# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S388
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[p. 388]

Appendix C.

Response letter of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri,
Ohio, and Other States, to the letter submitted to it by the Rev. Pastor
C. J. Gruber of Paitzdorf, Perry County, Mo., concerning Chiliasm.

Reverend, beloved brother in the Lord!

In response to the letter you sent us regarding Chiliasm and related
matters, we briefly reply as follows, in Christian love:

When you, reverend brother, state to us that you had recognized from
Luther's writings — particularly from his preface to Daniel — that the
prophetic word is disclosed to the Church part by part, according to its
need, and that therefore no traditional exegesis of the prophetic word can
take place unless we wish to draw near to the papist system of doctrine,
we must, as a Synod, protest against this and testify with the utmost
earnestness that such a representation of the matter does a crying
injustice both to the blessed Luther and to ourselves. For Luther by no
means says, as it might appear from your letter, that light concerning
the prophets comes gradually through speculation and reflection, or that
human effort can fathom out new mysteries from Scripture. His clearly
stated opinion is rather that prophecy receives its proper, full light and
understanding only through its fulfillment, and not through
self-undertaken research into it. It is certain that the forward progress
of the kingdom of God on earth discloses to us, bit by bit, much that was
formerly a mystery; and the more God reveals to us through fulfillment
that has already occurred, the clearer the fulfilled prophecies become to
us. But if we wish to peer into the darkness of the future, we act against
the Lord's express command. When, therefore, Luther, with regard to
understanding the prophecy of future events, speaks at the cited passage
of a "Noah," he means to say: as long as we have no illumination other
than a mediate one (from Scripture), we shall never hit upon the correct
interpretation of unfulfilled prophecies; if, then, these are to become
manifest to us before their final fulfillment, God must send a Noah. But
Noah was not a man mediately illuminated, but a prophet, and we must take
great care not to regard ourselves as such.

If you, beloved brother, further bring against us the indirect but grave
charge that we wish to bind consciences by a "traditional interpretation,"
we would like to ask you with urgent earnestness: where have we, as a
Synod, ever done this? In the resolutions of the Western District Synod
(and these alone can be under consideration here) there is not a single
word about any interpretation. We must recognize this reproach as a grave
accusation against us, and therefore decidedly demand that you either
prove it to us or withdraw it. On the contrary, the interpretation of
Revelation 20 hypothetically put forward by the District Synod is
anything but the traditional one — rather it is the peculiar view of a
few Lutheran theologians. — We have indeed wished to bind consciences, and
still wish to do so; but with God's Word, with nothing else, with no
traditional interpretation of any kind whatsoever. We therefore reject
this accusation