The promise of Lutheran biblical studies

The one who does much 'work' is not the righteous one, but the one who,
without 'work,' has much faith in Christ. The law says: "Do this!", and
it is never done. Grace says: "Believe in this one!", and forthwith
everything is done. (1)

This means that faith is security where no security can be seen; it is,
as Luther said, the readiness to enter confidently into the darkness of
the future. (2)

"The nerve of failure" and "the faith of loss" point to a situation in
which the idols are broken and the gods are dead, but the darkness of
negation turns out to be full of rich possibility. Out of the
nothingness which has swallowed up all tradition there comes nihilism
but also the possibility of a new ecstatic consciousness. (3)

Many readers of this journal will recall with pleasure bygone days of conversation or study in St. Louis with the Christ Seminary-Seminex faculty. There, generations of students first glimpsed the promise of Lutheran biblical studies. That exiled faculty nurtured a promising tradition, and its great cloud of witnesses pointed to a "better hope" (Heb 7:19). Among them, Robert H. Smith has made consistently notable contributions. Always a popular teacher, Bob exercised much influence through the classroom. While I never had the privilege of a formal class with Bob (his sections always closed early!), I have enjoyed a lengthy conversation with the honoree about the meaning of the New Testament. Bob also has contributed to church and academy over the years through valuable publications. I cannot forget the excitement of reading Easter Gospels when it first appeared, a fine testament to the strength of the Seminex tradition of biblical scholarship. (4) May Bob and other readers find in this essay an equal dedication to the promise of that tradition.

Earliest Christologies

Christ stands at the center of scripture in a Lutheran understanding. Such a sensibility implies both inquiry into the earliest detectable understandings of the meaning of "Christ" and ongoing concern with Christology as a basis for theology. Q, Mark, and Paul preserve perhaps the earliest theological understandings we have of Jesus of Nazareth. (5) The following paragraphs focus especially on their understandings of Jesus, for these seem to agree in an essential way. This agreement provides the basis for christological and hermeneutical reflections in the second half of the article, viz., explorations of what Lutheran faith and commitment means today in dialog with earliest Christologies and contemporary culture.

Jesus in Q. In recent years there has been a major interest in the theology of Q. (6) Many dramatic claims have been made for this early tradition on the basis of only hypothetical formats. Complex and not entirely compatible, these claims have not had adequate time for scholarly testing. Still, it is possible to say something about the Q community's understanding of Jesus.

The Q tradition has been analyzed into two major types: wisdom elements and apocalyptic elements. Various stratigraphies of these elements have been proposed, but a strong argument suggests that the wisdom elements preceded the apocalyptic. Paul's 1 Corinthians also shows a mixture of these two elements. This fuller form of Q (with both wisdom and apocalyptic elements) is the basis for our discussion. Q may have attained this form by the time of Paul, because passages such as 1 Cor 6:2 seem to presuppose views found in Q (e.g., Luke 22:29-30). (7)

Several "christological" aspects of Q (using the term loosely to refer to its views of Jesus) are important for the present reflections: the linked missions of John the Baptist and Jesus, their equality in the mind of the Q community, the focus of their messages on preparation for God's kingdom, the distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man, the absence of the word "Christ" in Q, and the lack of Passion Narrative and resurrection accounts in the Q gospel. This is not a comprehensive list, but it suffices for purposes of this discussion.

That the missions of John the Baptist and Jesus were firmly linked is ascertained by both formal and substantive analysis of Q. Formally, John's and Jesus' ministries are articulated already by the stage of [Q.sub.2] (finished probably no earlier than 54 C.E.). In the understanding of J. Kloppenborg and B. Mack, [Q.sub.1] (the earliest Q stratum) did not contain the preaching of John the Baptist. John's eschatological message marks it as a later articulation. (8) [Q.sub.1] has no christological perspective, unless its framework lies within Judean wisdom speculation.

The equality of John and Jesus as messengers in the mind of the Q community is expressed substantively through passages like Luke 11:49-50, which contextualize their work within the overall purposes of God. The content of their messages--repentance and preparation for the imminent arrival of God--is identical. There is, of course, chronological difference between the two figures. This is acknowledged by Q, as in Luke 7:28, but 7:35 reminds of the larger context.