LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 224

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

224

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

writers methods of classifying information that are specifically
oriented to the scientific interests of our time, or to require their
use of scientifically technical language, or to demand the computerized precision cherished by a technological civilization.281
This should warn us also against perhaps overly zealous scientifically
minded apologetic arguments that claim to have discovered that the Scriptures anticipated or give direct insight into such things as relativity theory,
quantum mechanics, or dark matter. The text is indeed inspired, but what was
inspired were human words whose meanings are to be found in their normal
usage at the time the original autographs were written—and that usage was
not shaped by any of these scientific theories.
We would do well also to examine several assumptions which may lead
to false or inaccurate conclusions regarding the claims of Scripture and of
science. Certain questions may be beneficial when biblical statements and
scientific conclusions seem incompatible.

Are we talking about the same thing?
In order for two statements to conflict, they must be speaking about the
same subject, and one statement must affirm what the other denies about
that subject. If one person says “apples are green or red,” and another says
“oranges are orange,” the claims do not conflict because they have a different subject matter. Likewise, there is no conflict if someone says “oranges
are orange” and another says “oranges contain Vitamin C,” because neither
person denies what the other person affirms. However, if one person claims
that oranges contain Vitamin C and the other person claims that oranges do
not contain Vitamin C, then there is a conflict. Conflict requires that there are
two assertions about the same subject (oranges), that both use terms with
the same meaning (“oranges,” “contain,” “Vitamin C”) to describe it, and that
these terms are used both to affirm and deny the very same claim about the
subject.282
If both parties are competent users of the same language and employ
standard contemporary usage, the meaning of terms is usually straightforward.283 Matters are not so easy when comparing contemporary scientific
281
Carl F. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 4, God Who Speaks and Shows (Waco, TX:
Word, 1979), 201.
282
This principle is specifically applied to the alleged discrepancies regarding the Gospels’
accounts of the healing of the blind at Jericho and the accounts of Matthew and Luke in Acts of
the death of Judas in William Arndt, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions, rev. ed. (St. Louis:
Concordia, 1987), 178–179, 184.
283
One should not assume, of course—even for competent users of the same language, that
meanings are always straightforward, since individuals often use the same term with differing
emphases or nuances. Logicians call attention to the fallacy of equivocation, where the same term
is used with two (or more) different meanings. For example, if one says a car is hot, another
might misunderstand this to mean the car was stolen when the intended meaning was that car
had a high temperature.

claims to ancient biblical texts. Even in those cases when, according to our
established usage, a biblical text seems to comment on a scientific matter, we
must remember that the original, intended meaning of the biblical text generally reflects the usage of language “then and there”284 and that usage was not
shaped by the claims, procedures, theories and findings of modern science.
Without this caution, there is a very serious danger of anachronism, which
will read the contemporary meanings of words within science back into an
ancient text. For example, when Genesis speaks of God creating plants, trees,
and land creatures according to their kind, it cannot automatically be assumed
that “kind” lines up neatly with the taxonomical categories recognized
by modern biology. “God did not classify animals thousands of years ago
according to our modern classification system.”285
Similarly, it is not easy to determine the identity of the marine animal that
swallowed Jonah (Jon. 1:17; Matt. 12:40), as the words used in the original languages (dag gadol, “fish” in Hebrew; ketos, “sea monster” in Greek) are simply
generic terms and are not specific.286 While observations of the flora, fauna,
archeology, hydrology, psychology, and sociology of a people may provide
insights that help to clarify what these texts are saying, the exegete must resist
reading the contemporary categories of modern scientific taxonomy back into
the scriptural text, but should instead try to recognize the actual conceptual
categories in use at the time of the text’s composition.

Who is the audience?
With reference to the audience of Scripture, there is the matter of reconciling the particular with the universal. Scripture reflects the seeming paradox
that there is both an original audience of a text and also a universal audience,
since God’s Word has a catholic or universal application for all humanity.287
Despite the historical particularities of its formulations, all of God’s Word is
intended for all people at all times. Its purpose is eternal or eschatological, not
temporal, so its direction is from the particularities of this world to the world
God has promised and has already inaugurated in Christ Jesus.
284
See principle 7, pp. 107–111. One may also note, however, that God in His omniscience may
mean more than the inspired human author himself understood. This is sometimes referred to
as a sensus plenior. So, for example, our Lord says all of the Old Testament testifies of Him (Luke
24:44-47), even though that testimony is frequently indirect, not direct.
285
See Eric Lyons, “Was Jonah Swallowed by a Fish or a Whale?” available at: http://www.
apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=2830.
286
See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed.,
Frederick William Danker, ed. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000):
544; and Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1: 213. For a more general response to alleged biological
errors in the Bible, see Eric Lyons, “Did the Bible Writers Commit Biological Blunders,” available at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=615&article=736.
287
This also is a direct application of principle 7, p. 111 above. In addition, it is an aspect of
principles 1 and 2, pp. 108–109. The term catholicity is used here with reference to the universal
dimension of all Christian truth and thus the church herself and the Scriptures.

113

114

Since the original texts of Scripture are in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,
they must be studied in light of their original language and setting.288 Our
Lord Jesus lived within a particular geographic locale, ate the foods of that
particular region, spoke the language of that place, wore the garments of that
time, and generally experienced the total panoply of cultural expressions
of that day. Nevertheless, His life and the truths He spoke are for all time.
This becomes explicit in His command to preach His Gospel to all nations
(Matt. 28:19–20). It is all the more apparent because of the remarkable fact that
His life and words were preserved not in the language He spoke (Aramaic)
nor in the language of the Hebrew Scriptures that He read and fulfilled, but
in the language of the surrounding first century world—Greek. The record of
the profoundly particular life, death, resurrection, and teachings of this first
century Jew has thus, from the beginning, been translated into one language
after another. As it is heard in their own tongue by one more far-off people
after another, faith arises (Rom. 10:17) in the one Lord Jesus and His Gospel—
in the one God of all people, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.289

can signify any luminous body, so it does not distinguish between planets,
comets, and what we today call stars. Thus it is not surprising that modern
commentators have proposed theories along each of these lines (and more
besides).290 In favor of the planetary theory is that there was a conjunction of
Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 6 BC, but it is doubtful it would have looked like
a single heavenly body, if indeed it was fully visible at all.291 There is some
plausibility in the ideas of a comet or even of a nova which occurs when a star
has a sudden increase in its luminosity because of an internal explosion.292 Yet
the text does not tell us whether the “star” was a natural phenomenon (it certainly could have been, since God knows from eternity when some unusual
natural phenomenon will occur, and can certainly use it as a sign) or a special
miracle. Some think clues in the text suggest the latter option, for how can an
ordinary star go before people and rest at a particular location? But others
point out that this may just refer to the apparent motion of the star, since “as
people travel, the stars do seem to move with them or before them, stopping
when they stop.”293 The point of the emphasis here is that inerrancy does not
imply that we always know what every detail of the original text means, it
only implies that the original meaning expresses truth. What we can say with
confidence is that the mysterious star is an extraordinary illustration of the
fact that God desires all to know His Son as Lord and King—including those
from faraway and once hostile lands (Eph. 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:4).

This also means that every hearing of Scripture requires attention to
cultural details that may be “foreign.” For example, the parable of the great
banquet (Luke 14:12–24) includes details that are alien to an American
today—reclining at a table, yokes of oxen—yet it shows us eternal truths
about fallen mankind and the love and grace of God. It shows us that all
fallen people are blind, lame beggars, weak and handicapped with no power
to save themselves, and it shows that God’s saving grace is offered to all.
Science works in a different direction. Its purpose is temporal, not eternal.
Science explores how this world works. Its goals are ultimately practical in
terms of this world. To the extent that science discovers enduring principles
or truths, it seeks thereby to apply them to present problems and difficulties,
not eternal ones.
On rare occasions, the particularity and even peculiarity of Scripture's
language and imagery may mean we cannot be sure of some specific details
about a text. An example is the meaning of the “star of Bethlehem.” Matthew
2:1–9 tells us of a “star in the East” that guides the wise men to the birthplace
of Christ, and scholars have puzzled over just what this “star” refers to.
Most important is that we cannot assume that “star” means what it does in
modern astronomical theory, which carefully distinguishes between planets,
comets and stars. The Greek word for “star” used in Matthew is “aster.” This

288

One corollary principle of biblical inspiration is that the original autographs of Scripture
were inspired in their particular languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) with a meaning determined by the usage of words in their world. Thus it is important not only to attempt to
reconstruct the original text from the comparison of extant manuscripts, but also to labor to
understand what that text originally meant in the minds of its authors and intended recipients.

Are we speaking in similar ways?
There are also subtle matters of genre identification. The genre of a text
concerns the particular class of literature that text belongs to by virtue of its
form, content, style, and technique. A variety of genres is employed in Scripture, such as historical narrative, regulations and laws, prophecies, psalms,
poetry, and so forth. If faulty exegesis is to be avoided, identification of the
genre of the text must be grounded in the text itself. Poetic or metaphorical
expressions may then be identified as such without implying a literal meaning (for example, in Psalm 104:3 the Lord is said to make the clouds His
chariot). Thus, parallels with similar texts and literary conventions of the
time can be illuminating; however, they are not conclusive as to a biblical
text’s meaning.294 Moreover, judgment about the genre of a biblical text can290
See chapter 7 of Paul Maier’s In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter,
and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1991).
291

Ibid., 55.

292

Ibid., 58.

293

Ibid., 59–60.

294

289
For a profound and provocative consideration of the importance of the translation of
the Scriptures, see Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989).

This principle does not deny that parallel texts outside of Scripture can help to illuminate
the genre of a biblical text. For example, many scholars have argued persuasively that the Mosaic covenant as expressed in Exodus and Deuteronomy has many of the same structural elements as does a typical Suzerain-Vassal treaty of the ancient near east such as those employed
by the Hittites. The Biblical texts follow a structure similar to the suzerainty treaties, with a
preamble, historical prologue, list of stipulations, and an associated list of blessings for obedi-

115

116

2016 Convention Workbook