The Grammarian, XVII

Since we Lutherans are not accustomed to conducting our rites in Latin, nor are we under any obligation to do so, our use of the language tends to veer a bit from its sources at times. We don't need to be liturgically all that familiar with it, so we generally aren't, although here and there one can find Lutherans providing for at least an occasional use of a Latin rite.

One such instance of our unfamiliarity is seen in the occasional reference among Lutherans to the words of absolution as they are (presumably) heard in Latin.

The English, stripped to its bare essentials, is "I forgive you," the confessor acting in the stead of Christ, according to Jesus' mandate to the Apostles in St. John 20, "whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted," etc.

Hence, one would think, the Latin would be, simply, "Absolvo te," since "absolvo" is "I forgive."

Now class, can anyone tell me what the formula really is?

It is not, actually, "Absolvo te," but, according to the Roman Rite, a more emphatic "Ego te absolvo," the pronoun "ego" being voiced, although by the rules of Latin, it would not need to be. When it is, the subject is emphasized.

"Ego te absolvo" states the subject implied in "absolvo," namely, "I."

The "ego" is reminiscent of the "ego" commonly referenced in the Gospel of John, in all the "ego sum" sayings of Jesus: I am the Good Shepherd, I am the way, etc. Jesus is Himself the great I AM, as the Greek letters in the three rays of the nimbus in any icon of Jesus normally spell out.

Hence, for the confessor to say, "Ego te absolvo" is for him truly and most definitively to be Christ's own representative, speaking for Him here. Indeed, the "ego" in the statement may rightly be said to be Christ Himself, speaking through His representative.

Though we don't say it in Latin, it would certainly be helpful to think of the Latin origin of the pronouncement when we say it in English.

The Grammarian, XVI

Here's a tough one, boys and girls.

First, get out your Lutheran Hymnals. I don't have Lutheran Service Book ready at hand, so I don't know if they preserved the language or not, but in any case, we're going to have a look at the well-loved Charles Wesley Easter hymn, "Christ the Lord is Risen Today." It's #193 in TLH.

Now then.

Let's have a look at the fourth stanza, which in TLH is the last. It runs like this:

Hail the Lord of earth and heaven!
Praise to Thee by both be given!
Thee we greet triumphant now:
Hail, the resurrection Thou!


Now, here's a question for you: to whom does "Thou" in that last line refer?

It could be Jesus, of course, and since in our version it's capitalized, at least the editors thought so. Does anyone see why that might not be the case?

See, it's "Thou," not "Thee." Thou is subject, not object.

What this means is that perhaps it's meant to be written (i.e., edited) thus:

Hail, the resurrection, thou!

That is, a comma follows "resurrection" so that what we get when we parse the sentence and put things in a common order is this:

Hail thou the resurrection!


But there's another problem. Do you see it?

Look at line three:

"Thee we greet triumphant now:"

This would mean that if the number is matched, we might have had to render the fourth line grammatically as

Hail ye the resurrection!

Moreover, in the third line Christ ("Thee") is being addressed, so naturally we would attach the singular again to Him in the fourth line.

What this would mean is that Christ is being addressed as "the Resurrection Thou" in the fourth line, which seems to be adding a philosophical note to the hymn right at the end (Christ the Eternal Subject, rather as the great I AM, etc.)

That, however, seems a bit of a fremdkörper.

So what's the answer?

One needs to find the author's poetic license here, and the weight of selection seems to me to be on the side of "Hail thou the resurrection," thus:

Jesus, we greet you, triumphant now!
(aside, to the worshiper): Hail the resurrection!

In fact, I checked out some sites on this hymn. This site has it as I have suggested, putting 'thou' in lower case. Here is another site which does the same.

Interestingly, this one and this one change the lyrics to "Hail the Resurrection day" which doesn't even rhyme.

So it would seem that our esteemed TLH editors may have goofed, then, as I suspected. They either wanted to make of Mr. Wesley too much of a philosopher, or they got their thees and thous mixed up. And that is something thou shalt not do.

Here endeth the lesson.

The Grammarian, XV

Chaste and decent, if you please.

Just yesterday as I was teaching my young catechumens the meaning of "Thou shalt not commit adultery" it occurred to me (again) that I even had to be careful about how I explained this sin to them. The coarseness of our society has numbed our sense of decency even with regard to the way we talk about things we should not be doing.

The catechism's old explanation of this commandment indicated that we should "lead a chaste and decent life," but the newer (well, 1986) version altered it slightly thus: "lead a sexually pure and decent life," an unfortunate alteration. There's something untoward about parents and clergymen having to use the word "sexually" at all, particularly with younger children.

Whatever were they thinking? That "chaste" is too obscure? Or rather, too out of date. Precisely so: and we need to learn the meaning of chaste and decent lives, all over again, and it starts, boys and girls, at the level of word (i.e., what we say and do, in that order).

Over the years our culture has been increasingly sagging, by almost imperceptible increments. And in the church, we would do well to begin to retrace those steps and perhaps, bit by bit, begin to recover what we lost.

We could start, grammatically, by resisting the unnecessary use of provocative terms.

(which leads me to wonder, now just what am I supposed to do with the '86 catechism? 86 it, after all these years? There I go again, thinking too hard . . .)

The Grammarian, XIV

Today's lesson:

"This Is the Feast" is not the victim of bad grammar or shoddy theology.

Boys and girls, Rev. Lincoln Winter is absolutely right on this one, and I am pleased to throw my hat into his ring with kudos. I've been wanting to say something about this for years, and just never got around to it. Since he did it, I'll just recommend to your reading his recent post (click here). It's spot on, and expresses pretty much my exact sentiments. You can't go griping about the theology of This Is the Feast on the basis of the preposition ("of victory for [as opposed to of] our God."

What you can gripe about is its use as a replacement for the Greater Gloria, which many of our churches have provincially taken to doing, of all times, during Eastertide. Good grief, we had to observe the entire Lenten fast by omitting the Greater Gloria. Finally at the Easter vigil we get to begin regularly singing it again, and we ring the bells and let the organ rip. But some of you want to snatch it out of our mouths with "This Is the Feast."

Class, that's a hymn, not a canticle, in spite of the expressed intentions of its composer. To be sure, it's based on a canticle, viz., the Dignus Est Agnus, but that's really the nature of all hymns: they're based on something like a canticle or Biblical reference.

But as hymns go, it's not all that bad (although, truth be told, the melody is a bit sing-songy for me, in spite of my own proclivity for the melodic sound of some Anglican hymns), and, as Fr. Winter has pointed out, is theologically perfectly acceptable.

And those of you who have tried to "correct" the theology by replacing "for" with "of," are instructed to close your books at once, and go sit in the corner. Changing a few words of someone else's material to make it acceptable to you is not permitted, and is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of copyright laws. If you don't like something as it is, by all means don't use it, but you dasn't go twisting it to your whims. That is the very essence of "contemporary worship," and is right out.

Besides, as Fr. Winter has definitively pointed out, it turns out in this particular case that there's nothing at all wrong with the grammar or the theology.

Just don't go putting it or any other hymn where the song of the angels goes.

The Grammarian, XIII

In St. Luke 15:1-10 (the Gospel appointed for Trinity III), Jesus tells two parables. The first presents the image of a man who, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, leaves the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and goes after that which is lost, until he finds it; the second is of a woman with ten pieces of silver, who loses one piece, lights a candle, and sweeps the house, seeking diligently till she finds it.

Why do you suppose, boys and girls, that we have two parables here? Would not one suffice?

Well, let's see. The parables are very similar, yes; but who can tell me some differences?

The first has a man, the second, a woman.

Ah. Very important.

The first has sheep, the second, coins.

Right.

The first has a hundred, the second, ten.

Right again. Any others?

The man has more sheep than the woman has coins.

Very good.

And the rejoicing of the woman's friends is likened to that of angels.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. So perhaps we can draw some conclusions, then: the first parable speaks of the very thing Jesus Himself (a man) is doing here, eating with publicans and sinners. And the second? It is surely no accident that the Church is the Bride of Christ. And she carries out the same activity as He does, in each particular circumstance on a lesser scale -- as also ten is less than one hundred. And Jesus sees His people as sheep, while the Church sees His people also as having value (bought with His blood).

And best of all, the rejoicing of the Church with friends and neigbors, what is that? Surely, it is the Holy Mass, the Divine Liturgy of the Church, where, as we are reminded when we hear the Preface, with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify Christ's holy name. The Blessed Sacrament is the Feast of eternal joy.

Now, class, if you wish to do some extra credit, go home and find some other helpful points of comparison between these two parables.

The Grammarian, XII

By the way, the priesthood of all believers is not in the Bible.

The passage everyone loves to quote is this, from I Peter 2.9:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

Now it's evident that the "ye" here refers to the faithful of God, and that therefore they are "a royal priesthood." But the term "priesthood" here is collective, and it goes together with "royal" and also with "holy nation."

What you Synodical types have gone and done is to try to tap into this in such a way as to give a divine imprimatur to everything a congregational voters' assembly does. I think you need a lesson in grammar, to say nothing of your theology.

The Apostle is clearly exalting the status of the Church, as opposed to "them which stumble at the word, being disobedient," listed just prior to this verse. Contextually, he pours on these descriptions of the Church, to indicate thereby just what a great gift the grace of God has made her: a chosen generation, that is elect in Christ; royalty, that is, bound to the King of Kings; and a priesthood, that is, bound to Him who is our High Priest before God. This is why the Church is also an holy nation: holy in Christ; a peculiar people, separate from all people on earth, again, in Christ.

The entire context here is that of magnifying the grace of God which makes the Church the royal, priestly Queen of all Creation. And each descriptor is collective, that is, in the singular.

So, boys and girls, don't go blathering on about the priesthood of all believers as a license to make divine decrees by reason of your voters' assemblies, as though the majority in them somehow constituted the living voice of God. (In case you're wondering, the living voice of God is what comes out of Jesus' mouth, and out of the mouths of "holy men of God moved by the Holy Ghost," etc.)

The phrase you love to use, "all believers," is not there. The term "believers" would be plural, and would divide and individualize the Church; but it isn't there. Although the plural pronoun "ye" is used, it is at once related to a long string of collective terms. It is abundantly evident that this is a reference to a unified whole, the body of Christ; and Christ is also one.

There's no counting going on here, no rule by majority. The Church is one, because Christ is one. He rules His Church, by His grace.

So don't go misusing the Bible, and remember your grammar.

The Grammarian, XI

What's up with all the use of literally on the news?

This is literally driving me crazy. There are literally hundreds of times I hear every week in which newscasters abuse this word. It's literally everywhere. I am literally lying awake nights wondering if they have anyone screening their broadcasts for them, and saying that they use the word literally literally more than any other word. It's literally insane. Go ahead, turn on the news tonight, and I literally guarantee you that if you find some "breaking news" event on the national scene, you'll find some reporters or reporterettes literally breathless from having literally arrived at the scene seconds ago, saying something like "there are literally of people who have lost their homes here in southern California." Somebody tell them. I'm literally about to burst . . .

Seriously, boys and girls, let's remember that the proper use of language is a very good thing, because language is a gift from Almighty God. Now, let's always be careful that we don't condemn people for using bad grammar, of course, or even think poorly of them for doing so, as that would be bad manners (and a worse offense than bad grammar). But we ourselves should always strive for excellence in speech.

And I think we can be allowed to expect it of our newscasters too. People listen to them every night. Literally.

The Grammarian, X

The heart of Chaplain Jonathan Shaw's presentation at our Octoberfest seminar on Monday was the suggestion of a radical realignment of thinking regarding the meaning of "This do in remembrance of me." His research has shown that the common sense of the meaning as "do this in order to remember me" is fundamentally not sufficient. Rather, remembering in this grammatical construction is something which is primarily seen in the Scriptures as having to do with God. God remembers His covenant, His promise, His people, etc. Hence, "This do in remembrance of me," may also properly be translated "this do in my remembrance" or "this do for my remembrance" may be understood therefore as meaning something like "this do so that I will remember you," or "this do so that God will remember you," or (here's my vote) "this do so that God will remember me."

During the discussion, I found myself thinking primarily of the Passover, and of the link to it provided in the Words of Institution, "this is the New Testament in my blood. The term "my," as Chaplain Shaw pointed out convincingly, is emphatic here. That is, therefore, to paraphrase, "this is no longer the [Passover meal] of the Old Testament; rather it is the Meal of the New Testament; it is not in the blood of the Passover lamb, but it is in my own blood. In essence, He is saying here, "I am the Passover's fullfillment. The Passover blood is my own. It marks your door. The angel of death will pass over your house in the eschaton, the Last Day.

Hence, my own take on "this do in remembrance of me" is something like this: "This do so that in the Final Judgment the Avenging Angel will see my blood marking your door (the door of your lips, cf. Psalm 141), remember my sacrifice, and pass over your house."

Do not celebrate seder meals at your church. Celebrate the Mass instead. The seder is done. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.

The Grammarian, IX

Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. - St. Matthew 23:12

We note, class, that there is no exception to the rule here: Whosoever means anyone, everyone, all who exalt themselves -- these shall be abased. Even those who thought they did pretty well at humbling themselves in response to this little logion. Hah! Condemned and guilty are we all.

But now look carefully at the second part, which does not say "whosoever shall humble himself . . ."

What does it say, boys and girls? "He that . . ." See? It's a simple singular pronoun. There is only One who has truly humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. And by His stripes we are healed.

Hat tip: Pr. H. R. Curtis (Trinity Lutheran Church, Worden, IL; Zion Lutheran Church, Carpenter, IL

The Grammarian, VIII

I've always wanted to ask this: Just what is a Concordia Self-Study Bible, anyway? Yeah, I know it's a Bible with study notes in it so that you can study the Bible on your own, by yourself. But wouldn't such a Bible be better called a Concordia Bible with Notes? or with Study Guide?

OK, class, let us look at the grammar here: self-study can mean, according to the dictionary, either the study of something by oneself or the study of oneself. Granted, the former is likely meant by the designation, but now, who can tell me what we know about phases which can have two meanings? . . .

That it's all right as long as there is no ambiguity presented by the context. What about the Concordia Self-Study Bible, then? No problem, you say? Well actually, the first person I asked to tell me what he thought it meant said something about using the Bible to study oneself! Aha! Ambiguity!

Therefore, I wonder: perhaps the the Concordia Self-Study Bible was so designated to indicate any of the following:

1) that with it you can study the Bible by yourself
2) (corollary) that without it you could not study the Bible by yourself
3) (another corollary) that it is the notes which are the big thing in this Bible
4) that with it you can learn to study yourself, and find out about yourself
5) that it is Bible meant especially for people engaged in the practice of "self-study"
5) that it is an amazing book which actually studies itself, and doesn't need to be opened
6) that it is a Bible which contains studies of the word "self"
Let's see, have we left any meanings out? . . .

The Grammarian, VII

I think we need to adopt a new rule: After seven prominent uses, any shortcut you use to speak theologically must give way to another way of saying the same. Clichés are the cheap way out.

To be sure, sometimes slogans can be helpful, in other contexts. But in theology, clichés gloss over the word of the Living God. This is bad, and it must stop.

I might put up with your talk about law and Gospel once or twice. That's it. Now find a different way to say it, will you? And not like some less inventive minds who have already found a different way: they have even shortened the shortcut to law/gospel, which when spoken aloud sounds like they've developed a new word: lawgospel. They'll speak of lawgospel preaching, and lawgospel sermons. Uggh . . .

Or justification by faith. Oh, do you like that one? Fine, I believe in it too. Now go find another way to say it, if you please. Luther did, you know. Just where in the small catechism does he ever say justification by faith, even once?

Or word and sacrament. Or Bible and Confessions. Or Scripture alone.

Or catholicity.

Or catechesis.

Or incarnational (often badly misused).

Or orthodox.

Or priesthood of all believers.

Or confessional (this ought to be a reference to a room where confessions are heard).

Or how about this one, by no means a shortcut, but used as often: "by the power of God working through the Gospel." I have a particular distaste for this. It's as though some canon lawyer went through the lines of your sermon looking for places to plant that phrase, thinking it would keep the devil away.

Imagine what life would have been like had Jesus used clichés. Oh wait, don't imagine that, it'd be sacrilege. Speaking of Jesus' preaching, if you're a preacher who finds preaching a difficult chore, I recommend you spend more time immersed in the kind of speach He uses, and the language of the Psalter, and of all the Sacred Scriptures. And then go and read some of the Fathers. No clichés there either.

Just stop with them. The Bible has no use for clichés, and neither should your hearers.

The Grammarian, VI

The Lucan account of Jesus and the Ten Lepers is coming up a couple of times within the next few months, first on a Sunday in two or three weeks, and second on Thanksgiving (in the historic pericopes). One element of this account in St. Luke 17:11-17 which ought never be overlooked is the crafty use of pronouns by the evangelist. To wit, this part, in which I have highlighted the pronouns to which I am referring:

"And one of [the lepers], when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?"

It has always amazed me that so many English translations supply the word "Jesus'" in place of that pronoun "his." Evidently they figured, that's what is intended here. But that's not what it says. The KJV and others, to their credit, leave it as is; which means that if one pays careful attention, he sees that the referent of "his" is "God," viz., "with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks." And this, in turn, gives us insight into Jesus' response to this man: "There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger." While the other nine may have thought they glorified God in another way, likely the errant way given them by the priests to whom they went (Jesus' sworn enemies), Jesus Himself makes it clear that they did not, in fact do so. Only the one who returned and gave thanks at Jesus' feet. Our helpful evangelist has also deftly informed us that this Jesus, at whose feet the man fell, is God.

The Grammarian, V

The Old Testament for this morning's mass is another instance of the superiority of the KJV (from whose subservience Fr Petersen reportedly remains on the lam). The Aaronic Blessing reads, "The Lord bless thee and keep thee, etc." Thee, not you. A little lesson in King's English grammar reminds us that "ye" and "you" are plural, while "thee" and "thou" are singular, and there are no exceptions to this rule. Modern translations all blur this distinction, because, of course, modern English in general has abandoned the distinctions between singular and plural in the second person. The pericope from Deuteronomy indicates that these words are to be spoken to the children of Israel; nevertheless it is "thee" not "you."

So the question arises: why?

And the answer is: Israel is addressed as one here, the son of Isaac. One nation, one people, one person. Ultimately for the people of Christ, upon whom the ends of the ages has come, this means that we who are many are one body in Christ, indeed one body of Christ.

Especially is this manifest to us who have just partaken in the Body of Christ at the altar. Hence, the Aaronic benediction is reserved only for mass, and not for prayer offices. It hearkens first to the solidarity of Israel as one son of Isaac, who is the only-begotten son of promise (Ishmael doesn't count, remember); and it hearkens ultimately to the fulfillment of this in Christ the only-begotten Son of God.

At Mass, the body of Christ feeds on the Body of Christ: Holy things for holy people, as the Greeks traditionally say.

All this is succinctly put in the grammatical singular: The Lord bless thee.

The Grammarian, IV

My previous post could actually have been listed under "The Grammarian," so for the sake of referencing, I'm going to include it under the same by way of cross referencing. Two items have surfaced in that St. Matthew 16 passage. The first is that it is to Peter alone (unto thee) the keys are promised, and the second is that it is future tense, as Fr Curtis has pointed out, meaning that he actually gets the keys when all the apostles are ordained.

If, however, I had first included this under The Grammarian, then I probably wouldn't have posted that cool picture of the first pope with the keys in his hands.

The Grammarian, III.

The Epistle appointed for the Third Sunday after Trinity is from 1 Peter 3. It was read in our church just tonight, since the Nativity of St. John the Baptist last Sunday displaced the propers for Trinity III.

Here are some of its words: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world" (KJV).

Now I admit to being partial to the King James Version, but when it comes to this particular passage, if you're using the KJV it is essential that you understand the grammar. "Whom" is object, not subject. It is a reference to "the devil," not to "whom he may devour." That is, in this particular passage, "whom" does not refer back to "whom"; its prior referent is not "whom" but "he," the devil. One would think this an easy thing for a pastor to understand; for even if he has difficulty with the grammatical construction here, he may consult the Greek. The case of the pronoun is dative, which in the case of the verb "antistemi (resist)" is the object. It says, simply, Resist him.

Yet I do remember a time many years ago when I heard an entire sermon on this verse wrongly parsed, in which the preacher based his whole point on the notion that the devil seeks especially to devour those who resist him firm in the faith. The preacher made his case from these words: he said that on the basis of this reading, the people the devil really seeks to devour are those who resist him, above anyone else he seeks to devour. Well, that may or may not be true, but sorry, you can't say that on the basis of this reading. That isn't what it says. It's "whom," not "who."

Let the preacher beware: consider the case, always. And you don't even need the Greek to do that.

The Grammarian, II.

Recently I read a review by Gilbert Meilander of a new translation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Discipleship, i.e., his classic more commonly known under the title of its older translation, The Cost of Discipleship. Meilander's beef against the obsession of the new translator with being gender-neutral toward God is right on the mark. Not only does it raise serious questions about how one views God; it also ruins the language. So in this case, the ruin of the language is all in service to a rejection of the Biblical depiction of God as Father and Son, and even of the Holy Spirit as He. When God visited Abraham and Sarah, it was in the form of three men.. Most significantly of all, Jesus is quite undeniably Man. But to return to the Grammarian's point in this, it's also degrading of the English language; and anything which degrades the language is just another, if subtle, attack on the Word of God; for if the language we speak suffers, especially when referring to God, then the Word of God comes under assault. Churches worried about offending feminists have bought into this nonsense and, as Meilander documents well with regard to the Bonhoeffer translation, are attacking beauty in language. I've heard some of this jarring omission of pronouns in their references to God, and it's worse than fingernails on a blackboard. It's just goofy to think you can get away with not ever using a pronoun when referring to the Creater. The reasoning, I suppose, is that any prounoun is at least as phonetically long as the vocable god, so why not just always use the latter? But what you get is a clumsy repetition, as, for instance, in this: God is in God's holy temple; God is on God's heavenly throne." The feminists are ruining the English language, to say nothing of virtually everything else they get their hands on. As the title of Meilander's piece puts it, "Enough of God."

The Grammarian, I.

In the interest of bucking up the English language, I herewith launch a new occasional blog label, "The Grammarian." But fear not, ye grammatically challenged! I shall begin with a mea culpa: My own grammar in the previous post was fundamentally flawed. Can you see where? Behold the title, "A Prayer for Mother's Day." Now this is a bit tricky, because one could conceivably mean to call the second Sunday in May the day set aside for "mother," in which case the placing of the apostrophe would be proper, that is, as "mother's," that which pertains to mother. On reflection, however, it would appear that the day is meant to honor mothers, plural, and is therefore more properly called "Mothers' Day."

Thus I begin this blogging branch on my own error, and seek to build up rather than to tear down. Good grammar begets good manners. It also does wonders for sermons.

So, for starters, let us all agree to the following points:

One does not lay down to rest, unless he indicates what he is to lay down. Otherwise he lies down to rest.

One does not say, "I could have came," unless he is perhaps pondering how nice it would be to have a stained glass window in his foyer, with its grooved bars of came, the lead used to hold the pieces of glass in place.

Heighth is not a word.

One ought never pour over a document, because then it would get all wet. But some documents are well worthy of poring over.

One does not refer to himself as "myself" unless he is the subject of the sentence. To illustrate, it would be incorrect for me to say, "This grammarian blog is good for myself as well as for others." No, "it would be good for me." But then, it would be correct to use the reflexive pronoun thus: "I have written this blog for myself as well as for others."

One does not say "literally" unless he really means it.

OK, that's enough for starters. Be advised: The Grammarian is on the prowl.