Scaer and Pieper

On Scripture’s Inspiration and Authority

Paul F. Nus – Winter Quarter 2005 – Concordia Theological Seminary-Fort Wayne
SYST 122 – Revelation and Scripture – for Professor David Scaer

In his Discourses on Matthew Dr. David P. Scaer depicts the likely human processes

through which Matthew’s Gospel was inspired, distributed and recognized as Scripture. While

his insights echo or harmonize with those of Dr. Francis Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics in many

respects, there are at least nine important differences.

I. Scaer’s Arguments for the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

The historical process of “canonization” drew heavily from the church’s well-established

liturgical traditions. Matthew’s Gospel was written to provide content for Christian worship and

catechesis, and cannot properly be understood outside of that eucharistic context. In the ancient

world, texts were scripts read orally (e.g. Matthew 24:15) and not silently or privately. As Jews

reaching out to other Jews, Matthew’s community sought accurately to preserve and disseminate

the words and deeds of the long-expected Messiah Who had come. Oral tradition would not

suffice; scribes had scrupulously preserved Moses’ Torah and the Prophets for centuries, and the

fulfillment of the deliverance they foretold merited the same permanence. Since Jesus’ teachings

and life provided the only proper explanation for the Jewish texts read in synagogue worship,

New Testament documents came to share and surpass their authority. Regular public reading in

many places over many decades firmly established the Gospels’ and Epistles’ status as

“scripture” long before canonization explicitly formalized this status. Imperial authorities would

not have persecuted assemblies reading only the familiar Jewish texts.

Paul’s letters claimed to be the Word of God (and were received as such without debate).

Within 15 years of Jesus’ crucifixion, they were read alongside the Old Testament in Christian

worship. Yet Christian worship centered on the incarnational reality and eucharistic presence of

Jesus, not Paul. His letters presumed and did not supply knowledge of many aspects of Jesus’

life and teachings, including especially His death, burial and resurrection “for our sins” (e.g.
Romans 1:3-4; I Corinthians 15:3-4). Solid internal and external evidence indicates Matthew

intended to write his Gospel as Scripture. His first two words (“biblos geneseos”) explicitly

declare his intention to present a biblical record on par with Genesis. Matthew 10:20 indicates

the author saw himself as one through whom the Spirit of Yahweh was speaking, and Paul’s

letters to the Thessalonians indicate references to Matthew’s Gospel, which may also be the

“very firm prophetic word” acknowledged in the New Testament book of 2 nd Peter. Many early

church fathers’ letters and other 1st and 2nd century writings such as the Didache (possibly an

apostolic commentary on Matthew) quote most of the New Testament documents as authorita-

tive. Matthew’s Gospel claimed to convey the standards by which all humanity would be judged

upon Christ’s return to earth, which was imminently expected. All four Gospels self-evidently

delivered a message of Jesus’ saving words and deeds which applied to all people. This moti-

vated the rapid and accurate distribution of New Testament documents as “encyclicals” through-

out the worldwide network of communities that Christianity had become within the 1st century.

Much as email can be forwarded far beyond the original author’s intentions or expectations

today, Matthew knew his Gospel would disseminate in unpredictable directions. Such distri-

bution was enabled by the common ancient practice of scribes producing multiple original

transcripts from a single recitation. This fact renders futile the higher critics’ search for a single

original document written only for certain local communities. That premise blinds them to an

essential aspect of “scripture”: its universality beyond particular places and times. Matthew

26:13 clearly anticipated a worldwide reach, and the rapid and widespread impact of the New

Testament documents, crossing cultural boundaries to drastically reshape the Roman Empire

within a very few decades, also attests to their status as “scripture”.

II. Pieper’s arguments for the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

“Verbal Inspiration” means God breathed the words into the writers, and self-evidently

implies and includes also the impulse and command to write (impulsum et mandatum scribendi).

Page 2 of 8
In John 17, Christ said people would believe through the word of His Apostles – their word was

His Word. The Holy Spirit’s operation had the written words of the holy books alone as His

object, and not the writers. The latter were merely His instruments or amanuenses – clerks, tools,

secretaries, hands or pens. Yet any implication of natural or regenerate impulse, ecstasy,

montanist trance, or mechanical relationship is rejected. The human authors were not lifeless

machines, but the Holy Spirit’s living and willing personal instruments, moved by His special

calling and extraordinary impulse to write Scripture in the exercise of their apostolic office.

Endowed with intellect and their own distinctive styles, they were fully aware of speaking and

writing Christ’s Word. The Apostles expressly declared that they wrote the identical things they

preached; both their oral and written words flowed without distinction from the same “fountain”.

Yet the Holy Spirit gave them more than divine guidance or protection from error, dictating the

very words constituting Scripture in the original documents. Every one and all of these words

are inspired, perfectly true, inviolable, infallible, unchangeable, and inerrant. While in the New

Testament the Holy Spirit frequently takes liberties, quoting Himself in a free manner departing

from the exact reading of Old Testament texts, and even though ancient manuscripts contain

numerous textual variations, the Scriptures now at the Church’s disposal provide a reliable text

of the Apostles’ and Prophets’ authentic doctrine. The Apostles claimed permanent validity for

all they wrote, and their words apply to the Church Universal, and not just a particular church.

III. Similarities and Dissimilarities between the approaches of Scaer and Pieper

Both Scaer and Pieper are firmly convinced Matthew and Paul intended to write Scripture

and were fully aware of doing so. Both insist that no distinction should be made between Jesus’

words and the evangelists’ explanations of them. Both see Scripture imparting divine instruction

and not mere gnosis while admitting that divine realities ultimately lie beyond the grasp of full

human comprehension. Both insist that the Scriptures, as the Church’s Books, cannot be

properly understood without faith. Both agree that the Scriptures were written to standardize that

Page 3 of 8
faith, teaching the Christian community through catechesis (which is basic and applies to

everyone) and dogmatics (which is specialized for teaching the teachers). Yet Scaer and Pieper

differ in at least nine distinct ways:

1. Command to Write: Scaer believes the apostles and evangelists preached or dictated

their texts. Pieper presumes that inspiration required them personally to take pen in hand to

write on the basis that the inspiration of the things to be written and the impulse to write amount

to the same thing (Quenstedt), and the command to write implies the act of writing (Baier-

Walther). Here Pieper seems to abandon the sola scriptura rule for logical inferences resting

upon a few late Lutheran theologians in order to derive this impulsum et mandatum scribendi

doctrine. Quoting Psalm 45:1, “My tongue is like the pen of ready scribe”, Scaer agrees with the

Roman theologians Pieper condemned: the Apostles were commanded to preach, but no where

commanded (or forbidden) to write. A literal interpretation of Scripture supports this view.

2. Inspiration of the Man vs. the Text: Pieper insists the text is inspired but the man is

not, making a clear distinction between the two. This boundary for Scaer is much more diffuse

(if it exists at all); he refers to Matthew the apostle and the text almost interchangeably. Pieper

declaims “mechanical” inspiration, but his attention focuses closely upon the Divine Author,

overwhelming the human amanuenses. The Holy Spirit Scaer depicts remains hidden behind the

veil of Matthew (the primary object of Scaer’s attention). Matthew has his own goals and

intentions which God uses for His own purposes. Scaer suggests the Gospels and Epistles came

to be revered as Scripture, though this was not the primary intention; Pieper would certainly

object. Inspiration for Pieper is a fact and result; for Scaer it is also a process to be examined.

3. History and Canon, Logic and Reason: Confident of Scripture’s inviolability, both

Scaer and Pieper examine modernist historical criticism in order to debunk it with some con-

tempt. Pieper expends much greater space and energy against modernist ego theologians, while

Scaer insists that the quest for the historical Jesus cannot be ignored. Noting that inspiration

Page 4 of 8
does not explain canon, Scaer scrutinizes the human factors involved in the when, how and why

of canonical development the Scriptural Canon’s development. He insists that Pieper’s unques-

tioned acceptance of the canon puts him into a position of unavoidable dependency upon church

tradition. Pieper would object since he categorically opposes the exegetical use of extra-biblical

material, whether philological or historical. He insists that Scripture itself gives all the histori-

cal background necessary to understand and interpret Scripture correctly; historical circum-

stances or background obtained (wholly or in part) from secular writers can only lead one astray.

Scaer relies heavily upon extra-biblical sources such as the Didache, early church fathers, and

secular histories of early church liturgical practices to draw conclusions about Matthew’s status

as Scripture, while rigorously relying upon Scripture alone for his exegesis.

An analogy Scaer employed provides insight into his entire methodology: astronomers

found Pluto by calculation, having observed the orbital deviations of visible objects and recog-

nized the exertion of unseen gravitational forces. Likewise, certain insights into Scripture’s

nature and authority can only be inferred from historical observations and logical inference, and

these must be recognized and acknowledged in order to understand Scripture correctly. Pieper

would probably reject this as elevating reason to a magisterial role (judge over scripture).

4. Sola Scriptura vs. Liturgical Use: Pieper attributes to the Scriptures an essential and

unavoidably self-authenticating character that Scaer does not concede. Agreeing with Pieper that

inspiration is foundational, Scaer insists it remains insufficient by itself to establish Scripture’s

authority. Pieper presumes Scripture can be interpreted objectively even though the interpreter’s

ego often introduces bias, and seems confident that his own Christian Dogmatics teaches nothing

more and nothing less than the Apostles’ doctrine. Scaer has no such confidence, noting that

people generally rely upon insights received from human teachers or church traditions rather

than actually upholding sola scriptura in practice. Scaer enlists and emphasizes the sacraments

as hermeneutical lenses in a way that Pieper does not conceive and would not endorse.

Page 5 of 8
 5. Jesus vs. Paul: The Epistles have a doctrinal and dogmatic character that the Gospels

lack, but Scaer objects to any Christian teaching (dogmatic or otherwise) that gives Paul a more

central place than Jesus. Subordinating the Gospels which contain Jesus’ words and deeds to

Paul’s historical influence and overarching interpretation constitutes the Marcionite heresy.

Since Paul’s Epistles presume the prior knowledge revealed in the Gospels while the reverse is

not (and cannot be) true, Scaer promotes the Gospels’ organic integrity and primacy, with

Matthew foremost. Pieper would surely agree that Paul’s writings cannot contradict the words of

Jesus in any way. Yet to admit that Paul’s words must be understood in light of the words of

Jesus, and not the reverse, might have implications Pieper would find difficult to accept.

6. Narrative Integrity vs. Doctrinal Loci: Scaer emphasizes the interconnections and

interrelationships of Matthew’s discourses (and presumably the rest of the Scriptures) to a much

greater degree than Pieper. From Melanchthon, Chemnitz and later dogmaticians Pieper adopted

the Loci method of dissecting the Scriptures in order to sort and extract from them sedes

doctrinae like a bag of bullets. This approach unavoidably gives primacy to the more direct

dogmatic statements found in Paul’s epistles. Pieper expresses admiration for the “compact

inner unity” of the “theology taken from Scripture” (emphasis added) – not Scripture itself. By

contrast, Scaer endeavors to engage each text in context, presuming that the Divine and human

authors had good reason for presenting their teachings in a particular manner and sequence.

Scaer observes, describes and connects where Pieper pinpoints, extracts and classifies, a method

that shows much less respect for textual and contextual integrity. Scaer’s approach seems less

rationalistic and more faithful to the Sola Scriptura principle.

7. One vs. Multiple Meanings / Perspecuity vs. Mystery: Pieper approaches all biblical

books as mere containers for a commodified, homogenized Word of God to be dissected and

classified according to the Loci method. Scaer sees a hierarchy of documents with the Gospels at

the top. Pieper presumes each text conveys only one meaning, an approach Scaer flatly declares

Page 6 of 8
impossible, as he perceives multiple levels of meaning lying below that evident on a text’s

surface. Pieper emphasizes Scripture’s perspicuity, but Scaer suggests that not only Matthew’s

parables but his entire Gospel serves to shroud the Divine. Scripture’s mysteries, Scaer believes,

are only uncovered within the liturgical context of eucharistic worship – a proposal Pieper could

never accept. Yet Scaer categorically declares that the reading, preaching, hearing and

recognition of Scripture constitute one indivisible reality.

8. Dogmatic Sufficiency vs. Inexhaustible Catechesis: Scaer claims Matthew 28:20 on

behalf of catechesis; Pieper claims it on behalf of dogmatics. Scaer bases his entire approach

upon the premise that repeated exposure to the same material is necessary to obtain a thorough

understanding. The initial understanding may or may not be correct. If wrong, the repeated

exposure provides correction. If essentially right, the repetition strengthens and deepens

understanding and confidence. Over time, plowing the same ground yields a heightened ability

to recognize the significance of smaller details that earlier passes often overlook. Time, practical

experience, and a humble and habitual openness to new insights renews appreciation for the

wondrous majesty of inter-related whole. This catechetical enterprise is never completed or

exhausted; it can always be deepened, broadened and enriched through further exposure and

application. The sufficiency and completeness presented in Pieper’s Dogmatics seems overly

tidy and packaged by comparison. Dogmatics can be comprehended and articulated at a strictly

intellectual level with finality; Catechesis engages the whole man in a never-ending personal

relationship with Jesus Christ, the eternal and saving Son of God.

9. Linear Systematic Method vs. Spiraling Elucidation: A true systematician, Pieper

works like a brick mason plunking down a firm and solid foundation. He’s brawny, bold, and

deliberate. This linear and deliberate approach makes it very easy to see where he is leading

before one gets there. Scaer proceeds much more speculatively – not so much dropping bricks as

floating a series of hypotheses. It is a curious way to advance an argument: blowing a stream of

Page 7 of 8
bubbles to see where the wind takes them, whether they fall and burst or gently alight and

continue to glisten brightly – for how much longer? Those that endure may rest upon others

about to burst. Yet to dismiss (or pop) every bubble is to reveal oneself as a skeptic and proud

scoffer who refuses to “examine everything carefully, holding fast to that which is good” (I

Thessalonians 4:19-21).

Scaer describes Matthew’s approach as “spiral elucidation” and this nonlinear, elliptical

or circuitous progression certainly characterizes his own approach. It often uncovers surprising

connections or yields unexpected conclusions that reinforce one another, adding new insights to

points sketched earlier. His approach to explaining and defending inspiration relies upon

plausible suppositions that are tentatively suggested rather than confident assertions. As the

argument advances these initial suggestions are taken as established precepts for further plausible

suppositions. To adopt another metaphor, the result seems woven like a spiderweb waving in the

wind. The resulting structure seems perhaps more fragile than it really is, constructed of

mutually-reinforcing threads. By connecting multiple supports to as many points as possible,

Scaer strives to ensure that if one underlying premise or proposal is disproved or dismissed,

others remain standing to uphold each point’s validity.

Solomon wrote that “The end of a matter is better than its beginning; patience of spirit is

better than haughtiness of spirit” (Ecclesiastes 7:8). The final strength or solidity of Scaer’s

overall structure remains to be tested. His exploratory progression of mooted proposals makes

for very interesting reading, but is it the theological equivalent of doing a crossword puzzle?

Has progress been accomplished, or do we remain where we started? Have we actually crossed

any bridges or closed any doors? Pieper expressed a principled indifference to one’s theological

starting point, provided the doctrinal relationship to the central article of justification was

demonstrated. He could hardly object to Scaer’s insistence that Jesus’ teachings in the Gospel of

Matthew should serve as the foundation of His Church’s catechesis (and dogmatics).

Page 8 of 8