LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 225

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

not be based on whether the text seems plausible in light of modern scientific
claims. 295 Thus, one cannot suppose that the creation of the world by the
spoken Word of God is a poetic metaphor without any literal basis because it
seems to conflict with a modern scientific claim about the origins of the earth.
This is an irresponsible interpretation because it does not establish the genre
of the text on the basis of the form, content, style, and technique of the text
itself, but rather suggests a convenient literary escape route from an apparent
scientific embarrassment.
When Psalm 98:8 expresses this response—“Let the rivers clap their
hands; let the hills sing for joy together”—no one supposes this is a scientific
prediction of some rather unusual behavior by rivers and hills. Yet it should
be noticed that the text itself makes it abundantly clear that this is a praise
song (v. 1, 5, 6). There are other clues as well, such as Hebrew parallelisms
within Psalm 98 and within the surrounding context of similar psalms, such
as musical directions which indicate that this is a species of poetry (a song of
praise) in which metaphor and figures of speech are to be expected. On the
other hand, it would be far different to claim that Jesus’ miracles of healing
are only metaphorical, especially when Jesus himself instructs John the Baptist’s disciples to tell John about the miracles that they “hear and see” (Matt.
11: 4). What they heard about and saw with their own eyes were healings
of the blind, the lame, the diseased, and the deaf, not inspiring metaphors
for something else. There is nothing in the texts that report these miracles to
suggest that they are metaphorical or mythological, so any suggestion along
those lines derives primarily from assumptions external to the text (e.g.,
naturalism).
A well-known illustration of erroneous genre identification is the attempt
to show that Genesis 1 is a mythological text, because of its superficial
resemblance to the ancient Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish.296 Close
study of the texts in parallel reveals major differences.297 For example, Enuma
ence and curses for breach of covenant. That discovery can help us to see that God’s covenant
with his people takes the form of a recognized legal agreement and serves both religious and
civil purposes. However, it does not follow from such formal similarities that the content of
the biblical covenant is simply borrowed or merely a human political document that adapts
existing legislation. The kind of agreement God is making with His people—a matter that depends in part on determining the genre of the text (e.g., what sort of contract or treaty is it, and
what are its terms?)—can be discerned only by a close reading of its own claims. That meaning
should make sense in light of the ancient near east context, but we should not presume it is
merely borrowed. Recognition of the merits of the text itself reveals that the Mosaic covenant
is quite unique in its content.
295

See principles 1 and 2, p. 107–109.

296
The full text of the Enuma Elish is available here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/
index.htm. See also the one-page summary chart in John H. Walton, Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978, 1994), 80.

Elish is polytheistic, not monotheistic; the gods themselves seem subject to
powers of nature (indeed they seem to be part of nature, and are mortal);
and it is not an account of the creation of the entire universe from nothing:
the patron deity Marduk creates the heavens and the earth by dividing the
body of Tiamat, another god he has slain (Tablet 4), and Ea fashions human
beings from the blood of Kingu (Tablet 6). It is a fallacy of faulty analogy to
argue that because two texts have some superficial similarities and one text
belongs to a particular genre, that therefore the other text shares that genre. By
this argument, realistic novels could be declared non-fiction and the moving
account of an actual trial could be declared fiction. Even if it is true that some
images or ideas are common to the Enuma Elish and Genesis, the fact remains
that Genesis makes unique claims about the Creator and the creation—most
notably that Yahweh is the one true God, that He transcends his creation (and
is not part of it or subject to it), and that He alone brings all else into being.

By whose authority are we speaking?
In each of the foregoing examples there is an improper reading of the biblical text, resulting in something other than its intended meaning. However,
there is also a fundamentally different understanding of authority, as we indicated in section 2. Does final authority lie with the Word of God or the claims
of science? This challenge to biblical authority is no surprise because, with the
rise of autonomous reason, all forms of authority have been challenged. As
Carl Henry said several decades ago,
Anyone who thinks that this problem specially or exclusively
embarrasses Bible believers has not listened to the wild winds
of defiance now sweeping over much of modern life. Respect
for authority is being challenged on almost every front and in
almost every form.298
A contemporary example of this is the undermining of the Bible’s moral
authority. In recent years some theologians have claimed that Romans 1:26–27
does not really speak against sexual activity between persons of the same sex,
but is rather focused on more specific abuses such as temple prostitution or
pedophilia—that this is what the writers actually had in mind.299 What drives
this argument, however, is the presupposition of contemporary social science
that homosexuality is one among many natural orientations and that therefore this cannot be what Paul is opposing. The trouble is that this conclusion
cannot be derived from the words of the text: these words neither mention
nor suggest temple prostitution, pedophilia, or any other such qualifications.
Sound exegesis requires that we draw the meaning out of the words actually
in the text. While contextual studies can help us to understand the meaning of

298

Carl F. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 4., 7–8.

297
An excellent summary of the superficial similarities and major underlying differences is
provided by Jared Wellman, “Does the Genesis creation account come from the Babylonian
Enuma Elish?” available at: http://carm.org/genesis-creation-enuma-elish.

299
For an example of this and a response to it within Lutheranism see the CTCR report, Response
to Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, online at http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1820.

117

118

those words, they cannot add, delete, or modify the words themselves or their
meaning. If they could, Scripture would simply become “a wax nose to be
pulled to and fro”300 and adapted to say whatever we would prefer it to mean.
What was reasonable to the autonomous individual, rather than the text itself,
would determine the text’s “meaning” and Scripture’s divine Author and His
authority would be ignored.

As we have shown, the Bible cannot be isolated from science—the two
cannot simply be segregated from one another. Contrary to NOMA’s central
tenet, biblical truths do overlap with scientific ones. It is important to emphasize, however, that the overlap is not comprehensive. The Bible does not
speak directly to many different topics and situations that science addresses.
Scripture is not an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, but it is the inspired
record of God’s particular work in history—especially the incarnation and
saving work of His Son. The salvific purpose of Scripture is central, not
microbiology or agronomy or physics or other human scientific disciplines.
Scripture does not contain comprehensive truths about such sciences and it
is a misuse of Scripture to think the Bible will give us clarity about scientific
questions that it does not answer or even intend to address.

On matters of scientific import, then, the implication is that we should
not simply read contemporary science into the original text. For example,
in describing the creation of the world, there is no reason to think that, even
under inspiration, Moses had in mind some modern cosmological theory that
modern scientists regard as plausible. Nothing in the text suggests that Moses
was an early advocate of modern string theory or speculated about multiple
universes! At the same time, one should be careful to note that the scriptural
text may not clearly and directly rule out all such theories. On the one hand, it is
possible that the text is simply silent on some matters as they were simply not
on the radar (to use an anachronistic metaphor!) when the text was written.
On the other hand, the plain sense of Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”) and Matthew 24:35 (“Heaven and earth will
pass away, but my words will not pass away”) is surely incompatible with the
view held in common by Ancient Greek philosophers301 and “steady state”
cosmologists (like Sir James Jeans in the 1920s302) that the existence of matter
has neither a beginning nor an end.

Areas of uncertainty: humility in interpretation
and confidence in Christ
Of course, while we rightly confess the conviction that Scripture is
infallible, we also recognize that its interpreters are not. So it may happen
that further study makes orthodox interpreters question assumptions or
conclusions about a biblical text and its relationship to scientific knowledge.
The case of Copernicus is an example. Nevertheless, faithful scholars
should be on guard against fundamental re-readings of texts (for example,
reading the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 as mere mythology), and
scientifically minded people may have to simply accept that when God’s
Word meets the works of human science, we cannot always produce a tidy
rapprochement.

Scripture is very clear, first and foremost, about its central and primary
truth: Christ and His saving work. Theologians often refer to the clarity of
Scripture as its “perspicuity.” Francis Pieper asserts: “According to Scripture,
the perspicuity of Scripture consists in this, that it presents, in language that
can be understood by all, whatever men must know to be saved.”303 The
Gospel, of course, is not the only truth that Scripture clearly teaches. Pieper
goes on to say that “Scripture is perfectly clear and is in regard to doctrine and
life ‘a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.’”304 Thus, every aspect of
Christian teaching (“doctrine and life”) is made clear in Scripture. Reminding
us of the consistency of this idea and its importance in Lutheran theology (as
is evident in its Confessions) the CTCR report on Gospel and Scripture states:
The whole body of Lutheran doctrine is always represented as
“taken from the Word of God and solidly and well grounded
therein” (FC SD Summary, 5) “supported with clear and irrefutable testimonies from the Holy Scriptures” (ibid., 6), and based
“on the witness of the unalterable truth of the divine Word”
(Preface to The Book of Concord, p. 5).305
The Bible makes perfectly clear that God “desires all people to be saved
and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Furthermore, we can
be confident that an omnipotent, omniscient, and holy God will be clear in
His revelation of all that we must know to be saved and to live according to
God’s good and gracious will. Indeed, God Himself tells us that His Word
cannot fail:
For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,

300
This was Luther’s charge against some of the theologians of Rome in his day. See Luther’s
“The Papacy at Rome: An Answer to the Celebrated Romanist at Leipzig,” (1520). AE 39:81.
301
Plato and Aristotle both took for granted that matter had always been here, and assumed
that what required explanation was not the existence of matter (a brute fact) but its structure
or form. Thus in Plato’s Timaeus, matter is shaped into the likeness of the eternal forms, and in
Aristotelian metaphysics, formal causes explained their structure.
302

The steady state theory hypothesizes that there is a continuous creation of new matter, so
that the universe has no origin or termination. This theory is widely rejected because of the
overwhelming evidence that the universe came into existence a finite time ago.

119

225

303
Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 320. Pieper has a
lengthy section on this doctrine on 319–329.
304

Ibid., 324. See also Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 53–63.

305

Gospel and Scripture, 9.

120

2016 Convention Workbook