The gospel preacher has given himself over to bring the good news of free salvation in Christ, through faith alone, to those held captive by sin and death. The gospel preacher does not impose himself upon the brokenhearted. He heals them. He does not put sinners in additional bondage, he liberates them. He does not add additional locks to the doors. He unlocks them.

One of the privileges of editing the Classic Reformed Theology series for Reformation Heritage Books is that I get to work closely with significant Reformed texts and shepherd them through the process from translation (e.g., from Latin to English) to publication. Currently I am working through J. H. Heidegger (1633–98), The Concise Marrow of Christian Theology (1697). Just as Berkhof (and now Horton) wrote a large volume, a middle-sized volume (“middle Berkhof”), and a “little Berkhof,” so Heidegger produced three versions of his dogmatics and this is the Medulla Medullae (Marrow of the Marrow) or his little volume.

You may not have heard of J. H. Heidegger (not to be confused with the modern philosopher, Martin Heidegger, 1899–1976) but that does not mean that he was not a significant figure. During his career, Heideigger, a Swiss Reformed theologian, taught Hebrew, moral philosophy, and theology in Heidelberg and Zürich. He is most famous for his career in Zürich and for his work, with Francis Turretin (1623–87), on the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675), which confessed the faith against the Amyraldians, the Arminians (Remonstrants) and defended the reliability of the Scriptures as they began to come under assault by the rationalists. His Wikipedia entry (as of this writing—caveat, the entry could change at any time) seems accurate.

This work suggests that Zürich theology grew up, as it were. Obviously it matured under Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) but it continued to mature. Heidegger was in Heidelberg and he worked closely with Turretin in Geneva, so he was not parochial. Scholars of his calibre read widely within their own (e.g., Reformed) traditions but beyond. By 1697 there is little indication of a peculiarly Zürich theology in Heidegger.  On the Lord’s Supper (locus 25) there is a strong note of ανάμνησις (remembering) but he also taught that the Supper is a mystery (25.16) in support of which he appealed to the Song of Solomon (5:1). He called it a “feast” the food of which is Christ’s body and blood (25.17) and a “true and real” communion of the body of Christ (25.20).

That he and Turretin were able to draft a confession that united the Swiss Cantons (for about 50 years until J. A, Turretin, Francis’ son, undid his father’s work in the service of broad evangelicalism) suggests that Reformed theology at the end of the 17th century was relatively more coherent than it had been 150 years earlier. For all the talk about diversity in the Reformed theology (it existed but not to the degree that some would have you think) there is a remarkable unity and core of Reformed theology, piety, and practice at the end of the 17th century.

The passage that prompted this morning’s reflection is in 25.2, where he sketched “the exercise of” New Testament worship. He wrote:

Preaching has this in peculiar: it is generally evangelical, not domineering as for slaves but pleasant as for the free, and a certain encouragement (παράκλησις) rather than domineering legislation (2 Cor. 5:20).

This is a pregnant comment. It reflects the experience of a minister and theologian who had heard a lot of bad sermons of a legal type. He has already asserted repeatedly the theological distinction between the law as God’s condemning and killing Word and the gospel as God’s life-giving and gracious Word to sinners. That distinction is part of the background for this characterization of preaching. Heidegger knew the difference between legal and gospel preaching. He knew the difference between preaching that liberates slaves by allowing the law to be what it is and that preaches the unfettered, well-meant good news to freely. Thus, New Testament preaching is to be “generally evangelical.” It is to be colored by the gospel. When he wrote “not domineering” he was reflecting on a pattern of preaching that has always existed, which he had experienced (and perhaps with which he himself had struggled as a preacher). The English word “domineer” is an apt choice (thanks to Dr. Casey Carmichael, the translator of this work) captures the sense of “asserting one’s will over another in an arrogant way” (s.v., Oxford American Dictionary). The legal preacher is a domineering preacher. The message of the legal preacher is that he, not Christ, is lord. We must do what he, the legal preacher, says. The legal preacher is a not a true minister of Christ insofar as he asserts himself rather than abandoning himself to Christ and to Christ’s law and to Christ’s gospel.

Read More