Walther’s Translator Got It Wrong (And Gerhardt Was Close) [Yes, I updated the title.]

May 1st, 2012 Post by

Christ is the victor, not Satan.

There is one Easter hymn in Lutheran Service Book that should absolutely never be sung. Unfortunately for the LCMS, the hymn was written by her first president.

LSB 480, “He’s Risen, He’s Risen”

1. He’s risen, He’s risen, Christ Jesus, the Lord;
He opened death’s prison, the incarnate, true Word.
Break forth, hosts of heaven, in jubilant song
And earth, sea, and mountain their praises prolong.

2. The foe was triumphant when on Calvary
The Lord of creation was nailed to the tree.
In Satan’s domain did the hosts shout and jeer,
For Jesus was slain, whom the evil ones fear.

3. But short was their triumph; the Savior arose,
And death, hell, and Satan He vanquished, His foes.
The conquering Lord lifts His banner on high;
He lives, yes, He lives, and will nevermore die.

4. O, where is your sting, death? We fear you no more;
Christ rose, and now open is fair Eden’s door.
For all our transgressions His blood does atone;
Redeemed and forgiven, we now are His own.

5. Then sing your hosannas and raise your glad voice;
Proclaim the blest tidings that all may rejoice.
Laud, honor, and praise to the Lamb that was slain:
With Father and Spirit He ever shall reign.

Stanza one is actually pretty good. It’s a bold proclamation of the resurrection. Jesus is alive. Death is defeated. Let’s praise God. Great.

But stanza two is a complete rejection of the Word of God. “The foe was triumphant when on Calvary”? In what way was the foe “triumphant”? If I recall the Gospel readings from Lent this last year in Series B of the Three-Year Lectionary, we heard repeatedly that “it is necessary for the Son of Man to be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and the third day rise again” (cf. Mark 8:31 from Lent 2; John 2:18 from Lent 3; John 3:14 from Lent 4; Mark 10:33-34 from Lent 5). To say that Calvary was the moment of triumph for the foe is to declare that Christ was not supposed to go to the cross; but rather that the Devil somehow managed to trick Him into doing something apart from His divine will. The resurrection, then, is simply correcting the mistake of the crucifixion.

Furthermore, at Christ’s death there were all the signs: the curtain tearing, the earthquakes, the dead rising (Matthew 27:51-52).  The foe would not have seen these and thought, “Oh, hey, I just won!”

That absolutely flies in the face of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The cross was not a mistake. The cross was not the victory for the foe. The cross was the victory of Jesus Christ! The Devil would have prevented Christ from going to the cross had he been able.

And if that’s not bad enough, look at how he expounds upon this point throughout the rest of the stanza. “In Satan’s domain did the hosts shout and jeer”? Where in Scripture does it ever speak of the crucifixion in terms such as these? And he even continues this thought at the start of stanza three.

Stanzas four and five do get us back on track, with four drawing us to the burial rite where we proclaim victory over death and five being an ascription of praise which ties us back to Palm Sunday.

But even if stanzas two and three were removed, I still would not want anyone singing this hymn, at least not as it is given to us in LSB. For in addition to having a poor text, this hymn also has a terrible melody. That is to say, we should not be singing hymns to the tune of “Oh, My Darling, Clementine.” Had you ever noticed that before? Go look at it. It’s there. That’s the melody for the entire first verse (please note that there is a difference between the term “verse” and the term “stanza”). There are four other melodies in LSB that follow the same meter (11 11 11 11), but only one of them would be appropriate to use as a substitute. The melodies for “Away in a Manger” would not work, nor would the melody for “How Firm a Foundation.” However, the melody for “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise” would be acceptable. So if we could eliminate the two stanzas of false doctrine and change the melody, this would actually be an acceptable hymn to sing. Until that time, however, it should be stricken from our hymnals.

Now, I mentioned Gerhardt. Gerhardt comes very close to treading down the same path as Walther in his hymn, “Awake My Heart with Gladness” (LSB 467).

1. Awake, my heart, with gladness,
See what today is done;
Now, after gloom and sadness,
Comes forth the glorious sun.
My Savior there was laid
Where our bed must be made
When to the realms of light
Our spirit wings its flight.

2. The foe in triumph shouted
When Christ lay in the tomb;
But lo, he now is routed,
His boast is turned to gloom.
For Christ again is free;
In glorious victory
He who is strong to save
Has triumphed o’er the grave.

3. This is a sight that gladdens—
What peace it doth impart!
Now nothing ever saddens
The joy within my heart.
No gloom shall ever shake,
No foe shall ever take
The hope which God’s own Son
In love for me has won.

4. Now hell, its prince, the devil,
Of all their pow’r are shorn;
Now I am safe from evil,
And sin I laugh to scorn.
Grim death with all its might
Cannot my soul affright;
It is a pow’rless form,
Howe’er it rave and storm.

5. The world against me rages,
Its fury I disdain;
Though bitter war it wages,
Its work is all in vain.
My heart from care is free,
No trouble troubles me.
Misfortune now is play,
And night is bright as day.

6. Now I will cling forever
To Christ, my Savior true;
My Lord will leave me never,
Whate’er He passes through.
He rends death’s iron chain;
He breaks through sin and pain;
He shatters hell’s grim thrall;
I follow Him through all.

7. He brings me to the portal
That leads to bliss untold,
Whereon this rhyme immortal
Is found in script of gold:
“Who there My cross has shared
Finds here a crown prepared;
Who there with Me has died
Shall here be glorified.”

As with Walther, the verse in question comes in stanza two: “The foe in triumph shouted when Christ lay in the tomb.” Again, this is not quite accurate. The foe wanted to prevent Christ from going to the cross.

The difference between Gerhardt and Walther, however, is that Walther attributes the cross as victory to the foe. Gerhardt merely presents the foe as thinking he was triumphant, when it fact he never was. The latter is still not entirely accurate, but it is a much more defensible theological statement than Walther’s (for it could be argued that the foe thought he was triumphant seeing as he is the one who entered into Judas to have him betray Christ, Luke 22:3). And considering Gerhardt’s history, he is granted a bit broader poetic license in his hymns. As with Walther’s hymn, this one stanza could be removed if one’s conscience were so convicted, though it would not be necessary as it would with Walther’s hymn.

But again, we see from how the demons reacted to Christ (cf. Mark 5:7; Luke 4:34) that they wanted nothing to do with Him. They knew why He had come for they knew who He was. They knew what His purpose was. Satan knew the prophecy of Genesis 3:15. He knew that his defeat and His victory were at hand. So there was not a moment of victory for Satan–actual or perceived–upon the cross.  Christ’s is the victory; and yours is the prize!






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Monster Cable
    May 2nd, 2012 at 10:19 | #1

    T. R. Halvorson :
    I must agree with the author of this article about Stanza 2.
    Triumph does not happen on the battlefield. Triumph occurs after victory in battle when the conqueror parades the defeated behind his chariot. The triumph is the victory parade. In that sense, the stanza could be saying something right, since the crowds to whom it says Jesus was made a spectacle are Satan’s own hosts who shout and jeer. At least the stanza is looking at the parade aspect rather than some battlefield aspect of the word triumph, which is right.

    Yeah, maybe if the meaning of the word “triumph” hasn’t changed since ancient Rome.

    What a bunch of pedants on this site.

  2. Peter Elliott
    May 2nd, 2012 at 11:27 | #2

    Some verses to consider:

    Genesis 3:14-15
    Luke 22:2-4
    Psalm 22:6-8
    Psalm 2:1-12
    1 Corinthians 2:6-8

    [I do agree that we always need to check ourselves to make sure we're preaching the Scriptures and not our own speculation.]

  3. mbw
    May 2nd, 2012 at 11:51 | #3

    @Rev. Scott Hojnacki #62

    > I’m inclined to give Walther the benefit of the doubt

    Always a good idea. I have surprisingly encountered some fairly young pastors who seem to have been instructed AGAINST this. I had presumed that any MO confessional would respect him, but now I know that this is not true.

  4. mbw
    May 2nd, 2012 at 11:53 | #4

    @Rev. Scott Hojnacki #62

    > unnecessarily harshly

    I guess there could be a valid reason to start undermining Walther from within conservative circles, but I don’t know what that would be. If there was a recent generation that overly bowed to him through ignorance, they’re definitely dying off. If Walther is not the preeminent MO church father, who is (attempts to rehabilitate Stefan don’t count) ?

  5. mbw
    May 2nd, 2012 at 12:26 | #5

    Since Walther is clearly portraying what one prof. might call a “Newtonian” view of events on the ground – a view that is not unScriptural at all in and of itself – are we really talking about the balance of emphasis on Easter Sunday vs Good Friday? There’s no conflict.

  6. May 2nd, 2012 at 12:42 | #6

    Death is bad. Death is the devil’s thing – not God’s thing (Heb. 2:14 and others). It is the devil who rejoices over death. Death is his triumph, as Walther rightly points out.

  7. mbw
    May 2nd, 2012 at 13:43 | #7

    Steven Anderson :
    Death is bad. Death is the devil’s thing – not God’s thing (Heb. 2:14 and others). It is the devil who rejoices over death. Death is his triumph, as Walther rightly points out.

    Of course the greater point is that God conquered death through this suffering and Death. But it does not nullify what you have said. It would be wrong to pit these against each other.

  8. May 2nd, 2012 at 15:16 | #8

    Of course, which “foe” Walther meant is also open. If it was death, then the stanza confesses that Jesus died. Period. If sin, death, and Devil are taken as a collective foe, Jesus still died. The foe won. Fight a fight that’s worth fighting.

  9. May 2nd, 2012 at 15:32 | #9

    @Monster Cable #63

    That the meaning of a word used in Scripture might have changed in common parlance centuries later does not control it use at the time of its use in Scripture. If we read our newer use of a term back into the Scriptures, that is eisegesis, not exegesis. To read the Sciptural term according to its use when inscribed in Scripture is exegesis, not pedantics.

  10. May 2nd, 2012 at 21:21 | #10

    Nice provacative post Josh. Thanks!

    Concerning the tune, in the hands of a trained organist, the lilt of this hymn is a wonderful blessing. Traditional, liturgical Lutheranism is best seen as authentic which means it embraces many different styles of music, even including some COWO stuff. The LSB is an incredible expression of the breadth of music that is embraced by authentic Lutheran worship. There are traditional Chinese, African, Taize, Reformation, ancient chant, contemproary chant, styles, and others represented. This is a blessing, not a problem.

    Concerning questions of editorial review, Joshua Scheer and I do not limit posts to things that he and I support 100%. We believe there is plenty of room for dialogue and debate.

  11. mbw
    May 2nd, 2012 at 21:40 | #11

    @Pastor Tim Rossow #73

    > Concerning questions of editorial review, Joshua Scheer and I do not limit posts to things that he and I support 100%. We believe there is plenty of room for dialogue and debate.

    Understood. Thank you for providing this forum.

  12. Tim Schenks
    May 3rd, 2012 at 01:07 | #12

    Pr. Osbun, is “He’s Risen!” sung by your congregation? If not, did they stop using it upon your advice, urging or insistence?

    My congregation sings this hymn several times each Easter season, partly at my own recommendation. I ask my pastor to use it every year.

    If another thread gets deleted on this blog, I’d vote that this be one of them.

  13. Joanne
    May 3rd, 2012 at 02:17 | #13

    Satan is an angel, most likely an archangel. Angels do not have the attributes of God; I like to remind myself that they can’t hear my thoughts like Jesus can. We must know that Satan is a created being under the complete control of God. Satan only knows what God lets him know. The 3 temptations of Christ by the Devil clearly indicate that Satan has no idea with whom he is dealing. God manipulates Satan into doing his will as when he gave Judas the morsel and put Satan into Judas, setting up the beginning of the whole end game. Like us, Satan may think he has free will; he does not. Satan may think he is good at reasoning and acting logically and in his own best interest. Sometimes yes; sometimes no. To think that Satan was in control of events after the morsel, is to think that Pharoah was in control when Moses first appeared before him. In Job we can see that God still had regard for and communicated with Satan, as the Allmighty, really in control can allow on occassion. But, Moses must lift up the serpent in the desert; Abraham must pull his sacrificial knife on his only son; And the Son of God must be lifted up to draw all men to himself. And must we think that Satan understood any of this any more than we do? Did God hold special counsels with Satan about his detailed plan of Salvation? Satan believed in the power of death and was the Lord of Death, are we sure he knew he was going to be defeated by death? And what he and his menions did know, did they understand it, did they know the full plan? Why would created beings know God’s whole plan when he needed their cooperation in fulfilling it? Might they stupidly think that Jesus’ death meant victory, sure. Might they have rejoiced before they realized they had just precisely managed their own defeat? They could. Sometimes liars begin to believe their own lies, especially if it fits God’s purpose.
    I’ve never cared for the tune of Walther’s hymn. It’s a rather typical 19th century camp song tune; though I too have nerver heard Clementine in it, nor even heard the accusation. The words I’d never looked at so closely as tonight. Like so many Lutheran hymns translated into English 100 years ago, they need some lyrical work to bring the Lutheran ideas clearly out of them.

  14. Rev. Don Kirchner
    May 3rd, 2012 at 05:17 | #14

    I think that “The Foe was triumphant when on Calvary…” for a more literal “The Fiend triumphed when on Golgatha…” preserves the clear Lutheran ideas in this wonderful hymn that Lutherans have been joyously singing for over 100 years.

    But if one wishes to lyrically re-work it to “The Foe was high-fiving when on Calvary…” to pacify those who think that some Lutheran lyrics are somewhat archaic and, therefore, unclear, well, okay.

  15. Old Time St. John’s
    May 3rd, 2012 at 07:12 | #15

    But the fact that the Devil knew Who Jesus was does not prove that he knew what Jesus’ plan was.

  16. Tom Olson
    May 3rd, 2012 at 08:34 | #16

    Josh, Walther was probably just expounding on Jesus’ words in John 16:20, “You yourselves will weep and wail, but the world will rejoice.” Imagine the party Caiaphas had that night. He thought he had just saved himself and the nation by eliminating his Enemy Jesus of Nazareth and strangely he had. An agent of God unwillingly, he also served himself (and Satan?). The question remains whether Satan was in any way allowed to get his hands on Jesus the way he did on Job, and whether along the way he got any satisfaction out of it the way Caiaphas no doubt did, before the judgment came crashing down on him (the ruler of the world is judged!). There is the question of the relation between what happens in time and in eternity in this regard.
    Even so, Walther may also have had Luke 22:52-53 in view, “Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, ‘Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.’” I guess one could deduce that those wielding the “power of darkness” would rejoice in their use of it and its apparent success.
    Like you I want no one ever to get the wrong impression that the cross was a triumph for Satan. You have made me examine more closely some of the words of Scripture and their meaning more carefully. Thanks.

  17. helen
    May 3rd, 2012 at 10:37 | #17

    @Pastor Walter Snyder #71

    Hi, Pr. Snyder! Been missing you!
    (I was telling someone about the Serbin ‘retreat’ only last week.)
    Helen

  18. Rev. David Mueller
    May 3rd, 2012 at 16:00 | #18

    Josh, you haven’t dealt with what I said–regarding the “reality” of the devil’s victory at the cross being precisely how Christ turned the devil against himself, death against itself. The devil’s fall was his desire and attempt to murder God, overthrow Him. And here, through Jesus’ flesh, he had done precisely that. *That* is certainly a “triumph”. *Our* sin is nothing more and nothing less than the desire and attempt to murder God, too. And the amazing thing about the Cross is that God uses precisely our “victory” in doing that to accomplish our salvation. Read the Gospels again–why do the Chief Priests want Jesus dead? Because He is God. they *say* it’s because “He *said* he is the King of the Jews”. But man crucifies Jesus precisely because He *is* God in the flesh. The language in the trial accounts is actually rather stunning in this regard.

    Sin is utter irrationality–it is anti-Logos. Therefore, to argue that it wouldn’t make any sense for the devil to want Jesus crucified is not a convincing argument to prove that he didn’t. You are operating with a “reason/rationality” that is independent of The Reason/Logos.

    This is the mystery of the Incarnation and the Cross.

  19. Joanne
    May 3rd, 2012 at 16:03 | #19

    No omnicience, no omnipresence, no omnipotence, etc., a pathological liar Satan is out in the wilderness, and he approaches a starving Jesus. Satan sees what he sees, a weakend, vulnerable man who might just be ready to make a deal; he’s heard he might be the Messiah and might have special powers. Had we been watching this on a security camera, we’d have seen the same thing Satan saw. If you are the Son of God, Satan challenges. He’s heard the buzz that perhaps this pathetic, starving man might be the Son of God; so now Satan thinks he can temp him into revealing himself right then and right there to Satan himself, because he wants to know, to be sure that this is the Messiah, or not. “Maybe I can turn, temp him to my way?” the fool thinks in his heart. But we do know that this is God, the Word of God, and Lord of Creation.
    So we hear these very earthly, paltry “temptations” that Satan offers. Turn that stone into a loaf of bread (or a child of Abraham). Jesus quotes scripture to Satan just as we might. I’ll take you up to a high place, show you all the kingdoms of the world and give them all to you if you worship me. And Jesus says, “Oh that’s not necessary Satan, I can see all the kingdoms of the earth from right here, I made them, and I own them. You lie when you say you can give them to me. I am omnipotent, you are not.” Was Satan lying when he claimed all the authority and glory had been given to him? Some had called Satan the prince and ruler of this world. Is God sharing his authority and glory with a failed angel? Hardly makes any earthly sense.
    Then this thing about jumping off the top of the temple in Jerusalem. Satan says if you jump off that precipice the Bible says that the good angels will come to protect you from hurting yourself. Do it and let’s see what happens (you fake). The creator of the earth, gravity, rocks, Angels, and Satan himself replies as before by quoting scripture, as he does with each temptation, don’t tempt me Satan, I’m not a circus act.
    Did Satan really have the authority and glory of this world to give away to Jesus, forever. Or was he just lying like he always does. Some called him the prince and ruler of this world, so was God sharing his power with Satan? Well, all of Satan’s power comes from the same One God that our power, life, authority comes from. God does share. Then, did Satan realize that he was giving away all this forever to the Son of God who cannot die, or more precisely cannot be killed by Satan?
    Was Jesus actually tempted by any of these dares? If Jesus were as limited as an Angel, perhaps a little. But God’s plan that Jesus should fulfill the failed temptation of Adam and Eve worked like a charm that day. Did Satan understand he was being used to undo his own wikedness? Three times? Had Jesus lured Satan into this trap by a 40 day fast in the wildrness?
    And we’re watching all this on that supposed security camera the Iraeli army put up out there on the border. We know who Jesus is, would we consider any of these temptations as having any chance with Jesus? No. I might go for the loaf of bead with some honey wine, but we know Jesus, body and blood. We know and can see that Satan is playing the fool out here. At times it’s embarrassing to watch and one might want to pick up the clicker and watch something else for a while while Satan is woefully, and painfully ignorant about his own part in undoing the temtation in Eden. It’s like watching a cat play with a mouse. I’ll come back to watch when the cat is ready to go for the kill.
    But when I click back, the cat is getting killed, it seems. How did that happen?

  20. Rev. David Mueller
    May 3rd, 2012 at 16:05 | #20

    As for your analogy with Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart, that actually works in *favor* of the “triumph” of the devil at the cross. Even if he “rationally” knew that Jesus’ death would work against him, it’s *still* what he wanted, and had been working toward from the beginning–the death of God.

    In the end, to say “the foe was triumphant” and to say that Jesus’ cry, “It is finished!” is His proclamation of victory are not (truly) mutually exclusive, and that, even without playing psychological games with the devil.

    And, on a side note, I assume this means you reject the early fathers’ use of the “fish hook” theory of the atonement?

  21. Tim Schenks
    May 7th, 2012 at 04:51 | #21

    Happy C.F.W. Walther Day.

  22. John
    May 7th, 2012 at 22:43 | #22

    @Tim Schenks #85
    A member of the Church Triumphant now for 125 years!

  23. mbw
    May 9th, 2012 at 10:36 | #23

    @Joanne #76

    Good post.

  24. Rev. David Mueller
    May 9th, 2012 at 17:46 | #24

    Fwiw, it’s the hagiagraphy and untouchableness with which Walther has been treated in the last century of Missouri–a respect that has gone beyond what is proper (which, to be sure, is a significant amount of respect!)–that a lot of seminarians and new pastors react against. What is taught at the sem (or at least what *I* learned at the sem) is not disrespect for Walther, but a recognition that 1. Walther is *not* above critique, and 2. Walther was dealing with a rather different world from what we face.–Perhaps one can see, in retrospect, the decaying of “Christian” western culture present during Walther’s time, but the western world still largely thought within a Christian framework. Today, however, that has all but disappeared. And the answers Walther gave to the problems of his day do not as adequately answer the questions that we face today.

    There is still ****much**** to be learned from him, without a doubt. But every “faction” in Missouri seeks to appropriate Walther for their own purposes, and now it’s not so easy to separate Walther from all the caricatures that have been built. Like Washington and the cherry tree story.

    In my experience, it has been a somewhat less-than-circumspect over-reaction to the less-than-wise, well, almost “idol-worship” of Walther that there has *also* been in Missouri that I’ve found operative when I hear someone speaking “disrepectfully” of Walther.

    Frankly, one of the best tools for solving both sides of this problem, I believe, is Harrison’s, “At Home”. (Applies to Pieper and Wyneken, et al., too. However, I have found myself “idolizing” Pfotenhauer now, as a result of what I’ve read from him in that book. Oh well. I guess a boy needs an idol, and I am beyond politicians and baseball players–mostly–there is still Albert Pujols…. too bad he can’t run for President.)

  25. mbw
    May 9th, 2012 at 19:20 | #25

    @Rev. David Mueller #90

    > a lot of seminarians and new pastors react against.

    I don’t think it’s that simple. The teaching our men receive is far from reactionary – it keeps us out of those theological ditches. What I am hearing is very petty crap. It’s not just what you say here.

    > there is still Albert Pujols

    I guess you didn’t hear about what Albert did …

  26. Terry Yarish
    May 9th, 2012 at 21:56 | #26

    FWIW- I have enjoyed reading this post. “He’s Risen” is one of my favorite Easter hymns and I LOVE the tune. I also have a deep respect and love of our first president. We should be studying the writings of the likes of Walther & Pieper in our churches instead of Hybels, Lucado and Warren.

  27. Tim Schenks
    May 10th, 2012 at 01:33 | #27

    Rev. David Mueller :In my experience, it has been a somewhat less-than-circumspect over-reaction to the less-than-wise, well, almost “idol-worship” of Walther that there has *also* been in Missouri that I’ve found operative when I hear someone speaking “disrepectfully” of Walther.

    I haven’t really seen that and I’ve read “At Home in the House of My Fathers”. Most Lutheran laymen I know have no idea who Walther is. Maybe something to do with a gun manufacturer. Maybe their old youth group back in the 1950s was called the Walther League. One of our past elders thought Walther helped write the Book of Concord. I’ve found that many experienced pastors are not familiar at all with Walther’s Pastorale or “The True Visible Church and the Form of a Christian Congregation”.

    I have seen arrogance on the part of seminarians and pastors regarding Walther and Pieper, apparently something they learned from one or more of their professors. These are often the same people who will halt a conversation to tell you how to properly pronounce Löhe.

  28. Rev. David Mueller
    May 10th, 2012 at 09:31 | #28

    @mbw #91
    What did Albert do? I’ve googled to try to find out something about a scandal, nada. Are you referring to his signing with the Angels? That’s no tarnish–the Cardinals knew very well that was a high likelihood, and MLB *is* (and always has been) business. I’m disappointed he’s no longer playing for God’s team (“angels” notwithstanding….) but he’s still one of the classier folks in sports.

    @Tim Schenks #93
    1. I knew how to pronounce “Loehe” (don’t know how to do the umlaut) when I lived in St. Louis and went to see Walther’s memorial.
    2. “At Home”–huh? I’m not saying “At Home” is hagiagraphical. I’m saying it’s precisely the sort of thing to be read that would help on both sides.
    3. that arrogance–which sem profs? Please name names. They can take it.

  29. Rev. Scott Yakimow
    May 23rd, 2012 at 22:45 | #29

    Josh, you wrote: “RSV, NIV, and ESV all include this word “gloat,” but that word is present neither in the Hebrew (“look upon and see me”) nor in the Greek (“observe and gaze upon me”). So it sounds good in the English, but it’s actually not an accurate translation.”

    With the particle “bi” attached to “r’ah,” it is a perfectly fine translation to take it as “gloat.” Cf. BDB 8.a.6 that deals with this particular construction.

Comment pages
1 2 18844
If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.