# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1928_S16
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

16 Proceedings of the thirty-first convention

but he does not will to do so in a manner that would violate his righteousness
and would therefore be contrary to his nature. Therefore, in immeasurable love,
he let his Son become our High Priest, who satisfies his righteousness and at
the same time also carries out what his goodness aims at: the rescue of the
human race. Luther says: "Although our sin is now reckoned to us by God purely
out of grace, he has nevertheless not been willing to do this unless his Law and
his righteousness were first satisfied entirely and more than enough. Such
gracious reckoning had first to be purchased and obtained for us from his
righteousness."

The grounds against the Bible doctrine of Jesus' work just examined therefore
fall away quickly on closer scrutiny. An objection of a different kind is that
Christ did not portray himself as High Priest and that therefore this doctrine
cannot claim our acceptance. It is often said that Jesus' teaching is contained
chiefly in the so-called synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. John, it is
said, added much of his own; his Gospel cannot be regarded as a completely
correct presentation of Jesus' preaching. Now, in the writings of Matthew, Mark
and Luke there is nothing, it is said, of Jesus' work as our High Priest who
reconciles us with God. It is admitted that this doctrine stands in the Bible,
namely in Paul. But it is said that Paul took this matter over from ancient
Judaism into Christianity, to its great harm; Jesus himself taught nothing of
the kind. Thus one speaks, in a blasphemous manner, of a Jewish-Pauline
doctrine of reconciliation.

It is a terrible judgment that has come upon the people who speak thus, who
know the Bible doctrine well, even admit that it stands in Scripture, but then
do not accept it and want to shield themselves with the claim that Jesus did
not set forth this doctrine. They should consider that Paul did not preach his
own doctrine but the Gospel that he had received from Jesus himself. Further,
they are in great error if they think that Jesus himself had said nothing of
his work as our Reconciler and Mediator. Let us follow them onto their own
ground, namely into the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The unprejudiced
reader must admit that our doctrine is indeed recorded there. Jesus says, as we
read in Mark 10:45: "For the Son of man also is not come that he should be
served, but that he should serve and give his life as a payment for many."
Here the doctrine of Jesus as our High Priest, who gives his life as payment
for us, is set forth in a most glorious, comforting way. That the name High
Priest is not used does not detract from the power and clarity of this
testimony. Further, our Savior says when he institutes the Lord's Supper:
"This is my body, which is given for you. This is my blood of the New
Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." That he goes
into death for his disciples and sheds his blood for them is clearly said by
this. And this lies further in the words that by his dying he establishes a
new testament, a new covenant, that is, a new covenant between them and God.
How could he have described his mediatorship, his sin-atoning work, more
definitely and more beautifully? This objection of the opponents, which is
pushed to the fore a good deal precisely in our time, therefore amounts to
nothing.

There is yet another argument that we should not pass over in silence, because
it is much talked of nowadays. That is