LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 222

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

222

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

23:19; Ps. 25:8; Is. 6:3; Heb. 6:18). Thus God’s word is infallible (trustworthy
and reliable; incapable of mistake) and inerrant (without error) because He is
completely trustworthy and without error.

3. Reading God’s Word—
basic principles of interpretation

To be sure, many contemporary theologians have attempted to qualify
infallibility and inerrancy by claiming that, while Scripture can be relied on in
all “spiritual” matters (such as those concerning our salvation and morality),
it need not be inerrant in its claims about “secular” matters, including factual
claims about history and science. However, such a claim inherently drives
a wedge between God’s work as Creator and His works of redemption and
spiritual renewal. Orthodox Christianity holds the spiritual and the physical together as two spheres in which God is equally at work. To eliminate
one sphere of His work is to eviscerate His work within the other. Essential
Christian beliefs have no spiritual significance if they are not grounded in
historical fact. Thus, a proper understanding of biblical revelation within
history is necessary:

We have already opened the door to such questions of interpretation
earlier in this chapter, by emphasizing that Christians—Lutheran Christians
in particular—need always to keep Christ and Scripture together. The Bible
is God’s Word. In knowing Christ we are led of necessity to value the book of
Scripture above the “book” of the world. Only through Scripture’s revelation
of God in Christ and His justifying and reconciling work can we know Christ
authentically and truthfully. The crucial point to emphasize here is that this
orientation toward the centrality of the Gospel of Christ and His justifying
work for the world is presented by Scripture itself as the way it should be
read. Our whole approach to the interpretation of biblical texts is guided by
this important orientation. This is the central interpretive principle for the
Christian reader of the Bible.261

The Holy Scriptures do not purport to be a textbook of universal history offering an exhaustive account of the history of all
nations and peoples from the beginning of time up to the various periods when the Biblical books were written. . . .

Having identified this central principle, it is helpful to identify additional
principles that guide Lutheran Christians in their reading of the Scriptures.
Nowhere do the Lutheran Confessions spell out for us a specific list of interpretive principles to which we must all subscribe. Though many Lutheran
theologians have provided hermeneutical262 and exegetical263 guidelines,
none of these lists has, in itself, achieved confessional status among us.264 The
Bible itself does not simply provide a list of interpretive principles by which

The Bible, however, was written to bear witness to the action
of God in human history to accomplish the redemption of fallen
mankind. If Biblical historical records are unreliable or even
false, then God’s saving actions in history are called into question too.259
One sees this point most dramatically in Paul’s straightforward assertion
that the truth of the Christian faith depends on the historical fact of the resurrection: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still
in your sins…. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits
of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:17, 20). Because an infallible God
inspires all of Scripture, we should agree that “since the Holy Scriptures are
the Word of God … they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth.”260
As God’s Word, Scripture is necessarily true (John 17:17). God’s Word, not
science, is the final highest authority for truth even as God always stands in
judgment over humankind. But how do we best make use of this “final court
of appeal”? Is the Bible the highest standard only in certain ways? How does
the Bible become “profitable” (2 Tim. 3:15–17)—particularly with respect to
the relationship of science and theology? How are we to read the book of
Scripture?

use human language are the frequent expressions “Thus says the Lord” (e.g., Ex. 5:1; Is. 44:2)
and “declares the Lord” (e.g., Is. 43:10–12; Jer. 31:31–34).
259

CTCR, The Inspiration of Scripture, 11.

260

“A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles,” emphasis added.

261
See Franzmann, Seven Principles of Reformation Hermeneutics, who unfolds this further. He
emphasizes that the res of justification by grace through faith in Christ—Scripture’s center—requires that one go back and forth from the words (verba) of Scripture to this res (summary of
its message), “letting Scripture interpret Scripture” and so affirm its central truth (Thesis V, p.
6). This central truth however, does not contradict other truths that are less central, such as the
sovereignty of God, the mighty acts of God in Scripture, that he discloses Himself in Scripture,
or that the Bible is His verbally inspired and infallible Word (pp. 10–11). Moreover, the Christocentricity of the Bible leads further, into the use of interpretive tools which reckon with the fact
that Christ is revealed through human authors (Thesis VII, pp. 11–12).
262
Hermeneutics, derives from a Greek verb, ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō), which was used both in
the sense of translating a text from a foreign language and in the sense of interpreting any
text. In biblical studies, hermeneutics may be simply defined as “principles of interpretation.”
See James W. Voelz, What Does This Mean? Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern
World, 2nd ed., rev. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2013), 13.
263
Exegesis derives from the Greek verb ἐξηγέομαι (exēgeomai), which was used as far back as
the fifth century before Christ to indicate the interpretation of a text. Breaking the verb apart
into its compounds yields the idea of “leading something out,” the idea of this usage being
that the interpreter brings out the meaning that is in the text. A simple definition of exegesis as a
process is “the actual interpretation of the Scriptures.” Voelz, 13.
264
In addition to Franzmann, already noted, see Aspects of Biblical Hermeneutics: Confessional
Principles and Practical Applications, Concordia Theological Monthly Occasional Papers No. 1 (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966); Ralph A. Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968). Also helpful in
this regard is the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod), Gospel and Scripture: The Interrelationship of the Material and Formal Principles in
Lutheran Theology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972).

105

106

all its passages are to be understood. There is some risk, then, in providing
any list here, since it could easily distract us from our purpose, which is to
provide some guidance for the discussion of the real matter at hand here, the
relationship between “biblical knowledge” and “scientific knowledge.”

It is sadly obvious that the Bible can be misused and that quotations
from it can be used in twisted and corrupt ways. The Bible itself recognizes
this. The apostle Peter warns about the misuse of Paul’s epistles and of other
Scriptures: “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which
the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other
Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). So it is that the Bible is to be read in the recognition of
the significance that the contexts of its particular books and segments have for
its meaning. The coming of Christ marks the great difference in the context of
the Old Testament in comparison to the New. Each of the Gospels has its own
contextual traits. Although both James and Paul write epistles, each writes
from within a different context, and, indeed, each of Paul’s epistles (and every
other biblical book) must be considered within its own context.

The Lutheran Confessions do, however, model an approach to Biblical
interpretation. As a consequence, when confessional Lutherans have identified principles of interpretation, they always exhibit a significant degree of
overlap, even though each has individual characteristics or emphases:265 The
principles below are generally accepted and may be helpful for our discussion here.266
1. Pay attention to the context, both literary and historical.
2. Begin with the plain meaning of a text.
3. Scripture interprets Scripture.
4. Interpret Scripture in light of the rule of faith.
5. Interpret Scripture in view of Christ.
6. Distinguish Law and Gospel, sin and grace.
7. Attend to the “then and there” meaning as well as the “here
and now” meaning.
These principles are not arranged in priority, but in accordance with the
actual task of interpretation. The first two principles are of identical importance for any reader reading any document. One must always attend to the
context of anything written if one wishes to understand it. Luther once said,
“Unless one understands the things under discussion, one cannot make sense
of the words.”267 That is true whether one is reading the Bible or the Wall Street
Journal. For example, the meaning of a particular word, a particular set of letters, will change as it moves through history or from one language to another.
Anyone who lives in a multi-lingual or multi-generational setting will have
to acknowledge the truth of this observation.

265
Ralph Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions, identifies
four central principles: that the Bible is God’s Word in its every word; that God the Holy Spirit
must enlighten the interpreter to believe the Bible’s truths; that the Bible contains both words
of condemnation (Law) and forgiveness (Gospel), and the two must be carefully distinguished;
and that Christ is the center of all Scripture. Another helpful set of principles is in James Voelz,
What Does This Mean? (352–358), who lists three: the Christological Principle (Christ’s centrality is “the touchstone for the whole” (363); the Coherence Principle (since God is author of all
Scripture, it has a unified message), and the Integrity Principle (each individual passage must
be allowed to retain its particular understanding and truth).
266
These principles are adapted from the list provided by Lane A. Burgland, How to Read the
Bible with Understanding, 2d ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2015 [forthcoming]).
267

Franzmann, Seven Theses, 2.

107

2016 Convention Workbook

Secondly, every document must be taken, first, at face value (accepting
Scripture’s plain meaning).268 That is, one reads before he reacts to what he
reads. This is all the more important, however, for one who reads Scripture.
We pass judgment, of necessity, on the writings of other people, recognizing
that they are not infallible. We cannot, however, pass judgment on God’s
Word, for God judges us. Consider a woman who reads in a newspaper about
a miraculous claim. She understands exactly what is claimed, because the
meaning is plain, but she may also doubt that it is true because such miraculous events are, by their very definition, uncommon. The presupposition that
nature is all that exists (hence, that natural laws are absolute) leads many
to treat Scripture in an identical manner. It leads people to doubt or read an
allegorical or personal “existential” meaning into a biblical text that makes
a miraculous claim, and thus simply to ignore the claim itself. For one who
receives the Scriptures as God’s Word, however, unless the biblical text itself
warrants such an alternative reading, this cannot constitute sound exegesis.
That such a reading finds support in a popular (or academically fashionable) worldview external to the text is irrelevant: a sound reading must be
grounded in what the text actually says. The faithful reader of Scripture takes
the plain meaning—of a healing by Jesus, for example—and accepts its truth
without quibbles, for he or she knows Jesus to be Lord of heaven and earth.
In order for the church to build doctrines confidently on the statements
of Scripture, its focus must be on their primary and intended meaning rather
than (like medieval scholastics or modern critics) on speculation about possible allegorical or mythological readings. This does not ignore the fact that
figures of speech clearly do occur in Scripture. For example, mountains metaphorically sing for joy (e.g., Ps. 98:8; Is. 42:11; 44:23; 49:13). God the Father has
a “right hand,” but not one made of flesh and bone (e.g., Ex. 15:6; Ps. 110:1;
118:15; Luke 22:69; Rom. 8:34). Taking account of the literary genre of a text,
on the basis of the internal evidence supplied by Scripture itself, is crucial
268
The plain meaning of the text includes the assumption that the text is using language in a
way that is consistent with its use at the time of the composition of the text itself. See the discussion of principle 7 below.

108