Competency-Based Education Means Nothing: A Clarification

The undersigned has made the case that Johann Gerhard and early Lutheranism employed a kind of competency-based education in the formation of pastors. I stated:

Qualification for the pastoral office depended wholly on the competency of the man, and the theological curriculum existed wholly to make the man competent to be a pastor. Thus, instead of a grade card or academic transcript, recommendation letters for candidates were commonly written, testifying to the candidate’s moral character, ability to preach, and understanding of doctrine. These competencies were seen as requisite in order to be a pastor. That is, qualification for the pastoral office was based in part on the piety and character of the candidate. It was expected that candidates must first have experienced God’s word and cultivated it in prayer and reading, and that they had been put to the test in the real world. These kinds of competencies (academic and personal) were far more important than any academic degree for most parishes and pastors. This appears to be a rigorous kind of competency-based education.¹ ...

Gerhard’s method of pastoral formation looks to me like competency-based pastoral formation. For being a pastor, no particular degree was required; no particular classes had to be taken. What was required was a thorough knowledge of the Bible and theology, an excellent ability to preach and teach, and piety. Formal assessment seems to have been mostly lacking. There was some assessment of students in early Lutheranism, though not as much as in a typical North American educational institution. Students were evaluated only if they wanted to be tested for a degree, or as part of their rigorous theological interview as part of the call process.²

If a reader neglected to read section 3 of the essay, where I speak in detail about the careful way in which Lutheran church orders regulated the examination of candidates for the office of pastor, and the rigorous testing through which a candidate had to pass before being approved for a call,³ one might think erroneously that quality control of pastoral candidates was non-centralized, ad-hoc, or even haphazard. That is not how it was. In fact, a study of Gerhard’s approach to pastoral formation shows a rigorous pastoral formation, with high standards written in the church order, with testing conducted by the Church through its official representatives.

The problem with what is called “competency-based education” these days is that it can mean anything, or nothing. We can see an example of how haphazard “competency-based education” can be in the pages of Forum, the magazine of Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids. In the summer 2023 edition of Forum, Aaron Einfeld says that at his seminary, “competency-based education” means:

Instead of completing traditional classes, students in the program are guided by a three-person mentor team to develop competencies for ministry. These competencies each encapsulate a combination of knowledge, character, and skill. ... The mentor team includes a C[alvin] T[heological] S[eminary] faculty member and experienced ministry leaders who coach, guide, and assess students as they develop and demonstrate competency for ministry. Students complete a program when they demonstrate sufficient competence in all program competencies. Simply put, Empower moves the leadership development process back into the church.⁴

This kind of “competency-based education” means that local ministry leaders decide when their candidate is ready to be a pastor. This is quite different from early Lutheranism’s demanding, objective, documented standards, implemented by the church’s official representatives. Calvin’s official guide to their Empower program does not even define what “competency-based education” is!⁵

So what do we actually mean by “competency-based education”? If we simply mean that we have expected competencies (in our case, based at least on 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1), and until a student obtains these competencies, he cannot be a pastor—well, then, what the LCMS currently has, and has always had, is indeed “competency-based education.” We already have it.

But if by “competency-based education” we mean a non-centralized, subjective evaluation of candidates according to unclear standards, such as Calvin Seminary seems to promote, then early Lutheranism never practiced it, we do not have it, and we should not want it.

But neither of these definitions are what I meant in my article. Instead, a good definition of “competency-based education” says that it is an approach to education in which the standards are high and inflexible, but the time that a student may take to achieve the high standards is allowed to vary.⁶ This, with publicly documented and accepted standards and testing by the church’s officials, is how early Lutheranism formed pastors.

Benjamin T. G. Mayes

Dec. 5, 2025 A+D

1 Benjamin T. G. Mayes, “Pastoral Formation in Lutheran Orthodoxy and the Method of Theological Study Proposed by Johann Gerhard,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 88, nos. 2–3 (2024): 107, https://media.ctsfw.edu/Text/ViewDetails/21542.

2 Mayes, “Pastoral Formation in Lutheran Orthodoxy,” 119.

3 Mayes, “Pastoral Formation in Lutheran Orthodoxy,” 113–17.

4 Aaron Einfeld, “Empowering Students Through Competency-Based Theological Education,” Forum (Calvin Theological Seminary), Summer 2023, 36.

5 “But now there is a new movement in North American theological education called Competency-Based Theological Education (CBTE). This model combines the strengths of the apprenticeship and university models. CBTE is an ancient-future form of training that is embraced by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) accrediting body.” https://calvinseminary.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CTS-EmpowerGuide2022-final92022-1.pdf

6 Rebecca Klein-Collins, “Sharpening Our Focus on Learning: The Rise of Competency-Based Approaches to Degree Completion,” National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, no. Occasional Paper #20 (November 2023): 7–8, https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/617695/premium_content_resources/CBE-Publications/PDF/Occasional-Paper-20.pdf.

Gerhard's Theological Commonplaces Series: What's Available

From time to time I'm asked how much of Johann Gerhard's monumental Theological Commonplaces is available and whether Concordia's edition is going to include this or that locus. Here are some answers.

First, the entire series (as currently available) can be found on this page. The volumes are not in order in this listing, but all available items (plus Gerhard’s commentary on the books of Timothy) are listed. We added the “original” loci on Scripture to our series so that we could also provide a translation of Gerhard’s Method of Theological Study (item 531216). This is the only instance where we have addressed the earliest form of the loci (1610) in addition to the 1625 exegesis volumes translated by Dr Dinda.

The chart below presents each locus, its publication history in the various editions, and our status regarding publication. Those loci highlighted in blue have been published by Concordia, either as standalone volumes in the series or as multiple loci in a single volume. The loci on the ministry and on death are separated into two volumes. The loci that are not highlighted will not be published at this time by CPH. Although we have raw translated text for all but the “original” loci on the Trinity (included in the Frankfurt/Hamburg and Cotta editions), we have no current plans to edit and publish the material.

For those who would like to read what Gerhard says on the sacraments, please see Rev. Elmer Hohle's translation of Gerhard's Comprehensive Explanation of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Comparison of Editions of Gerhard’s Loci

 Title -- Frankfurt/Hamburg (1657)* / Cotta (1762) / Preuss (1863)

On the Nature of Theology (Exegesis) -- E preface / E preface / Preface

On Holy Scripture (Exegesis) -- E1 / E1 / 1

On the Nature of God (Exegesis) -- E2 / E2 / 2

On the Most Holy Mystery of the Trinity (Exegesis) -- E3 / E3 / 3

On the Person and Office of Christ (Exegesis) -- E4 / E4 / 4

On Holy Scripture -- 1 / 1 / omitted

On the Interpretation of Scripture -- 2 / 2 / omitted

On the Nature of God -- 3 / 3 / omitted

On the Three Elohim -- 4 / 4 / omitted

On God the Father and His Eternal Son -- 5 / 4, part 2 / omitted

On the Holy Spirit -- 6 / 5, part 3 [!] /  omitted

On the Person and Office of Christ - 7 / 5 / omitted

On Creation and Angels -- 8 / 6 / 5

On Providence -- 9 / 7 / 6

On Election and Reprobation -- 10 / 8 / 7

On the Image of God in Man before the Fall -- 11 / 9 / 8

On Original Sin -- 12 / 10 / 9

On Actual Sins -- 13 / 11 / 10

On Free Choice -- 14 / 12 / 11

On the Law of God -- 15 / 13 / 12

On the Ceremonial and Forensic Laws -- 16 / 14 / 13

On the Gospel -- 17 / 15 / 14

On Repentance -- 18 / 16 / 15

On Justification through Faith -- 19 / 17 / 16

On Good Works -- 20 / 18 / 17

On the Sacraments -- 21 / 19 / 18

On Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb -- 22 / 20 / 19

On Holy Baptism -- 23 / 21 / 20

On the Holy Supper -- 24 / 22 / 21

On the Church -- 25 / 23 / 22

On the Ecclesiastical Ministry -- 26 / 24 / 23

On Political Magistracy -- 27 / 25 / 24

On Marriage, Celibacy, and Similar Topics -- 28 / 26 / 25

On Death -- 29 / 27 / 26

On the Resurrection of the Dead -- 30 / 28 / 27

On the Last Judgment -- 31 / 29 / 28

On the End of the World -- 32 / 30 / 29

On Hell, or Eternal Death -- 33 / 31 / 30

On Eternal Life -- 34 / 32 / 31

 

* The Jena ed. (1610) has the same enumeration, except that it lacks the Exegesis. Our edition follows this enumeration as well.

Plans for Reading Scripture

Theological study at Wittenberg in the 16th and 17th centuries centered on biblical exegesis and dogmatics.  Of the four ordinary professors of the theological faculty, three of the chairs were dedicated to exegesis and one to dogmatics. Extra opportunities for students to learn dogmatics were presented in frequent disputations. Preaching was learned by attending sermons and by participation in study groups. Pastoral care was learned by the reading of Lutheran casuistry works such as Conrad Porta’s Pastorale Lutheri.

The Wittenberg directions for theological study are geared toward a student’s personal, private study much more than toward an official curriculum at the university. Luther’s recommendation of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio formed an oft-repeated theme in this literature all the way through Pietism and beyond. But more than Luther’s trio, the most frequent directions had to do with how the student should read and study the Bible. Beginning with Melanchthon, professors advised two ways to read the Bible. First, the student should spend an hour or two each day in a cursory reading of Scripture. In so doing, the student should summarize the themes and doctrines of each chapter of the Bible and write these summaries down. Second, the student should study Scripture in a penetrating, detailed way on the basis of the original Greek or Hebrew, often with a trustworthy commentary at hand. Paul’s epistles were constantly set forth as the most important books for students to study in this way. All of the student’s fruits of reading were to be recorded in his loci communes, a blank book used for taking notes, organized systematically or alphabetically, which would serve the pastor as a reference throughout his ministry. Of course, before excerpts were to be written in the loci communes book, students had first to become thoroughly acquainted with the Book of Concord or another trustworthy doctrinal compendium. Given that Orthodox Lutheran students took notes in this way, their prolific literary accomplishments should come as no surprise. They didn’t write so much just because they were smart and disciplined. They had good methods.

Before students could study theology, they had to be proficient at Greek and at least have a functioning knowledge of Hebrew. Good skills in their mother tongue was a necessity for a future preacher and Latin was the language of learning, the language which had to be mastered before any academic study could begin. The course of study in theology varied in length, but many recommended a five-year academic program (after one had mastered the liberal arts, including Latin, Greek, and Hebrew). As time went on, a two-track approach became more common, with some students being prepared for a pastorate, and advanced students being given more training in philosophy and polemics, to be able to teach and defend the Church’s doctrine.

The Lutheran Orthodox theologians (ca. 1580-1700) were not by nature smarter than we are, but they had better methods. You can see this clearly in Johann Gerhard's Method of Theological Study.
With regard to the study of Scripture, Gerhard and many other Lutheran theologians advise a twofold approach: cursory and painstaking reading. With the cursory reading, you read the Bible in the vernacular, two chapters in the morning and two chapters in the evening, according to this plan:

Morning (didactic books): Genesis (50), Job (42), Psalms (150), Proverbs (31), Ecclesiastes (12), Song of Songs (8), Isaiah (66), Jeremiah (52), Lamentations (5), Ezekiel (43), Daniel (12), Hosea (14), Joel (3), Amos (9), Obadiah (1), Jonah (4), Micah (7), Nahum (3), Habakkuk (3), Zephaniah (1), Haggai (2), Zachariah (14), Malachi (4). Apostolic Epistles in the NT. Total: 665 chapters.

Evening (historical books): Exodus (40), Leviticus (27), Numbers (36), Deuteronomy (34), Joshua (24), Judges (21), Ruth (4), 1 Samuel (31), 2 Samuel (24), 1 Kings (22), 2 Kings (25), 1 Chronicles (29), 2 Chronicles (36), Ezra (10), Nehemiah (13), Esther (10), Judith (16), Wisdom (19), Tobit (14), Sirach (51), Baruch (6), 1 Maccabees (16), 2 Maccabees (15), Fragments of Esther (9), Fragments of Daniel (5), Prayer of Manasseh (1), 3 Esdras (9), 4 Esdras (16). The four Gospels, Acts, Revelation. Total: 670 chapters.

Another excellent Bible reading plan is given by Rev. David Kind, and it follows the church year.

As you read, you should write the theme of each chapter at the top of the page. E.g., for Gen. 1: "Creation." If you follow this plan, the heavy thinking is done in the morning, and the lighter reading is done in the evening. The schedule allows you to miss something like 30 days and still finish in one year.

With the painstaking reading, you read the Bible in the Greek and Hebrew, beginning with the NT epistles. In this manner of study, you may only work through a few verses per day, and you are often reading a trusted commentary on the original text alongside. Gerhard says that for each chapter of the Bible, you should take notes on the following things:

1. The summary and scope of each chapter.

2. Its general outline.

3. Significant emphases of words or phrases. (For this one, I simply note the definition of unusual words or phrases.)

4. The differing interpretations of ancient or recent teachers of the Church. (This is where you compare translations: especially Luther's German translation of 1545, the Vulgate, if you're able, as well as the KJV, plus the accurate modern translations.)

5. The resolutions of apparent contradictions.

6. Significant doctrines and observations that are not obvious at first sight.

7. Solid sayings of the Fathers. (Here is where I put the exegesis of passages treated by the Book of Concord, to start off with. Later, as I read Luther or the early church fathers I can add their exegesis in the correct place as I come upon the interesting quotes.)

This is a work that will require many years. The first time through, Gerhard says, one should concentrate on annotating at least something and leave the rest of the space in one's very large notebook blank, to be filled in from one's future study.

I have started this procedure, but on the computer. I am making one word processor file for each chapter as I come to it. To make it easier, I made a template that has the aforementioned seven items as headings. The reason for taking notes like this is to make preaching, teaching, writing, and debating easier. For the sake of preaching and catechizing, adding an 8th item for illustrations could be helpful.

Gerhard on the Importance of the Seminary Classroom

An interesting passage from Gerhard's Method of Theological Study on the importance of live classroom instruction and the danger of being a self-taught theologian.

But we most especially commend to him [the future theologian] the frequent and diligent hearing of public lectures, and earnestly discourage despising them:

(1) God has promised a special grace, blessing, and the working of the Holy Spirit to godly assemblies instituted in the churches and schools (Ex. 20:24, Matt. 18:20, Heb. 10:25).

(2) The examples of the saints in the Old and New Testaments show that oral instruction has been especially recommended to future ministers of the church. The patriarchs handed down the main points of heavenly teaching to their successors orally, for they had not yet been put into writing. (Luther on Genesis: “The fathers’ sermons were not written in books but in heaven. Hence the time is called “Thohu,” because there was no Law nor books but sermons were delivered orally through the fathers to their posterity.”) After the Law was written, the prophets taught the same things to their students in schools orally, and thus they are called “sons of the prophets.” Elisha was a disciple of Elijah, whom he called into his school and chose him to be successor in the prophetic office (1 Kings 19:20). In the presence of Elisha “dwelt the sons of the prophets in Gilgal” (2 Kings 4:38)—that is, there was a theological school there where the students of the prophets spent their time, and Elisha directed and oversaw their studies. The college of the priests and Levites was nothing else but a theological school where junior Levites were instructed and prepped for the ecclesiastical ministry. In the Babylonian captivity Daniel set up a theological school, lest the knowledge of heavenly doctrine should perish. After the return from captivity in Babylon, Ezra and Nehemiah also raised up schools alongside the reconstruction of the temple. Paul sat at the feet Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). The apostles were taught in Christ’s school. Pantaenus taught in the school of Alexandria and was succeeded by Clement of Alexandria, whose student was Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria was a hearer of Origen, and after him Athenodorus (Eusebius, bk. 5, ch. 9 and bk. 6, ch. 2). Tertullian and Cyprian were in the school at Carthage; at Caesaria, Origen and Gregorius Neocaesariensis; at Antioch, Malchion the Rhetor, who refuted [Paul of] Samosata; in Nicomedia, Lactantius, etc. Therefore, in this way, by perpetual succession in the school of Christ, students who will one day be charged with the ministry of the church have been instructed by teachers orally.

(3) The living voice has greater force [ζώσης φωνῆς μείζων ἐνέργεια]. “Live speech has some kind of hidden force and makes a fuller impact,” says Jerome (Letter ad Paulin.). “The live speech of a teacher has marvelous power.” Scaliger (Exerc. 308): “The voice has greater effect, but reading is mute and when overly extended becomes tiresome.  Things heard are more firmly impressed through a sense of discipline, the servants of which are the ears,” etc. For these reasons, things received by hearing stick to one’s memory better and more reliably than things gained from attention to reading.

(4) Autodidacts do not operate with as much dexterity in judgment and speak more irregularly than those instructed by others in schools. They are also more often the ones to cause disturbances in the church.

© Concordia Publishing House.  From an upcoming publication of Johann Gerhard, On Interpreting Scripture and Method of Theological Study, Theological Commonplaces I­–II.

Used by permission.  No additional permission is granted to reprint or distribute this quote.

Gerhard on the Three Uses of the Law, sort of

An instructive observation from Gerhard on the three uses of the Law, but it's not quite what you think. In the very next paragraphs following the quote below Gerhard does teach the three uses of the Law according to the Formula of Concord, but here he is specifically discussing the three uses of teaching that it is impossible for us to fulfill the Law. From On the Law (forthcoming from CPH), § 202:

Now, the purpose of teaching that it is impossible to fulfill the Law is not to encourage or excuse carelessness, sloth, and intentional negligence...rather, it is so that (1) we, confessing the powerlessness of our abilities and the imperfection of our own righteousness, may flee for refuge to Christ, “who has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having been made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13); “through [Him] God has done what was impossible for the Law” (Rom. 8:3), “that He might be the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe” (Rom. 10:4). The glory of having perfect righteousness must be reserved for Christ alone, who is “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). Those who ignore and reject His righteousness “seeking to establish their own, are not under the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). Therefore the first use of this teaching lies in the article of justification, namely, that we not set before God’s judgment our imperfect and variously stained obedience to the Law but that we may learn that we are justified by faith in Christ. (2) The second use of this teaching lies in the article on good works, that we may learn that by the natural powers of our own free choice we cannot begin the sincere and true obedience we owe the Law, but the Law of God “must be written on our hearts” through the Holy Spirit (Jer. 31:33), so that we may begin to show not merely an external obedience but also an inner one with a spontaneous spirit and from the heart. On the other hand, because this inchoate obedience is still very far from the perfection the Law requires, we cannot boast about it before the judgment of God but are forced to confess that “all our righteousnesses are as menstrual rags” (Isa. 64:6) and that, “when we have done everything, we are still but unworthy servants” (Luke 17:10). (3) Lastly, it serves to teach us that the inchoate obedience of the regenerate is pleasing to God, not because it satisfies the law perfectly but because it proceeds from faith in Christ; through such faith its imperfection and remaining fault is covered.

Excerpt from On the Law (pre-publication), Concordia Publishing House 2015.  All rights reserved.  Used with permission of Concordia Publishing House.  www.cph.org.  

Who is the greatest?

Martin Chemnitz is.

So says Johann Gerhard--at least when it comes to comparing Scripture passages for the sake of drawing out their genuine meaning and harmonizing any seeming contradictions. No doubt Gerhard has in mind in the quote below all of Chemnitz's works, but especially the famed Harmony of the Four Evangelists that Chemnitz never finished and left to Polycarp Leyser. I wonder, did Gerhard know when he published these words in 1610 that he would be the one to complete the so-called Harmonia Evangelistarum Chemnitio-Lyseriana over fifteen years later?

What makes this quote even higher praise is that it is a sort of non sequitur. Gerhard blurts it out as the last sentence in a chapter on how to go about comparing scripture with scripture. He couldn't help but say it:

Now, the experts are compelled to acknowledge that Chemnitz is the great, inimitable master of comparing passages (On Interpreting Sacred Scripture, § 208, [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 2]).

Coming from one so skilled with scripture as Gerhard, I'm not sure higher praise exists among men.

Heavenly Birthday of Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), Arch-Theologian of the Lutheran Church

Johann Gerhard was a Lutheran pastor and theologian who lived about 100 years after Martin Luther. He was born in 1582, just two years after the last Lutheran confession, the Formula of Concord, had been published. He was always an excellent student in school and university, and after pursuing medicine for a while, he decided to study theology and become a pastor. In 1606, the year before Captain John Smith established Jamestown, Virginia, Gerhard received his first call—a call to be a pastor and superintendent of 26 parishes, and a lecturer at a high school. He was in his mid-twenties. Just by considering his first call, it’s obvious that his contemporaries thought very highly of the gifts God had given Gerhard. (Among us a new pastor is never made a district president or circuit counselor right off the bat.) Before he was 30, he had become a doctor of theology and had published several books. In his mid-thirties he was called to be a professor of theology at the German city of Jena, and there he spent the next 21 years, until his death. His first wife, Barbara, died after only three years of marriage, when he was 29. Three years later he married Maria Mattenberger, and lived happily with her for the rest of his life. The couple had ten children, four of whom died in early childhood, as was so common in those times.

Gerhard’s writings built up the church and Christian believers, and also defended it against attacks. His works that built up the church include his Sacred Meditations, Meditations on Divine Mercy, School of Piety, his Aphorisms, his Bible commentaries, and his many sermons, but most of all his work on the first great Lutheran study Bible, the Weimar Bible of 1640. His works that defended the church against attacks include the Theological Commonplaces and the book called The Catholic Confession. I’m happy to say that we here at CPH are doing more to make his writings known than anyone else has done for the last 300 years.

But Gerhard’s life was not just the happy life of a writer or teacher. In 1618, war broke out across Germany, a war which would continue off and on for thirty years. This Thirty Years War was especially fought between the Roman Catholic “Holy Roman Emperor” and the Lutheran Swedes, led by Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus, who did not always treat the German Lutherans any better than the emperor’s army did. Because Gerhard had been so successful in defending Lutheran teaching against the Roman Catholic Church, the emperor’s soldiers plotted to kidnap Gerhard in 1631 and bring him to Rome for trial. Yet God preserved Gerhard from their plot. On the other hand, the Swedes were angry with Gerhard because of he had been advising peace with the emperor, and so Gerhard had to face the threat of imprisonment from them, too. In 1636 the Swedish army plundered Gerhard’s estate and burned his house and farm buildings. Then in 1637 the city of Jena was raided and plundered.

That year, the year Gerhard died, he wrote to his friend Salomon Glassius, telling him about the savagery of the soldiers: “But I am enduring all these things patiently and say along with Job: ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ He Himself, nevertheless, will look out for me and my household with the assistance necessary for life, for I see that my finish line is near.”[1] On August 12, 1637, the 54-year-old Gerhard became very ill, and he knew his death was approaching. In the next few days he spoke to friends and family, confessing the same faith that he had written throughout his life and making arrangements for his family and the university for after his death. Two days before his death he confessed his sins to his pastor, Adrian Beyer, and received private absolution and the Lord’s Supper from him. After receiving Christ’s Body and Blood he sang the common Lutheran communion hymn, “O Lord We Praise Thee, bless Thee and adore Thee.” Right after this, he arranged for money to be given to the poor people of his city, so that they could have a meal. The next two days he fell speechless, lost his eyesight, and most of his hearing. Yet shortly before giving up his spirit, on August 17, he uttered the words, “Come, come, Lord, come.”

(Source: Erdmann Rudolph Fischer, The Life of John Gerhard, trans. Richard J. Dinda and Elmer Hohle [Malone, TX: Repristination, 2001].)

---

[1] Cf. Fischer, Life of John Gerhard, p. 287.

Gerhard on Allegory and Dry Sermons

+ In memoriam Iohannis Gerhardi, uiri summae pietatis atque doctrinae. +

Gerhard has a wonderful discussion of allegories in his treatise On Interpreting Sacred Scripture. This section alone is worth the price of admission. Though his treatment is brief, it is a treasury of homiletical gems, and I will only discuss its barest outlines here. Indeed, it contains most everything that it took me years of seminary and experience to figure out about whether allegory may be used and if so, how. For the most part my experience has been that modern exegetes are hostile to allegorizing. Gerhard knew this debate well:

The fathers were fairly profuse in their allegories, while some today are fairly hostile to them. So what should be decided about allegories?

Gerhard warns that it is very easy to stray from the rule of faith when allegorizing (we're looking at you, Origen). He navigates the proper use of allegory in a few ways. He starts by noting the rhetorical distinction between a type and an allegory. What Paul is doing in Gal. 4:24, for example, is actually typology though he uses the term "allegory." Likewise, the fathers sometimes misuse these terms.

Next, Gerhard also insists that the literal meaning of Scripture in context is the meaning of the Holy Spirit (excepting those places where the Holy Spirit Himself interprets things allegorically or typologically). That is the basis of all exegesis and from it one can draw "various teachings, exhortations, consolations, and refutations against adversaries." For Gerhard all good allegory is simply responsible application of the text. Modern exegetes who shun allegory should consider rethinking their position along these lines. The original meaning of the text comes first, then in teaching and preaching you also have to apply it to your hearers (allegorize).

Gerhard then offers pointers on how best to allegorize. "The goal of all Scripture is Christ," urges Gerhard. "In allegories, therefore, it is His office, His benefits, and His reign that should be explained most of all." Furthermore, don't allegorize the moral Law like the Ten Commandments. Don't look for allegory everywhere. Do look for allegory in the ceremonial law and in historical narratives provided that you also maintain the facts of the actual events. Often both a type and an allegory can come from the same passage. For example, the account of David and Goliath is about Christ defeating the Devil (typology) and may be applied to the godly man overcoming the lusts of the flesh through faith (allegory). There are even times when allegory is demanded by the text or it will be especially advantageous to do so (when teaching the account of Jacob, Laban, Leah, and Rachel to your Sunday school kids your best bet is to go for the allegorical interpretation!)

Gerhard further notes how allegory makes for good preaching that is Bible rich and not dry or filled with cheeky stories:

When used appropriately and sparingly, allegories delight, stimulate, and remove tedium, which is why they are especially well suited for sermon openings [exordiis]. One must work tirelessly to make allegories appropriate, firstly and foremost that they be analogous to the faith.

This must be why Gerhard always starts his sermons with a type or allegory from the OT that pertains to the Sunday Gospel.

Finally, because allegory can be and has been greatly abused, Gerhard also gives sober warnings:

Be sure, however, not to search too far for allegories, for then they will be crude and inane. Be sure they do not militate against the chief parts of the historical account that we want to treat allegorically. Do not dwell on them longer than they deserve; instead, approach them gracefully, simply touching upon them with a few words subtly and discreetly.  Let them not be too intricate or perplexing. In short, it is not for everyone to appropriately and fittingly use allegories. Those who are less practiced in them should proceed soberly and prudently. Those who make use of allegories hastily and without discernment can easily propose something that the learned will contemn, the vicious will mock, and that will cause the weak to stumble. Undoubtedly Origen was rebuked by the ancients on this charge.

Gerhard on less than ideal exegesis

Every pastor has looked back on sermons in horror to wonder what possessed him to interpret Scripture that way. What happens when you preach or teach something that you later regret as less than A+ exegesis? Gerhard offers comfort repeatedly in his commonplace on interpreting Scripture. Hey, even the fathers did this--a lot. As long as you are not teaching something that undermines the rule of faith it's going to be OK. This is not an excuse for lazy exegesis and lazy preaching but the simple acknowledgement that some things in Scripture are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16), even though the main dogmas of heaven (i.e., the rule of faith) are taught in Scripture explicitly and clearly.

We do very well if we use all these means [of interpretation] and finally come to the true sense of Scripture, or, even if we do not arrive at the genuine meaning of a passage, if we still do not err from the rule of faith. Therefore we are not condemned by the passage that Stapleton quotes from Augustine (De Genes. ad. liter., bk. 1, last ch.): “That [interpretation] must especially be chosen which does not go against the context of Scripture and which accords with the sound faith. If, however, one cannot study and examine the context of sacred Scripture, at the least he should alone cling to what the sound faith prescribes.”

Again:

If ever we are unable to arrive at the original meaning for the obscurer passages we must not depart from the rule of faith.

(Translation © 2013 Joshua Hayes. All rights reserved.)

A Summary of Gerhard's Hermeneutic

Johann Gerhard summarizes (very briefly) the necessary tools for interpreting Scripture (Loci Theologici, loc. 2, De interpretatione Scripturae Sacrae, Cotta: Tubingen: 1762):

§ 71. Let us sum up our claims about the true interpretation of Scripture.

(1) In understanding and interpreting the Scriptures our mind is blind and lacking the light of the Holy Spirit.

(2) In addition to the inborn blindness of all men, some are blinded by their own wickedness and stubborn impudence even though the Holy Spirit opened or wanted to open their eyes.

(3) Because our mind is blinded there is need to implore the Holy Spirit’s light through prayer.

(4) Moreover, the Holy Spirit does not work this illumination of the mind apart from means, but it happens through the light of the Word when it is heard and meditated.

(5) The dogmas that are necessary for one to know for his salvation are laid out in proper, clear, and perspicuous words.

(6) From these the rest of the passages of Scripture are elucidated.

(7) This is why the rule of faith is assembled from the clear passages of Scripture, and one’s exposition of the other passages must conform to it..

(8) Even if we do not always arrive at the most proper and natural sense of every single passage, it is enough not to say anything contrary to the analogy of the faith when interpreting them.

(9) Nevertheless, it is still beneficial to interpret even the more obscure passages of Scripture rightly and skillfully. This will happen if we apply the suitable remedies for alleviating obscurities.

(10) In order to find these remedies, we have to seek out the sources of obscurity.

(11) Some passages of Scripture are obscure in themselves and when taken on their own, while others are so when compared with other passages—that is, when they seem to contradict other passages. The reconciliation of passages is a good aid for this kind of obscurity.

(12) Things that are obscure in and of themselves are discerned as such due to the subject matter or to the words. Having some certain axioms in every article of the faith brings relief to the obscurity of subject matter. These axioms should be followed as a guiding star.

(13) Obscurity on account of words is serviced by grammatical explanation of the vocables, rhetorical exposition of tropes and figures, dialectic observation of the order and circumstances, and finally  by a physical understanding of things in nature. It will prove especially helpful in all of these to wisely and carefully compare passages of Scripture where the same vocables and phrases are used, or even where different ones are used for the same things, or the same are used to express different ideas.

§ 72. Let this be said in general about the requisite means for legitimately interpreting Scripture. The supreme and authoritative interpreter of Scripture is, as we assert, the Holy Spirit. It is He who lays out the dogmas that are necessary for one to know for salvation in proper and clear words in Scripture. As for everything else in the Scriptures that is more obscure, to skillfully interpret them we need prayer, knowledge of the languages the Holy Spirit used as His amanuenses, to observe the order and circumstances in a given passage, to wisely and carefully compare passages, and above all we need to follow the rule of faith lest we say anything that is contrary to it when interpreting passages that are rather obscure.
(Translation © 2013 Joshua Hayes. All rights reserved.)

Gerhard on why we can have pure doctrine

From a forthcoming volume on interpreting scripture:

§ 26. “The very thing that the prophets and apostles set forth to their hearers is the same thing that they put into the Scriptures by God’s will. It is not something different,” says Irenaeus (Adversus haer., bk. 3, ch. 1). Therefore just as those who heard the prophets and apostles could perceive from their words what the will of God was and what the mind and thinking of the Holy Spirit was, so we too can read the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures and from their books perceive what the will of God is and what is the mind and thinking of the Holy Spirit. The act of preaching and the act of writing are external accidents that do not change the essence of a thing. Just as oral speaking is the expression [ἀπεικόνισμα] of the mind’s thoughts, so writing is the expression the words from one’s mouth. The philosopher [Aristotle] discusses this (περὶ ἑρμην., ch. 1): “Spoken words are symbols of the perceptions of one’s consciousness, and written words are symbols of spoken words.”

The Ordination of St. Timothy (Johann Gerhard)

Johann Gerhard discusses the call and ordination of St. Timothy in this selection from Theological Commonplaces: On the Ministry, Part One (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), § 62, pp. 83-85. Gerhard is arguing against the Socinians, whom he calls "Photinians." They were a unitarian movement centered in southern Poland.
+++

§ 62. Schmaltzius makes the objection, Refut. D. Frantz., p. 376: “Instead of the observed and considered custom of the Old and New Testament churches being able to remind us that one by no means teaches, [and] that no one is able to take upon himself the duties of teaching others without a sending, much rather it can assure someone that it is not necessary for that to be observed perpetually, since custom and necessity are all but contrary.”

We respond. That perpetual practice of the church depends on divine ordinance and institution, as is obvious from the previously cited passages. Hence it should not be set against necessity. Therefore Augustine’s statement holds true here (De bapt. contra Donat., bk. 4, ch. 4): “Reason and truth must be preferred to custom; but if the truth supports custom, nothing should be retained more firmly.” One cannot say without great absurdity that custom and the necessity of a commandment are perpetually opposed to each other. Luke 2:[42] says that Christ’s parents went up to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover “according to custom.” Yet they were doing this very thing under the necessity of a commandment (Exod. 23:17; Deut. 16:16).

Theophilus Nicolaides (Defens. tract. Socin. de ecclesia et missione ministr., ch. 1, p. 143) makes some specific objections to those passages. (1) He claims that “1 Tim. 4:14 speaks not about the teaching duty but about the grace of God that was in Timothy, that is, about the spiritual gifts which had come to him miraculously.”

We respond. We do not deny that χάρισμα properly means “spiritual gifts.” However, from this one cannot infer that the sending and ordination of Timothy cannot be deduced from this text, because those spiritual gifts had come to Timothy in the very call and ordination, which was being accomplished through the imposition of the hands of Paul and of the presbyters.

Nicolaides is forced to acknowledge this, now that the lightning of truth has convicted him. Therefore he adds: “The teaching office had come to Timothy through prophecy, that is, through the votes of the chief men in the church of Christ, with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.” Therefore he makes a different objection and adds: “Even if it were conceded that Paul sent Timothy by the imposition of hands, what will he” (Miedzebozius) “make of this, responding that each and every one who enters the teaching office is sent by someone else? Yet an affirming conclusion from species to genus is not valid. At that time, Timothy could have been sent by Paul or even by other elders of the church, not because this was necessary for that office of teaching and because without a sending Timothy could not have taught others, but because at that time order and decency in the church required it.”

We respond. (a) The Photinians’ theorem is that those who are not bringing out a new and previously unheard-of doctrine have no need for a particular sending. It is correct to set the example of Timothy against this. He did not propose new doctrine in the church at Ephesus, of which he had been established as bishop, and yet he in particular had been sent and ordained to the ministry. In fact, Paul says explicitly about Titus: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might appoint presbyters in every town” (Titus 1:5).

(b) Indeed, it is not always permissible to argue from species to genus. Yet one may proceed from an enumeration of all species to the genus, from a sufficient induction of all examples to a general rule, and from those things that are constituted in the same way and do not allow a contrary objection to a universal declaration. This is how Paul, in Romans 4, proves the free justification of faith from the examples of Abraham and David, because all the devout are justified in the same way as Abraham and David were justified, and no one can give a contrary example of people who were justified differently. The matter is constituted the same way in this question about the calling of ministers. As Timothy did not preach without a sending, so none of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and other teachers of the church preached without a sending. Consequently, from the example of Timothy it is correct to infer the general rule that no one should preach without a sending.

(c) Whatever sort of order and decency of the church once required Timothy’s sending, the same sort of order and decency of the church also today requires the sending of ministers. But now, that order was not arbitrary and indifferent [ἀδιάφορος] but was necessary by virtue of divine command, apostolic example, and the salvation of the church. Therefore such order still today requires the sending of ministers.

Nicolaides acknowledges this in part as he immediately adds: “It would have been excessively disgraceful in an already well-established commonwealth for there to be so great a confusion (ἀταξία) and for those things to be neglected that had to do with adorning it. So also today it would be indecent for those who are going to teach others to be established without a certain order and decency, because the assemblies have been established and there are elders in them.” What he adds in regard to the lack of a necessary and general regulation in this matter can be judged from the preceding.

(2) He says that 1 Tim. 5:22 “deals not with the ordination of ministers but with receiving a fallen sinner” (Defens., ch. 2, p. 177).

We respond. On the contrary, wherever in the history [Acts] and Epistles of the apostles there is mention of the imposition of hands, there is expressed there, for the most part, the ceremony that was usually used in the ordination and sending of ministers (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). This ceremony was also used in conferring the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17) and in miracles (Acts 9:12; 19:6; 28:8). But nowhere do we read that the apostles used this ceremony in receiving fallen sinners. Therefore it is groundless for him to assert that this apostolic statement must be taken to mean such a reception. The words that follow, “Do not participate in the sins of others,” do not oppose our interpretation. These words, you see, either contain a particular command distinct from the previous one, or they give the cause why the ministry should be committed to no one quickly, namely, lest such a neophyte, without careful judgment and consideration, having been selected, should stir up disturbances in the church, the cause of which could be attributed partly to us. See Ambrose and all the ancients on this passage.
+++
Copyright (c) 2012 Concordia Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Johann Gerhard on John the Baptist

In honor of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, here's a selection from the latest volume of Johann Gerhard's classic work of theology, Theological Commonplaces: On the Ministry, Part One (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011). Gerhard has an interesting section about how the Jews at the time of Jesus believed in the transmigration of souls. This explains a number of NT passages, and it is plausible that the Jews came to this wrong understanding by misunderstanding verses like Mal. 4:5.

§ 20. In this place the question arises: (I) In what sense and respect is John the Baptist called “more than a prophet” (Matt. 11:9; Luke 7:26)? We respond. The reason is given in the same places: because “he went before the face of the Lord, preparing the way before Him” [Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27]. That is, the prophets of the Old Testament prophesied about the Messiah, who would finally come after many centuries. For instance, Balaam says, “I shall see Him, but not now; I shall behold Him, but not near” (Num. 24:17). Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament, prophesied 466 years before Christ was born. But John pointed his finger at Christ, who was present; he began the ministry of the New Testament; by divine authority he instituted the new sacrament of Baptism. This did not happen to any prophet of the Old Testament. Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 11, p. 185: “All the other prophets announced the coming of the Father’s Light. But they deeply wished to be worthy to see Him whom they were preaching. John, however, prophesied similarly to others but saw His coming, showed Him, and persuaded many to believe in Him, such that he himself held the position of both prophet and apostle.”

(II) [The question arises:] In what sense does this same [John the] Baptist deny that he is a prophet (John 1:21), even though he was considered as and honored with the title “prophet,” not only by his father Zechariah (Luke 1:76) but also by all the people of Israel (Matt. 14:5; Mark 11:32)? We respond. Some people take the question of the messengers from Jerusalem as referring to the outstanding prophet promised in Deut. 18:18. However, because they had already asked John if he was the Christ, the question of whether he was that great prophet would have been repeated uselessly. You see, it could be said only about the Messiah that He was that outstanding prophet who had been promised through Moses, unless we wanted to say that those messengers and the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem had completely erred from the true meaning of this prophecy, something that anyone who notices their stupidity and blindness would easily believe. Some respond by saying that John denied that he was a prophet because Christ said he was greater and more excellent than the prophets. Some claim that when John denies that he is a prophet, he was regarding the fact that he is not one of prophets of the Old Testament, about whom it was said in Matt. 11:13: “For all the prophets prophesied until John.” Some claim that the messengers asked and John replied about Elisha, who himself had ordered Naaman to be dipped in the waters. Some think that John denied that he was a prophet because of his humility, even though he truly was a prophet. Some people suspect that John refused to accept the honor of prophet because he was not undertaking a duty of the political office, which the prophets in the Old Testament used.

But it is more simple to respond that John adjusted his response to the question of the messengers. They were asking him if he was a prophet, that is, if he was one of those ancient prophets, long dead already, who had been recalled to life through a Pythagorean transmigration of souls. You see, Elias Levita testifies in Thisbi that the Jewish leaders at that time had embraced the idea of the transmigration of souls, something we also conclude from the words of Herod (Matt. 14:1; Mark 6:14), where he makes this judgment about Christ: “John the Baptist has risen from the dead. That is why these powers are at work in Him.” However, the sense of the question is revealed especially from what comes before it. They are asking whether he is a prophet in the same sense as they ask whether he is Elijah. But they are asking if he is Elijah in this sense: Is he that Elijah, the Tishbite, who was carried into heaven by a fiery chariot and whose return in his own person they were awaiting, according to the misunderstood prophecy in Mal. 4:5? Therefore they are also asking him if he is a prophet in this sense: Is he one of the ancient prophets recalled to life by a divine miracle? This we conclude very clearly from the words of Luke 9:7–8: “Now Herod the tetrarch heard all that Christ was doing, and he was perplexed because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by the others that one of the ancient prophets had risen.” Therefore John had first denied that he was Elijah in that sense in which the messengers had asked if he was Elijah in his own person, even though the angel (Luke 1:17) and Christ Himself (Matt. 11:14) call him “Elijah” in a different sense: because he went ahead of the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah. In the same way, he denies that he is a prophet in that sense in which the messengers had asked him if he was a prophet, that is, one of the ancient prophets brought back to life, even though in a different sense he truly was a prophet: a herald of repentance and righteousness, the forerunner of the Messiah, a minister of the New Testament, etc.

Baptism and Emergency Situations (Johann Gerhard)

Lutherans now and in the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy held that any Christian may perform a Baptism in a case of emergency, whether he is a pastor or not. But does this mean that there is no need for the office of the ministry? And how should the institution of Baptism in Matt. 28:16-20 be understood? Johann Gerhard comments on this issue in Theological Commonplaces: On the Ministry, Part One (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), § 74, pp. 97-98.

Ordinarily the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments according to divine institution belong to the ministers of the church, who have been legitimately called to that office, as we have shown [§§ 51–63]. Against this divinely established order one cannot and should not set forth extraordinary examples of extreme necessity, which are indeed exempted from the common law but which do not at all overturn the general rule. Thus in the case of extreme necessity when either a man must die without Baptism or a private person must confer Baptism, it is better for a private person to administer Baptism than that the man die without being baptized. Nonetheless the administration of Baptism ordinarily belongs to the ministers of the church, as is gathered from Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15, where the duty both of preaching and of baptizing is committed to the apostles.

The Holy Spirit, Author of the Holy Ministry (Johann Gerhard)

From Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces: On the Ministry, Part One (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), § 50, p. 70.

In time past the Holy Spirit spoke through prophets, who were divinely stirred up and sent as teachers to the church. 2 Sam. 23:2: “The Spirit of the Lord has spoken through me.” Acts 28:25: “The Holy Spirit spoke well to our fathers through the prophet Isaiah.” 1 Pet. 1:11: “The Spirit of Christ in the prophets predicted the sufferings.” 2 Pet. 1:21: “No prophecy ever was given by human will, but holy men of God spoke, φερόμενοι” (“moved and driven”) “by the Holy Spirit.” It is the Holy Spirit who anointed Christ according to the flesh “above His fellows” and “sent Him to preach” (Ps. 45:7; Isa. 42:1; 61:1; Luke 4:18). It is the Holy Spirit who was visibly poured out upon the apostles so that, “clothed with power from on high,” they would preach the Gospel to all nations (Acts 2:1[–4]; Luke 24:49). It is the Holy Spirit who, as the apostles were serving the Lord and fasting, orders them to “set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work to which He called them” (Acts 13:2). For this reason they are said to have been “sent by the Holy Spirit” (v. 4); and this is also affirmed regarding the bishops of the church at Ephesus. Acts 20:28: “The Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the church of God, which He obtained by His own blood.” It is also He who equips ministers of the Word with the gifts necessary to carry out their ministry correctly and salutarily. 1 Cor. 12:4–9: “Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit; there are diversities of servings but the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings, but it is the same God who works all in all. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for usefulness. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another the gift of healings in the one Spirit,” etc. Verse 11: “All these are worked by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one as He wills.” From this, the ministry of the Gospel is also called “the ministry of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:6), not only because the Holy Spirit is given through the word of the Gospel (Gal. 3:2) but also because the Holy Spirit is the Author and Preserver of the ministry and equips ministers with the necessary gifts. Thus when Christ wished to commit the ministry to His apostles, He first gave them the Holy Spirit by means of breathing on them (John 20:22). The result is that all that ministers of the church do correctly and salutarily in their office is correctly attributed to the Holy Spirit, who acts effectually in them and through them. Matt. 10:20: “For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.”

Johann Gerhard, On the Ministry, Part One

The latest volume of Johann Gerhard's Theological Commonplaces is On the Ministry, Part One. The table of contents gives a great overview of what the volume is about.

CONTENTS
Editor’s Preface
Comparison of Editions of Gerhard’s Loci

Commonplace XXVI/1: On the Ecclesiastical Ministry, Part One
The preface shows the connection of this commonplace with the preceding commonplace, § 1, and explains the three estates in the church, § 2, as well as the necessity of the ecclesiastical ministry, § 3, and its usefulness and dignity, § 4.

Chapter I: The nomenclature for the ecclesiastical ministry.
(I) As for the ministry, in Holy Scripture it is called: “The ecclesiastical order,” § 5. “Ministry” (διακονία), § 6. “Public service” (λειτουργία), § 8. “Watch,” “Service,” “Inspection,” and “Stewardship,” § 11. In writers of the church it is called: “Holy work, priestly service” (ἱερουργία) and “hierarchy” (ἱεραρχία), § 12. (II) As for the ministers, in Holy Scripture there are various titles, § 13. In the Old Testament, the proper titles are: “Priests,” § 14. “Patriarchs,” § 17. “Prophets,” § 18. “Seers,” § 21. “Men of God,” § 22. “Angels,” § 23. “Anointed ones,” § 24. The metaphoric titles are: “Watchmen,” § 25. “Builders,” “shepherds,” “fathers,” § 26. In the New Testament, the proper titles are: “Bishops,” § 27. “Presbyters,” § 28. “Deacons,” § 30. “Teachers,” § 31. “Presidents, rulers,” § 32. “Leaders,” § 33. “Scribes,” § 34. The metaphoric titles are: “Salt of the earth,” “light of the world,” “laborers in the vineyard,” “servants who invite people to the wedding,” “to a banquet,” “fishermen,” “laborers in the harvest,” “fellow workers in agriculture,” “stewards,” “physicians,” “ambassadors of God,” “witnesses,” “preachers,” “trumpeters,” “winds,” § 35. In ecclesiastical writers they are called: “leaders,” “parsons,” “priests,” § 36. The Papists call our ministers “preachers” as a term of contempt, and call their own ministers “clerics,” § 37.

Chapter II: Whether there is an ecclesiastical ministry.
(I) The existence of the ministry is proved: (1) By their titles. (2) By the continuous line of teachers from the beginning of the world to our times, in the Old Testament: Patriarchs, § 39. Priests and prophets, § 40. And in the New Testament: John the Baptist, the apostles, and bishops, § 41. The fathers and scholastic doctors, § 42. (3) By the divine promises concerning the preservation of the church and, consequently, of the ecclesiastical ministry until the end of the world, § 43. (4) By the distinction of this order from the other estates and orders, § 45. (II) Gerhard responds to arguments against the necessity of the ministry: That believers of the New Testament no longer need to be taught, § 46. That they have their anointing from God, § 47. That God can illuminue us without the work of the ministry, § 48.

Chapter III: The efficient cause of the ecclesiastical ministry.
The principal efficient cause of the ministry is the Holy Trinity, § 49. The distinction and order of Persons in this work is explained, § 50.

Section I: Whether a particular call is required to take on the ecclesiastical ministry.
What the call is, § 51. Whether it is distinguished from “choosing,” § 53. Its necessity is affirmed, § 54. Gerhard responds to the objections of the Anabaptists and Photinians, § 65.

Section II: How many kinds of call to the ministry there are.
Among various divisions of the call, § 75, the chief distinction is between the mediate and immediate call, § 76.

Section III: The immediate call specifically.
The questions arise: (1) In how many ways the immediate call occurs, § 79. (2) Whether the power to perform miracles is always connected with it, § 80. (3) How one should discern between it and the deceit of fanatics, § 81. (4) Whether it should be expected still today? § 82.

Section IV: The mediate call.
The mediate call is no less divine than the immediate, § 83. By what means it is accomplished, § 85. Each estate of the church participates in the calling of ministers, § 86. But the Papists argue that the laity and the Christian magistrate should be excluded from the call, § 99.

Section V: Episcopal right and the right of patronage, § 108.

Section VI: Things that must be avoided in the calling and selection of ministers, § 115.

Section VII: Controversies and some doubtful questions and cases that often occur in dealing with the call, § 117.

Section VIII: The call of blessed Luther.
The controversy concerning Luther’s call is reviewed, § 118. Luther’s call was mediate, § 120, was confirmed three times, § 121, and Luther often appeals to this mediate, solemn call, § 122. Yet something extraordinary was also present in Luther’s call, § 123. The Papists’ arguments against Luther’s call are refuted, § 124.

Section IX: The calling of ministers in the churches that they call “Evangelical,” § 127.

Section X: The calling of bishops in the Papist church, § 130.

Section XI: The degree of doctorate: Whether it is a call to the ministry, § 136.

Section XII: Ordination.
(1) Whether ordination is absolutely necessary for the ministry, § 139. (2) Whether ordination is a sacrament, § 141. (3) Who the legitimate minister of ordination is, § 152. (4) Whether those whom heretics have ordained should be ordained again, § 155. (5) Whether one who has not been called to a certain place should be ordained, § 158. (6) The ceremonies of ordination: The imposition of hands, § 159. Anointing, § 160. Tonsure, § 163. (7) What the effect and fruit of ordination are, §165.

Section XIII: The examination preceeding ordination, § 166.

Section XIV: The investiture of ministers, § 170.

Section XV: The transfer of ministers, § 171.

Section XVI: The removal of ministers, § 174.

Chapter IV: The material cause of the ministry, 178.

Section I: The matter in which of the ministry.
(1) The matter in which, or subject, of the ministry is human beings. God ordinarily uses their work for the wisest of reasons, both with respect to God, § 179, and with respect to human beings, § 180. (2) What sort of persons are to be selected for the ministry is taught from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, § 181. (3) The questions arise: (a) Whether the ministry is bound to a certain family, § 184. (b) Whether those who are to be called must have a certain number of years, § 185. (c) Whether women, too, should be used for the ecclesiastical ministry, § 186. (d) Whether the ministry should be entrusted to those afflicted with a bodily defect, 187. (e) Whether bastards may be promoted to the ministry, § 188.

Section II: The matter concerning which of the ministry.
The matter concerning which, or object, of the ministry is the Lord’s flock, committed to the care and protection of shepherds, § 189.

Gerhard on the Interpretation of Scripture, or, Your pastor is there for a reason

Gerhard, 1610 Loci Theologici, locus 2, ch.1, § 4: “Etenim non tantum verbi sui depositum sanctissimum Deus nobis concredidit, sed etiam ministerium ecclesiasticum inter nos instituit, cuius officium est praecipuum scripturas interpretari: Istud est ministerium Spiritus 2 Cor. III. 8. per quod in omnem veritatem nos ducere cupit, Joh. XVI 13. Spiritum ergo non debemus extinguere, 1 Thess. V. 19.”

For indeed God has not entrusted to us only the holy deposit of His Word, but also instituted the ecclesiastical ministry among us, whose chief duty is to interpret the scriptures. This is the “ministry of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:8) through which “he desires to lead us into all truth” (John 16:13). Therefore we should not “snuff out the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:19).

NB: This is not from the forthcoming volume on the ministry, but from the as-yet untranslated 1610 Loci.