# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S511 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 500 A RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS Yes. In both cases the authorship of the person named by Jesus is basic to His argument. However, in Matt. 22:43 Jesus identifies the authorship of a specific passage, whereas in John 5:39-47 He does not explicitly state the extent of the Mosaic authorship. 7. What does it mean when the document asserts that the “indications of authorship of the passages in question is never the main thrust of Jesus’ utter- ances” (p. 12)? All of Jesus’ utterances must be accepted as they read. The force of the statement in its context is to affirm that the primary purpose of our Lord’s words is to awaken men from the death of sin to the life of sal- vation in His name. The statement does not question the truthfulness of any aspect of our Lord’s utterances. 8. The document states that “Jesus used the designa- tions of authorship employed by His people, without question and without comment” (p. 12). Does this mean that Jesus shared the assumptions of His time on this question, and if so, shouldn’t we too? There is little doubt that the Jews of Jesus’ day held to the Mosaic, Danielic, and I[saianic authorship of the books involved. Nor does Jesus ever indicate that His views on this matter differed from His contemporaries. We are bound to everything our sinless and omniscient Lord asserted since He is the eternal Word made flesh. Yet Jesus’ assertions of authorship are never so pre- cisely expressed that they must necessarily be extended to every word of the books in question. 9. Is it possible that some of Jesus’ references to Moses, Daniel, and Isaiah may be understood as referring primarily to the titles of Old Testament books or sections rather than as designations of authorship in the strict sense? Yes, this possibility must be acknowledged where it does not do violence to the text. However, where Jesus actually attributes authorship to these men (e. g., John 5: 46-47), that authorship must be acknowledged. 10. Doesn’t the document actually teach an accommoda- tion theory (p. 12, point 2) and thereby open a “Pan- dora’s box” whereby important teachings of Jesus can be explained away? This was certainly not our intention. In this para- graph, we had the possibility in mind that “Moses” or “Isaiah” might occasionally be “book titles,” and this is primarily what our terminology (“designations of au- thorship,” “designations of Biblical books”) had refer- ence to. Some might argue that a book title would be inaccurate or inadequate if it could be demonstrated that later editorial revisions had been made in the man- uscript written by the person named in the title. For ex- ample, they would regard it as inaccurate to refer to a dictionary as “Webster” if indeed someone had edited Webster’s original text. Our paragraph disagrees. It reckons with the possibility that something like this may have taken place with certain Old Testament books which continued to bear their author’s names. It argues, hypothetically. that even if it could be demonstrated that Jesus used such bvok titles, this usage would not involve Him (or anyone else) in error or deception. It would be no more erroneous than to speak of “sunrise” or “sunset,” even though, scientifically considered, the sun neither rises nor sets. Such a manner of speech is “accommodational,” but it is neither erroneous nor im- precise, nor does such speech in Holy Scripture lose its character as the inspired Word of God. Our church has long recognized this manner of speech in the Bible with- out opening a “Pandora’s box.” 11. Is there any evidence in the words of Jesus which supports the theory of multiple authorship of Old Testament books? No. 12. Why does the document not deal with current theo- ries of Old Testament authorship? Because these theories are not the subject of this study, which deals only with the words of Jesus and their implications for Old Testament authorship. These theories are being considered in connection with our continued study of other aspects of the authorship question. 13. Doesn’t the document overlook a great deal of evi- dence in both Old and New Testaments on the question of Old Testament authorship? As the Introductory Statement explains, this docu- ment limited its data to the words of Jesus because it was concerned chiefly with the Christological aspects of the authorship question. Other Biblical evidence is cur- rently being studied, and the results of this study too will be made available to the church. * * * * * * * * We hope that other questions and criticisms pertain- ing to the document can be answered in the light of the above explanations. Further comments and suggestions are invited and may be sent to the office of the Execu- tive Secretary, Dr. Richard Jungkuntz, 210 North Broad- way, St. Louis, Missouri 63102.