Report of the Commission on Theology Church Relations Of
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD
A Lutheran Stance Toward Contemporary Biblical Studies
[1967]
PREAMBLE
When The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod instructed the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations to "conduct a
comprehensive study of Biblical hermeneutics" (1965
Proceedings, Res. 2-07, page 95), it did not thereby declare
a moratorium on Biblical study and scholarship throughout the
Synod. On the contrary, the church's scholars, wherever their
calling finds them, as well as all other members of the
church, are expected to continue their daily searching of the
Scriptures as vigorously as ever. The special study assigned
to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations is simply
a part of and, hopefully, a useful contribution to the
effort in which we are all engaged together.
As this common effort goes on, however, the question has been
raised in various quarters: How do we approach and carry on
our personal study of Scripture in a time like this when the
whole field of Biblical scholarship seems, at least to many,
a confusing riddle marked by extravagant claims and
counterclaims, charges and counter charges, novel views, and
ancient axioms?
The only justifiable purpose for applying the best techniques
of scholarship to the study of Holy Scripture is to enable
students of the Bible better to understand the Word of God.
Clarity, not confusion, is the proper goal of scholarship.
When this goal is not achieved, something has gone
wrong-either with scholarship or with those whom scholarship
is to serve.
The document which follows is a serious attempt to make plain
the essential elements that characterize sound Biblical
studies in our time and a Lutheran stance toward such
studies. It does not intend to offer definitive answers to
specific scholarly questions in the area of Biblical study.
What it does aim to furnish is a clear perspective on the
nature of the question in the light of our history and
theology, and also in thetical form a brief description of
the Christian interpreter's attitude toward contemporary
Biblical studies in terms both of presupposition and of
method.
PART ONE
THE QUESTION IN HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Throughout her history the Christian church has had to face
and deal with questions relating to her faith and her life,
her existence and her purpose, her message and her authority.
Because of the frailty and imperfection of her members and
because of the powerful and relentless assaults of Satan, the
church has been compelled to engage in unremitting struggle
to remain faithful to her Lord and to her divinely given
task. While the church has always had the assurance of the
authority and beneficent presence of the Lord Jesus Christ
through the promised activity of the Holy Spirit, the church
herself, consisting as she does of sinful human beings, has
never in her history been able to provide faultless and
completely adequate solutions to her besetting problems. That
is to say, while the church has always had recourse to the
prophetic and apostolic Scriptures as the Word of God and the
full assurance of her divinely wrought faith, nevertheless
she has never been able to attain a perfect and complete
comprehension of the divine revelation, nor a perfect and
complete formulation of her response to the Word of God (1
Cor. 13 :12; Rom. 11:33 f.), nor an abidingly adequate and
valid defense against all attacks. Here, as in all other
aspects of her existence and mission through the ages, the
church has had to confess her weaknesses and failures and
continue to live and labor in total reliance on the
forgiving, strengthening, and protecting grace of God.
While the difficulties plaguing the church have not always
been the same in detail, and while different problems have
been more acute in one age than another or in one branch of
the church than another, it is always the church as such that
is involved. Since the church is one, what troubles one part
of the church must ultimately affect all other parts. This is
true also and especially today as the church is inevitably
affected by the global breakdown of barriers in time and
space, in language and communication. While it may have been
possible in the past for some segments of Christendom to live
and perform their churchly functions with little or no
contact with other Christian groups, such isolation is
extremely difficult today.
Two of the major questions under discussion in church circles
today are
(1) the nature, structure, and function of the church
herself, and
(2) authority in the church. The latter concerns itself
particularly with the Sacred Scriptures.
This is certainly not a new issue. Christian writers in ages
past have had much to say about this matter. Certain aspects
of the doctrine concerning the Scriptures have indeed become
especially acute in more recent times. Within all major
church bodies much time and study have been devoted to a
thorough investigation of such topics as the origin, form,
and function of the Biblical writings, revelation,
inspiration, inerrancy, nature and scope of Biblical
authority, and the principles of interpretation and
application.
A number of factors have contributed to the raising of these
issues and to the necessity of dealing with them. It must be
conceded that both in the past and in the present various
forms of rationalism and secularized approaches to Scripture
have been destructive of the authority of the Word of God. It
must also be acknowledged, however, that the labors of
unnumbered scholars, many of them humble and consecrated
Christians, have very significantly enlarged the store of
Biblical knowledge and advanced the horizons of genuine
Biblical scholarship. For all new evidence and insights
regarding the meaning of the Biblical text the church must be
grateful and must make intelligent and constructive use of
every aid God has provided for a fuller understanding of His
Word.
Our sainted and revered fathers sought to follow this course.
Any casual perusal of our church's periodicals and books will
discover considerable amounts of space devoted to a critical
evaluation of the theological scene in the church at large.
From the vantage point of a wholehearted commitment to the
Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and their dedication
to the promulgation and preservation of the Gospel in its
purity, the fathers unhesitatingly employed whatever products
of Biblical scholarship they considered valid and in
conformity with their loyalties. It is true that our
synodical fathers were generally more negative and
condemnatory in their evaluation of both the methodology and
the conclusions in the Biblical studies as they came to know
them; but this was the case largely because much, if not
most, of the Biblical scholarship of their time appeared to
proceed from presuppositions at variance with sound Biblical
and confessional orientation and was, therefore, quite
frequently biased and destructive. Wherever the same
circumstances prevail today, our church must continue in the
same judgment.
Further, the church has always been inescapably involved in
the consideration of the Word of God. Our church too must
critically examine the methods and products of modern
Biblical scholarship. It is a matter of record that in recent
decades there has been a shift away from the crass
theological liberalism that was rampant earlier in this
century in the direction of a more conservative, more
Biblical theology. With this shift has come, on the part of
many Biblical scholars, a more responsible use of the
historical-critical method of Bible study. It is therefore
not a foregone conclusion that all the presuppositions and
conclusions of current scholarship are necessarily the same
as those against which our fathers rightly protested. Hence
it must not be assumed in advance that our church's present
judgment needs to coincide at all points with that of the
fathers, although it should indeed proceed from the same
theological perspective.. Rather, the church is called upon
to distinguish between sound and unsound presuppositions,
between proper and improper methods of scholarly
investigation, and between valid and invalid conclusions. Our
church must approach the methods and results of modern
Biblical scholarship objectively, appraise them critically,
and use them discriminately and constructively. (1 Thess.
5:21)
All depends on the perspective from which the church
approaches the study of the Scriptures. Our church is
unalterably committed to the divine Word that proclaims God's
mighty acts, His steadfast love for a world that merits His
wrath, above all His revelation in Jesus Christ, the eternal
Son of God, as summarized and confessed by Christians in the
Trinitarian Creeds of the ancient church and as expounded in
the Symbols of the Lutheran Church. In conformity with the
Lutheran Symbols our church confesses and acknowledges the
prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the Word of God
given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, submits
unreservedly to them as the sole source, norm, and authority
for the church's teaching, and confidently uses them as the
powerful vehicles of the Holy Spirit's continuing
operation. Securely anchored to this position, our church may
then proceed to a calm analysis and constructive use of all
the facilities of competent scholarship. In the process our
church will exercise a true critical function with respect to
both traditional and new principles and practices, adopting,
discarding, or modifying either the old or the new, as the
Biblical evidence itself may require. In the process, too,
our church and individuals in the church will manifest their
human frailties and limitations and will, as in the past,
make mistakes. Some may fail to say all that the Scriptures
themselves say and thus will fall short of the Biblical
witness. Others may say more than the Scriptures permit them
to say. In either case Christian scholars must live, as in
all other areas of their life in Christ, by the daily
forgiveness of sins also with regard to their scholarly
procedures and products. They will live and work within the
circle of the precious fellowship of faith and love together
with their brothers in Christ, ever striving to manifest the
mind of Christ, in honor preferring one another, bearing one
another's burdens, admonishing one another, ever ready to
accept the loving expression of fraternal concern and
instruction from their brothers and equally ready to lend the
hand and the voice of fraternal love and strength to their
brothers. The goal of all Christian life and activity,
including Christian study and scholarship, can only be to
edify the church, to promote growth in grace and in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to hallow God's name, to
let His kingdom come, and to let His will be done, that God
in all things may be glorified through our Lord Jesus
Christ.
However, before the return of our exalted Lord to judge the
quick and the dead, this goal will never be perfectly
achieved. Meanwhile Christians must live in the tension of
having the perfect righteousness of faith and a very
imperfect righteousness of life at the same time. As a result
of this tension there will be controversies in the church,
and the church's members will fall short of a completely pure
and full witness to the Word of God.
Our Lutheran Confessions, to which we are all committed,
suggest a constructive way to deal with differences as they
arise among brothers in the faith.
On the one hand, the confessors considered it their duty "on
the basis of God's Word, carefully and accurately to explain
and decide the differences that had arisen with reference to
all articles in controversy, to expose and to reject false
doctrine, and clearly to confess the divine truth" (Preface
to The Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 6). To achieve this
result, "they took to hand the controverted articles,
examined, evaluated, and explained them in the fear of God,
and produced a document in which they set forth how the
differences that had occurred were to be decided in a
Christian way" (ibid.). "Such an explanation must be
thoroughly grounded in God's Word so that pure doctrine can
be recognized and distinguished from adulterated doctrine..."
(ibid., p. 13). It is clear that the writers of the Lutheran
Confessions were totally committed to the Scriptures. They
themselves were not indifferent to any departure from God's
Word, nor did they approve of such indifference in others.
On the other hand, they carefully distinguished "between
needless and unprofitable contentions (which, since they
destroy rather than edify, should never be allowed to disturb
the church) and necessary controversy (dissension concerning
articles of the Creed or the chief parts of our Christian
doctrine, when the contrary error must be refuted in order to
preserve the truth)" (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration,
Rule and Norm, 15; Tappert, p. 506 f.). A glance at the
articles of the Formula of Concord (Original Sin, Free Will,
The Person and Work of Christ, Law and Gospel, Faith and
Works, The Lord's Supper, God's Eternal Election, etc.) and
the way in which these matters were treated shows what the
framers of the Formula had in mind when they spoke of
"necessary controversy." All of these issues had a bearing on
the Gospel itself.
Similarly Melanchthon, in discussing the prerequisites of
unity and concord in the church, distinguishes between that
which necessarily disrupts this unity and that which does
not. The foundation is described as the true knowledge of
Christ and faith. On this foundation many weak people and
even the holy Fathers sometimes built perishing structures of
stubble, that is, "unprofitable opinions." But these
unprofitable and even erroneous opinions did not overthrow
the foundation. The church was not indifferent to these
errors but tried to correct them; however, it did not regard
them as divisive of church fellowship. (Cf. Apology VII and
VIII, 20, 21; Tappert, pp. 171 f.)
The church today will do well to follow the pattern set by
the Lutheran Confessions in the face of contemporary problems
and differences of opinion. The church will never be
indifferent to or condone departures from the truth of God's
Word. From its vantage point of total commitment to the
Gospel the church will know how to distinguish between the
chief parts of the Christian doctrine and differing opinions,
even when these are unprofitable, and in a patient, fraternal
fashion seek to correct them in the light of the Gospel.
PART TWO
SUMMARY STATEMENTS
From this same vantage point of the Gospel, Lutheran
theologians view every question of Biblical interpretation.
Also concerning any given methodology of interpretation they
ask above all: How does it relate to the understanding and
proclamation of the Gospel?
Mindful, then, of the basic theological principles and the
historical background sketched in Part I, we offer to the
church the following guidelines for developing a soundly
Scriptural and Lutheran stance toward contemporary Biblical
studies.
A. Our Presuppositions
1. As Christians we come to the interpretation
of Holy Scripture in the assurance of our
Baptism as the event from which we derive our
new nature and perspective. Hence our Biblical
study can be properly begun and carried through
only as we continually make our own the
grateful confession: "I believe that I cannot by
my own reason or strength believe in Jesus
Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy
Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened
me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the
true faith; even as He calls, gathers,
enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian
church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ
in the one true faith...." (Cp. also Large
Catechism, IV [Baptism], 49: "God has sanctified
many who have been thus baptized and has given
them the Holy Spirit. Even today there are not a
few whose doctrine and life attest that they
have the Holy Spirit. Similarly by God's grace
we have been given the power to interpret the
Scriptures and to know Christ, which is
impossible without the Holy Spirit.")
2. In the joy of this faith and with praise to
God we affirm our unconditional loyalty and
commitment to the inspired Scriptures as the
written Word of God.
3. We pray that the Lord who has preserved among
us a reverent attitude toward the Sacred
Scriptures will continually enable us to stand
with trembling awe and holy joy before the God
who addresses us in both judgment and mercy
through the Biblical Word.
4. We express our praise to Almighty God for all
new information and fresh insights into
Scripture that have been made available to the
church through the intensive investigations and
research of Biblical scholarship in recent times
as well as through out her history.
5. Since the canonical Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments are the inspired source and norm
of all Christian preaching and teaching, we hold
ourselves committed to the diligent and
unremitting study of the written Word through
the responsible use of every appropriate means
and method that God has provided as an aid to
our under standing of the Scriptures.
6. In hearty agreement with the Lutheran
Confessions we affirm that the right
understanding of the Gospel (including the
proper distinction of Law and Gospel as
grounded in the article of Justification) is the
key that finally unlocks the meaning of Sacred
ed Scripture (Apology, IV, 2-5, German; FC, SD,
V, 1). We therefore hold that all theological
questions raised by any interpretation must be
posed and answered with reference to this
central concern of the Scriptures. We also hold
that those technical questions involved in
interpretation which neither aid nor impair the
right understanding of the Gospel (in its full
sense) ought not become a matter of controversy
in the church (cp. Apology, VII, 20f.; FC, SD,
Summary, IS). Not that technical questions as
such may be dismissed in advance as trivial. On
the contrary, the Christian interpreter is bound
to deal seriously and soberly with all
questions that arise in connection with the
interpretation of any and every part of the
Scriptures, precisely to enable him to judge
correctly whether they aid, impair, or are
irrelevant to the right understanding of the
Gospel. (Cp. the CTCR's "A Response...," point
C, 6, LCMS Proceedings, 1965, page 297.)
B. The Historical-Critical Method
We consider the following to be basic and
legitimate elements of the so-called
historical-critical method (cp. "Guiding
Principles for the Interpretation of the Bible"
as accepted by the Ecumenical Study Conference,
Oxford, 1949):
1. Establishing the text.
This entails the sensitive use of both external
and internal criteria (I.e., the evidence of
manuscripts, ancient versions, lectionaries,
patristic quotations; and the evidence of style,
language, thought) for detecting any alterations
which the text may have suffered through the
process of transmission by human hands, and thus
to determine the original reading as accurately
as possible.
2. Ascertaining the literary form of the
passage.
This entails, as an aid to better comprehension,
analyzing the Biblical passage in terms of its
formal structure and character at the hand of
such questions as these: Is it prose or poetry?
Is it an address, a prayer, a monologue, a
treaty, an edict, a letter? Is it an oracular
saying, an invective, a lament, a liturgy, a
proverb, a parable, a creed, a hymn? and so on.
3. Determining the historical situation.
This entails discovering, so far as possible,
the original setting-in time and place and
circumstances-of the document, its author, and
its readers.
4. Apprehending the meaning which the words had
for the original author and hearer or reader.
This entails careful investigation of the actual
linguistic usage and idiom (together with their
overtones conditioned by the social context in
which they appear) of the author and his
contemporaries in the light of the Biblical data
and also of such extra-Biblical literature as
may belong to the same social context.
5. Understanding the passage in the light of its
total context and of the background out of which
it emerged.
This entails consideration not only of the
text's antecedent and contemporary
circumstances-religious, cultural,
historical-but also of the full range of the
Biblical witness in both the Old and New
Testaments.
C. Necessary Controls
As legitimate as these methodological principles
are, we regard them as being subject always to
the following measures of control:
1. The authoritative Word for the church today
is the canonical
Word, not precanonical sources, forms, or
traditions-however useful the investigation of
these possibilities may on occasion be for a
clearer understanding of what the canonical text
intends to say.
2. The "literary form" of the text-even when it
can be ascertained with reasonable certainty-is
only a clue to understanding, not a criterion of
truth. Moreover, the Christian interpreter
reckons with the fact that God in His revelation
may both modify conventional literary modes,
even radically, and also create unique modes
without analogy in other literature.
3. The problem of "history" needs to be handled
with extraordinary sensitivity by the Christian
interpreter. He cannot adopt uncritically the
presuppositions and canons of the secular
historian. In his use of historical techniques
the interpreter will be guided by the
presuppositions of his faith in the Lord of
history. It is indeed true that Christian faith
rightly sees in the historicalness of God's
redemptive work (His entry into and
participation in our saeculum) a divine warrant
for the use of "secular" means and methods in
the study of His Word, including linguistic,
literary, and historical analysis of the texts.
But at the same time faith recognizes that there
is more to history than can ever be adequately
measured by "laws" derived exclusively from
empirical data and rational observation. In
other words, the Christian interpreter must
continually take into account "that the
Scriptures, precisely in their historical
character, are Holy Scriptures since they are
the product of the Spirit who produces in
history that which is not of this world" (cf.
CTCR Statement on Inspiration, LCMS Proceedings,
1965, page 293).
4. The undeniably necessary effort to hear a
text of Scripture first of all in its
particularity, its meaning "then and there,"
must be balanced by an equal effort to hear the
text both in its integral relation to all the
rest of Scripture and in its meaningfulness for
all who hear it today. This effort does not
require an arbitrary flattening out of the rich
variety of the Biblical witness into a dull
one-dimensional uniformity. But it does entail
above all a firm grasp of the essential unity of
both Testaments, Old and New, and of their
common witness to the one Truth that is as
relevant now as when it was first proclaimed.
5. Whatever cognizance needs to be taken-as
indeed it must-of the connection between
Biblical materials and their background in the
whole complex of social, cultural, political,
economic, and religious factors of their day, a
clear distinction must nevertheless be
maintained between the unique, divine, and
revelatory character of Scripture and the sheer
human and contingent character of Scripture's
earthly milieu. Parallelisms between
extra-Biblical materials and the form or
substance of Scripture do not as such
constitute causal or substantive relations. This
is not in the least to deny the genuinely human
and earthly dimension of Scripture itself. It is
only to say that there is a qualitative
difference between the inspired witness of Holy
Scripture in all its parts and words and the
witness, explicit or implicit, of every other
form of human expression.
______________________________._______________________________
This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg
by Mark A. French and is in the public domain. You may freely
distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments
or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library
at Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126
______________________________._______________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod: b-studies.txt
.