# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S456
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 441

LIL. WHICH METHOD IS MOST SUITABLE FOR INTERPRETING THE

The Historical-Grammatical

\ human book: General principles

~~ (Traditional) View

Lutheran theology has alwavs
recognized that because the
Bible is written in human
language, certain general
principles of interpreta-
tion must be observed.
Lutheran theology also re-
cognizes that because the
Bible is God's word, cer-
tain other principles are
basic to a correct under-
standing of its message.

1.

Because the Bible communi-
cates God's eternal truth
in literature, written by
men in human idiom, and cor-
prises literary forms common
to other human literature,
it is self-evident that bib-
lical interpretation requires

a. A thorough knowledge of

the languages in which the
Bible was originally writ-
ten;

b. Acquaintance with and re-

fo

cognition of the literary
forms employed by bibli-
cal authors tor effective
communication (address,
oracle, praver, creed,
hymn, proverb, parable,
historical narrative,
edict, treaty, prose anc
poetry).

Because the biblical litera-
ture dates from various peri-
ods of human history and was
addressed to concrete situa-
tions characterized by the
particularity peculiar to
everything that is histori-
cal, biblical interpretation
needs to take this "“histori-
cal dimension" of the Bible
inte account.

The biblical literature
not be treated as thougn
every book and pericope was
addressed to general situa-
tions, and as though every-
thing that is said in every
pericope is applicable in-
mediately to every situation

ean

to

BIBLE?

The Historical - Critical View

The Radical Position

The methods for interpreting
the Bible are typical of
those emploved for all an-
cient human literature.

The historian gua historian
does not view the Bible from
the perspective of the mind
and Spirit of God, but takes
it to be the product of human
thought and experience.

The historian, therefore,
accounts for what the Bible
says and the way it savs it
only in terms of the histori-
cal context that shaped the
minds of its human authors.
He does not reckon at all
with the idea of a super-
natural revelation or inspi-
ration. The meaning of the
biblical literature is to be
sought exclusively in the
historical factors which were
the occasion (or occasions)
or its production--factors
that elicited the literature
and factors that inescapably
influenced both the form and
content of the literature.

Accordingly, when a biblical
author uses the form of his-
torical narrative, for in-
stance, at least three pos-
sibilities must be kept in
mind by a twentieth century
interpreter:

Ancient authors frequently
used this form without in-
tending to relate actual
history3

Even if the author intended
to relate history, his con-
ception ot what is histori-
cal differs from ours, so
that his accounts easily in-
troduce supernatural inter-
vention in order to explain
events and also otherwise
lack the critical precision
of present day history
writing;

His understanding of things
he reports is perspectival,
his report is colored bv his
antiquated world view, and

The Mediating Position

The mediating position employs
a method of biblical inter-
pretation which reflects its
conclusions about the kind of a
book the Bible is. Basically,
the method thought best suited
to Bible study operates with
two broad canons: 1) In view
of its historical dimension,
the Bible must be studied by
the same techniques used to
study any other literature;

2) In view of its theological
dimension, the Bible must be
studied with the expectation
to hear Law and Gospel.

Historical Dimension

1.

ine}

Even though faith recognizes

a "not-of-this-world" (theo-
logical) dimension of biblical
literature, an inductive study
of this literature leads to the
conclusion that it also has a
historical dimension, not only
in the sense that it was pro-
duced in history, but that it
was produced by history and
has a history. Therefore it
participates in the limita-
tions of all human attempts

to discuss themes such as
those to which the Bible
addresses itself. This
"conclusion" then becomes a
"presupposition" for inter-
pretation of the Bible, and
has a direct bearing on the
method which is chosen as

most suitable to study that
kind of book.

The historical approach em-
braces some very complex pro-
cedures:

Accepting the basic tradi-
tional hermeneutical prin-
ciples as simple truisms
applicable to the interpre-
tation of any writing, this
canon prescribes in addition
that the biblical literature
must be interpreted in its
total historical and cul-
tural context.

This means that the inter-
preter must take into ac-
count not only the histor-