the new movie “The Passion of the Christ” you will note that this Scripture verse opens the movie and gives the necessary context in which to view it.

There are many ways to wrongly consider the Christ’s passion. Even before the new movie was released some Jewish groups were complaining that it would incite people to punish the Jews for their role in the death of Christ. This has happened in history, and it is absolutely a wrong interpretation of the sufferings of Christ to single out the Jews (or anyone else) as the ones who brought about some great injustice. It is equally wrong for those same Jews (and all others) to view the passion of Christ without believing that they were responsible for the death of Christ, and being responsible for Christ’s suffering and death also receive the benefits of that death.

Isaiah made it clear long ago that the Christ was to suffer and die for our sinfulness and through that punishment we would receive forgiveness and eternal life. Pressure from Jewish groups moved Mel Gibson to remove from the subtitles the quote from Matthew 27:25 where the crowd tells Pilate, “Let his blood be on us and on our children.” That is an ironic statement because although the crowd meant it as a self-curse, it is a blessing which all of God’s people can apply to themselves as John writes in 1 John 1:7 “The blood of Jesus, [God’s] son, purifies us from all sin.”

Although Martin Luther never saw Mel Gibson’s movie (or any other movie, for that matter), he did write a short essay in 1519 entitled, “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion”. In this essay Luther notes, “They contemplate Christ’s passion aright who view it with a terror-stricken heart and a despairing conscience. This terror must be felt as you witness the stern wrath and the unchanging earnestness with which God looks upon sin and sinners, so much so that he was unwilling to release sinners even for his only and dearest Son without his payment of the severest penalty for them.”

If we take Isaiah’s prophesy seriously (and we should) then we understand that Jesus suffered so much because of our sins. Because we love Jesus we ought to be horrified that our sinfulness and the disobedience of our sin caused our beloved Savior to suffer. If you can watch the scene in the movie where the soldiers are taking such pleasure and enjoyment in beating Jesus into a bloody pulp and not understand that it is you who is doing that every time you take some guilty pleasure in some sin, then you are also not correctly considering Christ’s passion. The movie shows this pretty well how the devil was taking pleasure in the murderous hatred of the soldiers. Satan tempts us all to sin by making sin seem fun even though the least of our sins caused Jesus immense pain.

Christians know, however, that the “terror” and “despair” in our hearts that we must feel for our guilt and sin is not an end in themselves. That would also be a wrong way to view the sufferings of Christ. Judas is the example which shows us that it is not enough to simply be sorry that we have done wrong. Faith trusts that although we are terribly guilty in the death of Jesus, He loves us and will forgive all the sins of those who trust in Him for salvation. Our sorrow over our guilt should cause us to fervently repent of all our sins, and look to Jesus to forgive us for all the pain we caused Him. Luther explained this wonderfully when he wrote:

You cast your sins from yourself and onto Christ when you firmly believe that his wounds and sufferings are your sins, to be borne and paid for by him, as we read in Isaiah 53 [:6], “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” St. Peter says, “in his body has he borne our sins on the wood of the cross” [I Pet. 2:24]. St. Paul says, “God has made him a sinner for us, so that through him we would be made just” [2 Cor. 5:21]. You must stake everything on these and similar verses. The more your conscience torments you, the more tenaciously must you cling to them. If you do not do that, but presume to still your conscience with your contrition and penance, you will never obtain peace of mind, but will have to despair in the end. If we allow sin to remain in our conscience and try to deal with it there, or if we look at sin in our heart, it will be much too strong for us and will live on forever. But if we behold it resting on Christ and [see it] overcome by his resurrection, and then boldly believe this, even it is dead and nullified. Sin cannot remain on Christ, since it is swallowed up by his resurrection. Now you see no wounds, no pain in him, and no sign of sin. Thus St. Paul declares that “Christ died for our sin and rose for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]. That is to say, in his suffering Christ makes our sin known and thus destroys it, but through his resurrection he justifies us and delivers us from all sin, if we believe this.

Any Christian who views a reenactment of the passion of Christ will have to feel ambivalent (i.e. have mixed feelings) about it. On the one hand we are sad that we caused Jesus to suffer and die because of the guilt of our sins, but on the other hand, we are glad that Jesus endured the pain and death so that he could rescue us from an eternity of such suffering.

Another thing to remember if you go to view the movie is that what you are seeing is not the crucifixion of Jesus. It is a movie with actors and fake blood. This ought to be obvious to everyone who goes, but these days you can never be too careful. You are not necessarily closer to Jesus if you view this reenactment of His death. Many people have seen the movie, and still do not believe in Jesus, and are still on their way to damnation. Many other people, who have never seen the movie still repent of their sins and trust in Christ and receive forgiveness and eternal life. Remember the words Jesus told Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

(All Luther quotes from Vol. 42 of Luther’s works, p. 7-13. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; translation by Martin Bertram.)

Martin Luther

Newsletter article for October 2003

© 2003 by Rev. Paul A. Wolff

By the time this newsletter reaches your home you should be able to go to your local movie theater and see the latest movie which depicts the life of the great reformer, Martin Luther. The movie is simply titled, “Luther”. With every new look at the life of Martin Luther we Lutherans have the opportunity to reacquaint ourselves with what it means to be Lutheran. However, this does not come without dangers. Not every depiction of the life and teachings of Martin Luther is good and beneficial. Some depictions of Luther’s teachings or the significance of his work are distorted and others simply contain flat-out lies. An example of this was a recent PBS television documentary on Luther. This documentary, while doing a pretty good job of accurately presenting the factual information of Luther’s life, didn’t have a clue about the true significance of Martin Luther. But then of all the scholars who were interviewed in that documentary, none of them were Lutheran, and all of them had some other agenda which led them to misunderstand or purposely distort the meaning of the Reformation.

I would encourage all who read this article to go and see the movie “Luther,” but I would also hope that you would go with open eyes. I have heard good reviews from Lutherans who have previewed the movie, so I am hopeful that it will be an honest look at both the man and his teachings, and I am looking forward to seeing it myself. However, recent events in the church (worldwide) have reminded me of the validity of the doctrine of original sin and have left me wary of trusting in the unquestioned goodness of all that calls itself Lutheran or even Christian. Further examination is always required, but I am always hopeful, and I am eager to be impressed.

It should come as no surprise that there is now a renewed interest in Martin Luther. At the end of the millennium several historians came up with lists of the most influential people in the second millennium since Christ, and Martin Luther was at or near the top in all of these lists. It is also probably true that each list put Luther at the top for different reasons, which begs the question, “What is Luther all about?”

In the past year I have come across a little book which gives the best explanation of what it means to be a Lutheran in modern society. The book is Here We Stand by Hermann Sasse (pronounced SAH-say). There has been a growing rediscovery of Hermann Sasse lately because the issues with which the LCMS is currently struggling are the very same sorts of things that Sasse had to deal with in Germany in the early 20^th century. I myself have been astonished by the current relevance of essays that Sasse wrote some 70 years ago. I suppose I should not have been astonished because it was nearly 3,000 years ago that King Solomon wrote that “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Strangely enough, as we try to understand what it means to be Lutheran we should first of all keep one thing in mind: to be Lutheran has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Martin Luther. The best possible Lutheran cares not one little bit about Martin Luther. Luther himself was not interested in Martin Luther, but rather he was interested in Jesus Christ. Of course as a Christian we cannot ignore Luther because there have been only a precious few people since Biblical times who have taught the truth of the Bible so purely and clearly as he did. To be a Lutheran is all about what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ, and not at all about who Martin Luther was. However, there are those who seek to undermine the teachings of Luther, and because they cannot find fault with his theology (because he taught the truth of God’s Word) they instead attack or undermine the man.

In Here We Stand, Sasse notes that there are at least three ways in which the Lutheran Reformation is misunderstood, or misrepresented. The first is that Luther is depicted as a great “Hero of the Reformation” who led his followers to a new age of Renaissance. This is a false depiction for several reasons. At the time of the Reformation Luther was, and remained, a pastor, Biblical scholar, and teacher. Sasse notes that early in the history of the reformation Luther “slipped into the background,” and his role after 1530 was “not nearly as important as that which Calvin played to the close of his life.” Luther also never wanted his followers to be known by his name. He preferred the name, “Evangelical” but eventually that term came to apply to others, and the term “Lutheran” stuck. What is more, of the eight confessional documents which make up the Book of Concord, which is what really defines what it means to be Lutheran, only three of them were even written by Martin Luther (the Small and Large catechisms, and the Smalcald Articles), and the Formula of Concord was written some fifteen years after Luther’s death.

The second way the Lutheran Reformation is misrepresented is what Sasse calls the “culture-historical interpretation of the Reformation.” This describes the impact that the reformation had on Western society, and claims that the main importance of Luther is that he began to release the human potential of Europeans from the oppression of the Medieval way of thinking. This is still a popular view in some circles, but anyone with even a limited knowledge of Luther knows that this is way off base. If this were true then Luther would have encouraged the peasants in their revolt rather than vehemently denouncing them. (The peasant revolt is reportedly depicted in the movie, and is one of the main reasons that the movie received a PG-13 rating.) This is the point of view of the PBS documentary which was released this summer. This suggested that Luther began something, but it was incomplete, and left to others to finish. Or to use a sports metaphor, Luther, it is implied, picked up the ball, but others ran with it, and so Luther is seen as incomplete and obsolete. In reality, Luther was not concerned about the advancement of human civilization, instead he was concerned about the salvation of man and taught what the Bible teaches about the complete moral depravity of sinful man which everyone must recognize before they can receive the salvation which only Jesus can give.

The third way the Reformation is misrepresented is that it is seen as essentially a German nationalistic event. There is a grain of truth to this because there was the beginning of a unification of Germany behind Luther. His translation of the Scriptures into German not only was the focus of shared German pride, but it literally created a unified, common German language out of several differing dialects. But again, Luther was not interested in what it meant to be German. He was only interested in what it meant to be a Christian. Lutheran teachings are not culture bound, but universal because God’s Word is universal.

The true meaning of the Reformation is that it is an event in the history of the Christian church. It is all about doctrine, and not about the man. To be Lutheran is to trust that the Holy Scriptures are God’s Word which is the only thing which shows us how we may be saved from our sins.

I hope you will keep this in mind as you go to see the new movie. This is how a movie about Luther should be judged: Is it more about Luther, or more about Christ? Do you come away with more of an admiration of Luther, or is your Christian faith strengthened? It is again strange to say it, but it is true, if the movie is too much about Luther then it doesn’t fairly represent the man. He relentlessly pointed people to Christ for their hope and salvation, and any accurate representation of Luther will do the same. I pray that this is true, and if so then I also pray that this movie also becomes wildly popular in our society.

The Meaning of “Is”

Newsletter Article for August 1999

© 1999 Rev. Paul A. Wolff

One of the most bizarre bits of information to come out of the investigation and impeachment of President Clinton was a sound bite of him trying to avoid admitting his sexual relationship with a young woman who was not his wife. He said the following on August 17, 1998 to the grand jury investigating the Jones' harassment case. What Mr. Clinton said was, “That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.”

As soon as this statement became public Mr. Clinton was (and continues to be) harshly derided for this transparent effort to avoid giving a straight answer to a direct, although poorly worded, question. He was asked, “Is there a relationship?” instead of “Was there a relationship?” Taking advantage of this small mistake, Mr. Clinton focused on the tense of the verb, saying that “is” doesn't mean “was” or “will be.” The verb “to be” is one of the most basic verbs in the English language, or any other language for that matter. To quibble over the meaning of “is” is to be completely ignorant, or desperate, or malicious.

This is not the first time in history that the meaning of “is” has been called into question. A long, long time before our scoundrel President tried to weasel his way out of admitting his sordid affair with a young intern some prominent theologians in the sixteenth century debated the meaning of Jesus' words about the Lord's Supper, “This is my body”. The meaning of “is” which was at issue then compares two equivalent things, or states that one thing is exactly the same as another, or that two things are, in fact, the same thing. This incident is particularly meaningful for Lutherans so I would like take this opportunity to review this historical debate.

The focus of the dispute in 1529 was the Lord's Supper. Specifically, it was the question of the real, physical, bodily presence of Jesus in the bread and wine of the Sacrament. Ulrich Zwingli was a Swiss reformer who could not accept the miraculous nature of the sacrament. Since it is naturally impossible for a body to be physically present in two or more places at once, Zwingli claimed that when Jesus said, “This is my body” He really meant, “This represents my body.” By saying that “is” means “symbolizes” or “represents” Zwingli was saying that the physical body of Jesus is not present in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper even though Jesus says it is.

Martin Luther, the German reformer, maintained that the words of Jesus are clear and unambiguous. When Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” that is exactly what He was giving His disciples in the bread and wine. Luther claimed that Jesus wasn't speaking figuratively or metaphorically, but literally.

Luther didn't try to explain how Jesus could give His body and blood in bread and wine to His disciples, instead Luther simply trusted that because Jesus is both God and man, He has the power to do whatever He says. If Jesus says that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, then it must be just as He says it is. The words of Jesus are clear about what He was then giving to His disciples, and what He now gives to all who receive the Sacrament to this very day. Even if a billion Christians around the world receive the Lord's Supper each Sunday each receives the body and blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and the strengthening of their faith.

To try to explain away miracles such as the real, bodily presence of Jesus in the Sacrament is to cast doubt on Jesus, on His power, on His person, and ultimately, it casts doubt on Christ's ability to save us from our sins. After all, if Jesus cannot personally give each communicant His body and blood to eat and drink in the Lord's Supper, as He says He does, then we cannot be sure that He can reach us with His forgiveness, as He also says He does.

If we claim that Jesus isn't really present in the Sacrament, how do we suppose that Jesus will recognize each of us when He returns to judge us? Jesus says in John 10:14, “I know my sheep, and my sheep know me” and we should trust that he is telling the truth there, too, but in the Lord's Supper we have His promise made more sure because He personally gives us His body and blood. We are in Christ because He makes us part of His body as 1 Corinthians 12:27 states, “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” So when Christ returns, He will know His people because He is a part of them, and they are a part of His body.

It is truly a mystery how Jesus can give His true body and blood to each person in the world who receives the Sacrament. Fortunately for us Jesus doesn't ask that we understand it, or be able to explain it, He simply asks us to believe it. And although Jesus doesn't tell us how He does this, He does tell us why. Jesus' body and blood is “for you” (1 Corinthians 11:24 and Luke 22:19-20) and “for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)

You don't have to be a scholar to understand what “is” means. We all use it every day. I have used a form of the verb “to be” in each paragraph of this essay, and I didn't even try to do this, it came naturally. People's inability to believe God's word doesn't come from a lack of understanding of the grammar of Scripture. Instead unbelief comes from a lack of faith in God and in His power to save us. We may not always understand why God does what He does, but we should trust that God loves us all, and that everything He does, He does because of His love so that we will be saved from our sins and receive eternal life through Jesus Christ our savior.

P.S. I found it interesting when looking up the definition for “be” in my dictionary among several examples of the usage of this verb and its cognates there were two examples from Holy Scripture: “God is love” 1 John 4:16 ; and “Christ is risen from the dead” 1 Corinthians 15:20.

Spirituality

Newsletter article for June 1998
© 1998 by Rev. Paul A. Wolff

Spirituality is becoming all the rage these days. Earlier in this century many people believed that we were entering into a new age where technology would answer all the mysteries of the universe which were previously unknown, believed by faith, or explained by religion. The trouble with this is that technology has its limits, not the least of which is that it has no soul. As a guiding path for one’s life, technology and science are cold, heartless, and empty. Technology brought us the devastation of World Wars I & II, nuclear bombs, the cold war, and countless other atrocities. Yes, technology also took man to the moon, but despite great romantic visions of life away from the earth, space is no place to be. To live in space you have to carry around all the food, water, and air that you will need for as long as you plan on remaining alive.

Technology has brought us many benefits and prosperity, but its limits are well documented. As we grow increasingly frustrated by the “modern” influence of technology, we are moving toward another age (currently identified as “post-modern”). One of the marks of this age is an increased interest in the spiritual aspects of life.

This would at first glance seem to be a good thing. Anything which leads people to God is a good thing. But, sinful human nature, being what it is (i.e. sinful) doesn’t look for God. It does everything it can to avoid God. It looks for spiritual answers everywhere except where the Holy Spirit really is.
In order for us Christians to avoid godless spirituality, we need to know what godly spirituality is all about. Christians have an advantage over non-Christians when it comes to understanding spirituality. Since God is the one who created us body, soul, and spirit, He is the one who can help us understand the mysteries of our spiritual lives. The Holy Scriptures do not define what spirituality is (after all, the Bible is not a dictionary.) However, whenever it speaks of spiritual things it is always in relation to the Holy Spirit. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul explains why it is impossible for people to understand spirituality without the Holy Spirit, “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the (Holy) Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)

In reference to John 3:6, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” Martin Luther wrote: “But what is spiritual birth? It means that I am born again as a new being by Baptism and the Holy Spirit and that I believe in Christ…. Thus the spiritual birth is brought about by the Word of God, Baptism, and faith. Even now, while we sojourn on this earth, we are already in this birth if we believe…. This birth is invisible and intangible; it is only believed.” Luther emphasizes that the physical life is temporary and will die, but our spiritual life, since it is from God, is eternal and will never die. Therefore our spiritual life is our life of faith given to us by the Holy Spirit through Baptism.

Luther summarizes our need for this spiritual life by explaining, “Physical birth entails physical things … it concerns physical life and no more. But if you want salvation, you need different parents, who will bring you to heaven. This Christ does. By means of Baptism and the Word of God He places you and your Christianity into the lap of our dear mother, the Christian Church. This He accomplished through His suffering and death that by virtue of His death and blood we might live eternally.”

In a magazine article, sociologist William Martin explained “One of the most attractive flaws of the New Age is its extraordinary emphasis on self absorption. Devotees often refer to unconditional love for all humanity, but rarely do they mention an obligation to demonstrate it to actual neighbors.” Contrast this with John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” and 1 John 4:10, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

The latest issue of Concordia Theological Quarterly quotes author Charles Colson who writes, “Recently a neighbor told me how excited she was about her church. When I tried to point out diplomatically that the group was a cult, believing in neither the resurrection nor the deity of Christ, she seemed unconcerned. ‘Oh, but the services are so wonderful,’ she said. ‘I always feel so good after I’ve been there!’ Such misguided euphoria has always been rampant among those seeking spiritual strokes rather than a source of truth. But what about the church itself, that body of people ‘called out’ to embody God’s truth? Most of the participants in Robert Bellah’s study saw the church as a means to achieve personal goals. Bellah notes a similar tendency in many evangelical circles to thin the biblical language of sin and redemption to an idea of Jesus as the friend who helps us find happiness and self-fulfillment. These ‘feel gooders’ of modern faith are reflecting the same radical individualism we discussed in earlier chapters.... The new barbarians have invaded not only the parlor and politics but the pews of America as well.”

Reformation Day 1996

Newsletter article for October 1996

© 1996 by Rev. Paul A. Wolff

At the end of this month we will celebrate a very special holiday. October 31 isn’t just Halloween (All Hallow’s Eve), it is also the 479th anniversary of the start of the Reformation. This is a great day in the history of the Christian Church, although it is understandable that it is not celebrated with such vigor in the Roman Catholic Church (to say the least). However, we celebrate Reformation Day because it is the day that Dr. Martin Luther brought the Gospel back to its rightful place in the Church.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther, an Augustinian Monk and Bible Scholar, posted a sheet of paper on the door of the Church in Wittenberg, Germany. On the paper was printed 95 “Theses” about what Luther felt were unscriptural and anti-Christian practices in the Catholic Church. He wanted the local Church leaders and Biblical Scholars to study each thesis on the basis of Holy Scripture so that they could stop doing things which were spiritually harmful for the members of the Church, and they could have a better understanding what Scripture taught.

Luther’s 95 Theses were not received kindly by the leaders of the Catholic Church, even though the members of the Church were generally excited that someone in the Church was addressing the problems in the Church of that time. Even though printed Bibles were rare, the people knew enough about Christianity and about the Bible to know that some of the practices of the Church of that time were wrong. However, because of greed, and pride, and sin in general, the leaders of the Church were unwilling to admit any errors, and they tried to get Martin Luther to recant his position that the Church was in error. In a dramatic and famous scene from history, Luther stood in front of the emperor, who had put Luther on trial, and he told the emperor that unless it could be proven from Holy Scripture that he was wrong he could not recant what he had written because it was the truth of God’s word.

Martin Luther had come a long way in his life to get to this point. He was raised a good Catholic, and felt so strongly about the Church that he devoted his life to service in the Church by becoming a monk in the Augustinian order. However, as he tried to live out his faith, he grew increasingly unsure about the forgiveness of his sins, and even his own salvation. The problem was that the Church had a system of penance where a person would have to do a good work before receiving forgiveness from the priest (and presumably, God). Instead of reassuring Luther (and no doubt others, too) that his sins were forgiven, this only raised doubts in his mind whether he had done enough penance, or whether he was sorry enough for his sins. Luther even began to doubt whether God could forgive him at all for his sins.

The answer to this dilemma came when Luther was reading the Book of Romans where it says, “A man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” And also in Ephesians where it says, “For it is by faith that you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” It was these passages, and others like them which reassured Luther of God’s love and forgiveness in Christ. This was such a relief to Luther’s conscience that he began to reread the Bible to learn if there were more passages like this. To his great surprise he found that there were passages like this throughout the whole Bible. In fact, he learned that the whole Bible was about what God has done to save us from our sins (the Gospel). The answer was always there, right under his nose, but he had overlooked it until this point. From then on he looked at everything the Church did in terms of the Gospel. This is what led him to post the 95 Theses.

This also explains why we hold Luther in such high regard in the Lutheran Church. Luther was not a perfect man. He did not do miracles (although several times God protected him in nearly miraculous ways). He did not even devise a clever system of theology like some later reformers. Martin Luther simply read God’s Word and discovered the Gospel of Salvation through faith in Jesus, and he tried to return the Gospel to its proper place in Worship, and in the Church. This is why we in the Lutheran Church place great importance on Holy Scripture and the Church’s doctrine. Since Scripture is God’s Word, it is the basis for all the teachings in our Church. God gave us His Word so that we can put our faith in Jesus to save us from our sins. Luther didn’t teach us anything new, but we thank God for sending Luther to remind us that Jesus is our only savior from sin, and that the only way we can be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ. We should keep this in mind this month during our times of Bible study. Whether you are at Church, or at home in your personal Bible study, remember that the Bible is about Jesus and what he has done to save you from your sins and give you eternal salvation.

May God bless your worship and Bible Study this month (and always),

Pastor Wolff