E

CO -'E A PR . CTICAL APPLICI TI N

ICORDIA THE LOGICAl M ONThL

P No.1 lib Aspects of Biblical Hermeneutics:

Confessional Principles and Practical Applications

Papers delivered to a conference of the Council of Presidents and [he seminary faculties of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

CoNCORDIA THEOLO leAL MONTHLY Occasional Papers No.1

Published by Concordia Publishing House Primed jn U. S. A.

This paper mailed without extra co't co the roster of pastors and men teachers of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

Not indexed in the CO'lcorditJ Theological Motl/hLy Index. CONTENTS Page

An Introduction 1

Some Thoughts on the Theological Presuppositions for a Lutheran Approach [0 the Scriptures 2

f.UffiBERTJ.A.Bou~

Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions 21

RALPH A. BOHLMANN

The Introduction of the Historical-Critical Method and Its Relationship to Lutheran Hermeneutics 48

FRED KRAMER

Lutheran Hermeneutics and Hermeneutics Today 78

JOHN WARWICK MONTGOMERY An Introduction his supplement to the CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY contains four essays Tdelivered to the Council of Presidents and the joint theological faculties of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod meeting in St.Louis Nov. 29-30, 1965. At the suggestion pf this group the essays are being mailed to the clergy and called male teachers of the Synod. The topics were assigned to the essayists by the program committee and were de­ signed to dovetail. This is particularly true of the papers by Bouman and Bohlmann, which should be read and studied as a unit. The papers stimulated considerable discussion when they were first presented, although none of the participants in the conference feel that there was enough time to discuss· them adequately. They have undergone no substantive editing. Careful study of these papers will make a decided contribution toward resolving some of the theological arguments which bother us. Many of us who heard them originally feel that we want to read them a second and a third time before we reach a final decision concerning some of the opinions stated in the papers. The four essayists were in agreement that the Holy Scriptures are the final norm for Lutheran theology, and that a Lutheran theologian, by definition, bows cheerfully to this norm. There were two questions put in sharp form by each essayist: What is the nature of Scripture? How does one arrive at a sure grasp of its meaning? Regardless of the form each question may take (and the questions are posed by theologians in a bewildering variety of forms), the questions themselves finally are reduced to these bedrock pastoral concerns. The answer to these questions leads one directly to the heart of the Christian faith, salvation through faith in the incarnate Son of God. Or does faith in the incarnate Son of God lead directly to the answer to these two questions? HERBERT T. MAYER Some Thoughts on the Theological Presuppositions for a Lutheran Approach to the Scriptures HERBERT J. A. BOUMAN

PROLEGOMENA issues about God and the Word concern­ ing Him, about God in communication t ~s possible to speak of a presupposi­ I tlOnless approach to the Bible. We with man. Our concern is lifted out of the could imagine some pagan or Muslim from realm of the secular disciplines and con­ some remote corner of the globe coming centrates on an approach to the Scriptures into a bookstore and there discovering a by men whose life has been formed, in­ book he had never heard of before, called formed, and transformed by God, men Bible, or Scripture, or whatever the trans­ whose thoughts have been taken captive lation into his native tongue named it. to the obedience of Christ, whose episte­ With respect to this book he could be per­ mology and methodology are controlled by fectly neutral, at the beginning at least, faith and the illumination of the Spirit of because he was totally ignorant of its con­ God, who once spake by the prophets and tent or its message. led the apostles into all truth and glorified Christ in them and now speaks again Our title suggests that such a hypotheti­ through the prophetic and apostolic Scrip­ cal case is not under consideration. It tures to perform the same function for the frankly admits that there are certain pre­ interpreter and the hearer. suppositions that appear to be self-evident Another word in our theme is "Lu­ to those who maintain them and may be theran." In the history of the church there accepted as a matter of course. Not all pre­ has been a variety of approaches to the suppositions are valid, of course. Though Bible with great divergence in the results. they may seem so to the persons holding These results have usually reflected certain them, they are far from self-evident to philosophic or theological preconceptions others. There may be and often is a high about God and His nature, His attitudes degree of subjectivity in presuppositions. and acts, His abilities or desires to estab­ Our theme suggests, furthermore, that lish communication and communion with we are not about to speak of presupposi­ man. A one-sided stress on the transcen­ tions in general, such as may be common dence of God tended to depersonalize God to all areas of human thought and inquiry, and make Him distant, cold, unapproach­ but theological presuppositions. This raises able, serenely indifferent to and unaffected by mundane affairs. Such a view of God Her~ert J. A. Bouman is professor of syste­ could easily reduce the question of an ap­ matt.c theol~gy at Concordia Seminary, Saint proach to Him or His Word to an acutely Louts, and ts a member of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The academic and irretrievably irrelevant mat­ Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. ter. Conversely, a preconception of God 2 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 3 as already present within the creature This state of affairs certainly compli­ would tend to obviate the necessity of any cates the problem before us. If the ap­ further concern with how one ought to proach to Scripture on the part of men approach that which we call God's Word within the church is conditioned by what to man. The subjective reflection of the is in Scripture, which is a constant (apart man in whom God is alleged to be imma­ from relatively unimportant variations in nent becomes the criterion of theology. If the extent of the canon), then we may ask the sovereign God needs no vehicle to ride why the results should be so much at vari­ into men's hearts and lives, he probably ance. Why should Origen and Tertullian, disdains to use one, and a concern about or Arius and Marcellus, or Marcion and the vehicle can again become academic Irenaeus, or Nestorius and Cyril of Alex­ and irrelevant. Or if He has simply handed andria, or Theodore of Mopsuestia and down a comprehensive collection of time­ Eutyches, or Pelagius and Augustine, or less laws or ordinances all on the same Aquinas and Occam, or Luther and Eras­ level, I need but take this catalog, start on mus and Zwingli, or Wesley and Calvin, page 1, and work my way through to the or Pieper and Fosdick arrive at such mas­ last page, making sure only that I have all sively discordant conclusions? The answer the vocables, the grammar, and the syntax lies, of course, largely in the fact that the straight. same Scriptures were read and interpreted Again, if I approach the Bible with cer­ in the context of specific theological and tain preconceptions about myself and my anthropological perspectives which in fellowmen, with an optimistic view of hu­ many instances allowed themselves to be man powers and capabilities unimpaired or influenced and even controlled by certain not critically impaired, God's address to extra-Biblical philosophical, cosmological, man will take on a character and function anthropological, nomistic, etc., assumptions commensurate with such an anthropology that resulted in major or minor distortions (more about this later). of the Biblical message. Another point to be considered: Any Some of this distortion was occasioned approach to Scripture, certainly within and abetted by a principal of selection of Christendom, already represents a return, Biblical materials which were first of all a response to its message, whether that interpreted in the light of a certain Ten­ content has been transmitted by means of denz, preconceived and imported into the the church's creedal summaries or oral text, and then· these materials in turn be­ kerygma or through hearing or reading its came the criterion for the understanding very words. In the circle of the church's and application of the rest of Scripture. use of Scripture it is always both a Heraus­ The very vocabulary of Scripture, including kommen and a Hinzukommen. Hence such key words as spirit, flesh, righteous­ there exists a reciprocal, even cyclical, rela­ ness, sin, knowledge, grace,faith, merit, tionship, a circle perfectly natural and reward, love, Law, Gospel, etc., took on proper for those within the circle but a distinctive coloring in accordance with stultifying nonsense to the unregenerate the respective T endenz in the service of logician. which they were employed. 4 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES

It is well known that Luther himself, as friendly Roman Catholic critics are some­ a child of his time and an heir of previous times at pains to point out. Much of the ages or exegetical principle and method, material in the Lutheran Symbols, particu­ was long held captive to this legacy. His larly in the Apology but also in the Augs­ earlier works teem with instances of rather burg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the fanciful allegorical exegesis, and traces per­ Tractate, and the Formula of Concord, is sist even in his mature writings. His spir­ presented in the form. of an Auseinander­ itual agonizing was prolonged for years by setzung with other hermeneutical principles principles of interpretation that were in and exegetical practices, as understood by the thralls of a nomistic scholasticism. the Lutherans from their own perspective, Meanwhile the radical left wing of the a perspective which quite evidently gives non-Lutheran Reformation and the more direction to their damnamus. Not only is moderate right wing with their spiritual­ there a roster of men and movements ism, symbolicism, rationalism, and Bibli­ whose theologies are repudiated by name, cism represented the proliferation or re­ e. g., the Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, vival of other Tendenzen that had been Mohammedans, Samosatenes, Pelagians, present in the church in ages past. Donatists, Novatians, Anabaptists, etc., but Without attempting to absolutize or there are also frequent rejections of "the oversimplify the denominational problem, opponents" or "others" or "all others who it can, I think, be said that the various hold contrary views" or those who hold theological systems owe their existence in views "contrary to the Gospel." a measure to divergent hermeneutics and Certain theological presuppositions of that the Lutheran Reformation was noth­ the Roman Catholic scholastics as well as ing less than a hermeneutical revolution. of the Enthusiasts are repeatedly repudi­ Luther's theological breakthrough meant ated as doing violence to the Scriptures the repudiation of one set of interpretive and as vitiating their intended message. principles and the adoption of another. This is done both in blanket condemna­ This revolution first transformed Luther tions and in specific rejections. "One himself and subsequently his co-workers should not obey even regularly elected and ultimately many thousands of others, bishops if they err or if they teach or to the degree that Luther's new insights, command something contrary to the divine gained through a complex of causes, not Holy Scriptures" (AC XXVIII 28).1 "It the least of which was his years of inten­ is patently contrary to God's command and sive preoccupation with the Scriptures Word to make laws out of opinions or to themselves, became normative for them. require that they be observed in order to But if it is true that differing hermeneu­ make satisfaction for sins and obtain grace, tics produced divergent theological and for the glory of Christ's merit is blas­ ecclesiastical alignments, it is also true that phemed when we presume to earn grace to a significant degree the extent of the by such ordinances" ( 35 ). It is contrary interdenominational cleavages, their inten­ 1 Citations are from The Book of Concord, sification, and their perpetuation were too ed. T. G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, often the result of semantic difficulties, as 1959) . LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 5 to God's command to "burden Christendom man nature unimpaired power to love God with the bondage of the law, as if in order above all things and to obey his com­ to earn God's grace there had to be a mandments "according to the substance of service of God among Christians like the the act." And they do not see the contra­ diction. (Ap II 8) Levitical service ..." (39). It is a "false and erroneous opinion that in Christendom As ,a result the opponents are said to one must have services of God like the approach God on the basis of their own Levitical or Jewish services ..." (61). The righteousness, the righteousness of the profound and extremely significant ob­ works dictated by the law. The "opponents servation is made: "Such errors were intro­ select the law and by it they seek forgive­ duced into Christendom when the righ­ ness of sins and justification" (Ap IV 7). teousness of faith was no longer taught They scale down the lofty and unattainable and preached with clarity and purity." (62) level of the requirements of God's law by In his Preface to the Apology Melanch­ concentrating on external uprightness. thon states that "we have undoubtedly Our opponents concentrate on the com­ brought into view many articles of Chris­ mandments of the second table, which tian doctrine that the church sorely needs. contain the civil righteousness that reason We need not describe here how they lay understands. Content with this, they think they satisfy the law of God. Meanwhile hidden under all sorts of dangerous opin­ they do not see the first table . .. (Ap ions in the writings of the monks, canon­ IV 34) ists, and scholastic theologians" (17). Of these writers he says further that "since At the same time they raise the level of they understand neither the forgiveness of man's potential abilities and innate re­ sins nor faith nor grace nor righteousness, sources, as noted above. The gap that still our opponents confuse this doctrine mis­ remains between God's demands and man's erably ..." (Ap IV 3) ability no longer seems quite so impassable. What led the scholastics to their false The problem of man's relationship with interpretation of the righteousness of God, God accordingly does not appear to be too the Gospel, and man's salvation was, ac­ serious or difficult for upright and reason­ cording to the Lutherans, the result of a able men to handle. One could almost Semi-Pelagian, Pelagian, or unwarrantedly adopt a spectator attitude and indulge in philosophical and ethical speculations. optimistic anthropology. The scholastics "minimize original sin." But this whole business [says Melanch­ thon} is the invention of idle men who Thus when they talk about original sin, do not know how the forgiveness of sins they do not mention the more serious faults of human nature, namely, ignoring takes place, or how the judgment of God God, despising him, lacking fear and trust and the terrors of conscience drive out our in him, hating his judgment and fleeing trust in works. (Ap IV 20) it, being angry at him, despairing of his It is easy enough for idle men to make up grace, trusting in temporal things, etc. these dreams that a man guilty of mortal These evils, which are most contrary to sin can love God above all things, since the law of God, the scholastics do not they themselves do not feel the wrath or even mention. They even attribute to hu- judgment of God. (37; see 99, 115, 304; 6 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES

see FC Ep II 9-12 for further con­ sophical or a Jewish manner they elimi­ demnatory statements) nate from them the righteousness of faith and Christ, the mediator. (376; see LC But if man is himself in a position to I 22) cover much of the distance between him­ self and God, the radical and exclusive Such presuppositions had disastrous con­ character of God's saving activity is greatly sequences for exegesis. Language was made minimized. There does not seem to be to conform to the exegete's own dogmatic quite so much urgency about the work of preconceptions. Jesus Christ. Instead of the complete and It is surely amazing that our opponents, only Mediator and Propitiator, He is made are unmoved by the many passages in the to appear as a moralist and teacher whose Scriptures that clearly attribute justification to faith and specifically deny it to works. chief function is to provide man with the . . . But they have thought up a piece of skills he needs to save himself. sophistry to evade them. They should be We see that there are books in existence interpreted, so they say, as referring to which compare certain teachings of Christ "faith fashioned by love" . . . (Ap IV' with the teachings of Socrates, Zeno, and 107, 109) others, as though Christ had come to give Whoever fails to teach about this faith some sort of laws by which we could merit we are discussing completely destroys the the forgiveness of sins. . . . Ap IV 15) Gospel. (120) What need is there for the grace of Our opponents twist many texts because Christ if we can become righteous by our they read their own opinions into them own righteousness? (Ap II 10; see IV 3, instead of deriving the meaning from the 17, 21) texts themselves. (224) As the Lutherans evaluated the theology After pointing out that Paul (in 1 Cor. of their scholastic opponents, they most 13 :2, which was used by the confutators frequently indicted it for the twin errors to prove that love justifies) was "writing of rationalism and legalism. to people who, upon being justified, needed So if we accept this teaching of the oppo­ urging to bear good fruits lest they lose nents . . . there will be no difference be­ the Holy Spirit," Melanchthon continues, tween philosophical or Pharisaic righteous­ Our opponents proceed in reverse order. ness and Christian righteousness. (Ap They quote this one text in which Paul IV 16) teaches about the fruits, and they omit Thus our opponents teach nothing but the the many other texts in which he syste­ righteousness of reason or of law .... matically discusses the mode of justifica­ The opponents' whole system is derived tion. Besides, to other texts that speak of either from human reason or from the faith they always add the correction that teaching of the law rather than the Gos­ they should be understood in reference to pel. They teach two modes of justification, "faith formed by love." (Ap IV 221) one based upon reason, the other based The author has harsh words to say about upon the law ... (287) those who reject Christ, destroy the Gospel, This is what we condemn in our oppo­ and maliciously twist the Scriptures to suit nents' position, that by interpreting such the man-made theory that by our works we passages of the Scriptures in either a philo- purchase the forgiveness of sins. (260) LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 7

Cursed be our opponents, those Pharisees, consequence their Biblical exegesis was a who interpret the law in such a way that tour de force that produced a theology that they attribute Christ's glory to works .... failed man in his greatest need. (269; see 253, 255, 337, 367; XII 106) Such is our opponents' doctrine - a doc­ As is clear from these excerpts, an exe- trine of the law, an abrogation of the Gos­ gesis that operates with such presupposi­ pel, a doctrine of despair. (Ap XII 89) tions becomes eclectic, fragmented, and They obscure the glory and the blessings therefore sectarian, and it distorts the con­ of Christ, and they rob pious consciences tent and purpose of the Holy Scriptures. of the consolation offered them in Christ. "They quote passages about law and works (Ap IV 3) but omit passages about the promises" In the agony of conscience and in con­ (Ap IV 183). This is concretely demon­ flict, the conscience experiences how vain strated by the actual selection of texts by these philosophical speculations are. ( 37 ) which the architects of the Confutation We are therefore obliged to disagree with attempted to refute and invalidate the our opponents on justification. The Gos­ pel shows another way. (291) Augsburg Confession and which Melanch­ thon reviews in some detail (Ap IV 183 In addition to the presuppositions of to 286). The choice of prooftexts (re­ medieval scholastic theology the Lutherans member we are in the area of justification) were confronted by a theological perspec­ is instructive: 1 Cor. 13:2,13; Col. 3:14; tive that received the umbrella label of 1 Pet.4:8; Luke 6:37; Is. 58:7,9; Dan.4: Enthusiasm, or Schwarmerei. Prime rep­ 27; Matt. 5:3,7; Prov.1O:12; James 2:24; resentatives of this view were the Anabap­ Matt. 19:17; Luke 11:41. See also Ap XII tists and "spiritualists," like Miinzer and 122 fl.; XX, 12 f. Carlstadt, and the radical left wing of the This kind of approach to the Word of Reformation generally. God is not at all difficult. It is in fact The term "enthusiast," at least in Lu­ inherent in man's nature "because men ther's judgment, came ultimately to include naturally trust their own righteousness" all who in any way attempted to by-pass (Ap IV 20). "It is inherent in man to the Word of God in their dealings with despise God and to doubt His Word with God. If the philosophical approach tended its threats and promises" (35). "This le­ to make God remote and transcendent and galistic opinion clings by nature to the an object to speculate about, the enthusiast minds of men, and it cannot be driven approach resulted in a divine immanentism out unless we are divinely taught." (265) which reached full flower in George Fox In sum, the Lutherans found the the­ and Quakerism. Since this perspective con­ ology of their scholastic opponents resting ceived of God as already present or as on humanistic, philosophical, nOmlStiC making His approaches to man immedi­ principles which resulted in not taking ately, it led naturally to a downgrading seriously God in His judgment and mercy, and disparagement of the written Word. in not taking seriously man and the depths It is easy to see that such a refusal to take of his predicament, in not taking seriously the written Word seriously would have far­ Christ and His work of redemption. In reaching implications for exegesis. The 8 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES enthusiasts are people "who dream that their own writings and words. Why do the Holy Spirit does not come through the they not stop preaching and writing until Word but because of their own prepara­ the Spirit himself comes to the people tions." (Ap XIII 13) without and before their writings since they boast that the Spirit came upon them Luther is particularly outspoken in his without the testimony of the Scriptures? condemnation of this attitude. His treat­ (SA-III VIII 3-6; see FC Ep II 13; FC ment of Confession in the Sma1cald Ar­ SD II 80; LC IV 15: "our new spirits"; ticles is the locus classicus. For Luther 28: "our know-it"alls, the new spirits") enthusiasm is exemplified also by the pa­ Like the scholastics with their opinio legis, pacy because of its claims of authority the enthusiasts too are doing what comes apart from the Scriptures. naturally. In these matters, which concern the ex­ In short, enthusiasm clings to Adam and ternal, spoken Word, we must hold firmly his descendants from the beginning to the to the conviction that God gives no one end of the world. It is a poison implanted his Spirit or grace except through or with and inoculated in man by the old dragon;' the external Word which comes before. and it is the source, strength, and power Thus we shall be protected from the en­ of all heresy, including that of the papacy thusiasts - that is, from the spiritualists and Mohammedanism. (SA-III VIII 9) who boast that they possess the Spirit without and before the Word and who Such were the theological ideologies therefore judge, interpret, and twist the with which the Lutheran Reformation had Scriptures or spoken Word according to to come to grips. In reality the Lutherans their pleasure. Miinzer did this, and many were inclined to lump their opponents to­ still do it in our day who wish to distin­ gether and to regard their respective ap­ guish sharply between the letter and the proaches to Scripture as different aspects spirit without knowing what they say or of the same perspective. We have already teach. The. papacy, too, is nothing but heard Luther putting the papists and en­ enthusiasm, for the pope boasts that "all laws are in the shrine of his heart," and thusiasts into the same category. Melanch­ he claims that whatever he decides and thon does likewise (Ap IV 66). And the commands in his churches is spirit and Solid Declaration says of the Anabaptists: law, even when it is above and contrary "The entire sect, however, can be charac­ to the Scriptures or spoken Word. All terized as basically nothing else than a new this is the old devil and the old serpent kind of monkery" (FC SD XII 27). That who made enthusiasts of Adam and Eve. is to say, they all have this in common, He led them from the external Word of that they do not take Scripture on Scrip­ God to spiritualizing and to their own ture's terms but interpret it on the basis imaginations, and he did this through of presuppositions that are at variance with other external words. Even so, the enthu­ the content and purpose of the Word of siasts of our day condemn the external God. They will not let God be God and Word, yet they do not remain silent but fill the· world with their chattering and hear Him out but presume to dictate to scribbling, as if the Spirit could not come God what He should be saying. They pre­ through the Scriptures or the spoken word sume, in fact, "to wrest heaven from God." of the apostles but must come through (LC I 22) LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 9

THE LUTHERAN ApPROACH There is here the claim of a truly ecumeni­ Thus the Lutheran Reformation repre­ cal, catholic, unsectarian, unfragmented, sented an antithesis to these criteria of undistorted, whole approach to Scripture interpretation and was in very truth a and Christian theology. We Lutherans hermeneutical revolution. In the Augsburg should be eternally grateful for this and Confession, so they maintained, they had take it seriously. As Lutherans we are ex­ "covered almost the sum total of all Chris­ pected to do our theological work, in what­ tian doctrine" (Ap XII 124), and this basic ever discipline, in the service of proclama­ Lutheran Creed, "this Christian and thor­ tion, and we are expected to "preach the oughly scriptural Augsburg Confession," is Gospel according to the Augsburg Confes­ considered to be "a genuinely Christian sion" (FC SD XII 16). It is Melanch­ symbol which all true Christians ought to thon's purpose in the Apology of the Augs­ burg Confession "to testify to all nations accept next to the Word of God, just as that we hold to the Gospel of Christ cor­ in ancient times Christian symbols and rectly and faithfully." (Preface, 15) confessions were formulated in the church of God ..." (FC SD, Preface, 4). Its doc­ This claim involves an understanding of trinal content is "drawn from and con­ the Gospel's essence, content, and purpose, as well as its place in God's total revela­ formed to the Word of God" and this tion and the proper perspective from which symbol "distinguishes our reformed the Scriptures are interpreted and applied. churches from the papacy and from other When the Lutherans think of the "divine, condemned sects and heresies" ('FC SD, prophetic, and apostolic Scriptures," they Rule and Norm, 5; italics added). It be­ think of them in terms of God's "holy comes the touchstone for all other Lu­ Gospel and of the Word that alone brings theran Symbols, which are accepted be­ salvation" (Preface, Book of Concord, p. 3; cause of their agreement with Scripture see p. 5 ). The Bible has to do with what and their conformity to the Augsburg "a Christian must know for his salvation" Confession. This symbol is normative for (FC Ep, Rule and Norm, 5). Salvation, all Lutheran exegesis. If or justification, is at the center of Lutheran other good, useful, and pure books, such theology. as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures The soteriological, eschatological, and . . . are in accord with the aforementioned pastoral concerns of the Lutheran Ref­ pattern of doctrine they are to be accepted ormation are unfolded throughout the and used as helpful expositions and ex­ Book of Concord in a richness and variety planations. Our intention was only to that defies adequate consideration. This have a single, universally accepted, certain, and common form of doctrine which all presentation desires only to call attention our Evangelical churches subscribe and to some of this theological wealth in the from which and according to which, be­ hope that you will be stimulated to im­ cause it is drawn from the Word of God, merse yourself in this glorious heritage all other writings are to be approved and and make relevant and dynamic use of it accepted, judged and regulated. (Fe SD, in your sacred ministry. Such a course of Rule and Norm, 10; italics added) action will be of incalculable benefit and 10 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES will go a long way toward the restoration A of genuine Lutheranism in our midst and Basic Definitions toward combating the many un-Lutheran The primary statement of justification and sectarian accents abroad in our circles on which all subsequent discussions are today. built is Art. IV of the Augsburg Confes­ Central in genuine Lutheran theology as sion. It follows upon a confession of the enunciated in the Lutheran Symbols is the triune God, the Creator and Author of all doctrine of justification. Luther calls it blessings, a description of man the crea­ "the first and chief doctrine" (SA-II I 1), ture's desperate plight, and a summary of while Melanchthon refers to it as "the the person and work of Jesus Christ, the chief article of the Gospel," or "the chief theanthropic Savior. Imbedded in the article of Christian doctrine" (AC XXVIII 52,66), or "the main doctrine of Christi­ statement is the classic Lutheran formula anity" (Ap IV 2). Of the nearly 190 pages "by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith." of the Apology, the explicit treatment of All human cooperation is categorically de­ Justification takes up over 60 pages, or nied, and the divine monergism is affirmed, almost exactly one third of the total, not as is the Christological basis. The necessity to speak of the many other articles in of faith on man's part to receive God's which justification provides the constant complete gift is emphasized. The forensic background and context. This is true also character of justification is expressed in of the Augsburg Confession (e. g., III, IV, such terms as "forgiveness," "reckon," and V, VI, VII, IX, XI, XII, XV, XVII, XVIII, "impute." In the German form the phrases XX, XXI, XXIV). "forgiveness of sin and righteousness be­ Justification, as presented in the Confes­ fore God" and "eternal life is given us" sions, is indeed a many-splendored thing, already adumbrate the almost bewildering just like the Biblical witness to God's gra­ variety of equations that we find in Apol­ cious attitudes and acts on behalf of His ogy IV. In a number of places the term creatures. The subject is exceedingly grand "justify" or the nature of justification itself and comprehensive. It thwarts all human are defined: attempts at neat and definitive systematiza­ . . . "to be justified" means to make un­ tion. It is too large to be poured into any righteous men righteous or to regenerate mold of man's devising. A serious student them, as well as to be pronounced or ac­ of the symbols is overwhelmed by the sub­ counted righteous. (Ap IV 72) ject. On nearly every page he meets the Therefore we are justified by faith alone, cantus firmus of justification as the ever­ justification being understood as making recurring theme which, though developed unrighteous man righteous or affecting his in a hundred fascinating variations, always regeneration. (78) remains plainly recognizable as the same "To be justified" here does not mean that theme. a wicked man is made righteous but that In what follows I shall for the most part he is pronounced righteous in a forensic let the Symbols speak for themselves. An way .... (252) occasional comment may give direction. . . . God will and does account us alto- LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 11

gether righteous and holy for the sake of · . . the righteousness of faith and Christ, Christ, our mediator. (SA-III XIII 1) the mediator. (376) In this passage [Rom. 5: 1} "justify" is The whole man . . . shall be accounted used in a judicial way to mean "to absolve and shall be righteous and holy. . . . a guilty man and pronounce him righ­ (SA-III XIII 2) teous," and to do so on account of some­ · . . Scripture teaches that the righteous­ one else's righteousness, namely, Christ's, ness of faith before God consists solely in which is communicated to us through a gracious reconciliation or the forgive­ faith. (Ap N 305) ness of sins. . . . (FC SD III 30) Because the righteousness of Christ is 2. Forgiveness of Sins given to us through faith, therefore faith . . forgiveness of sins is the same as is righteousness in us by imputation. That justification.... CAp IV 76) is, by it we are made acceptable to God because of God's imputation and ordi­ · . . men . . . are freely justified . . . nances, as Paul says (Rom. 4: 5 ), "Faith when they believe that ... their sins are is reckoned as righteousness." ( 307) forgiven on account of Christ.... (AC IV 2, Latin) · . . according to the usage of Scripture the word "justify" means in this article By freely accepting the forgiveness of "absolve," that is, pronounce free from sins, faith sets against God's wrath not sin. (FC Ep III 7) our merits of love, but Christ the media­ tor and propitiator. (46) If one pays a debt for one's friend, the It will be easy to determine what faith debtor is freed by the merit of another is if we pay attention to the article of the as though it were his own. Thus the Creed on the forgiveness of sins. (51) merits of Christ are bestowed on us so that when we believe in him we are ac­ 3. Reconciliation counted righteous by our trust in Christ's . . to us, oppressed by sin and death, merits as though we had merits of our the promise freely offers reconciliation for own. (Ap XXI 19) Christ's sake, which we do not accept by works but by faith alone. (Ap N 44) B · .. God is reconciled and favorably dis­ Justification and Synonyms posed to him because of Christ. . . . (45) 1. Righteousness Justification is reconciliation for Christ's sake. (158) .. righteousness before God.... (AC IV 1) 4. A Gracious God, God's Approval, Therefore the righteousness which by Christ's Kingdom, Children of God grace is reckoned to faith or to the be­ · .. believe that we have a gracious God lievers is the obedience, the passion, and because of Christ. (Ap IV 345) the resurrection of Christ. . " (FC SD · . . justification is not the approval of III 14) a particular act but of the total person. · .. in this passage [Rom. 5: 1J our righ­ (222) teousness is the imputation of some one · . . the kingdom of Christ is the righ­ else's righteousness.... (Ap N 306) teousness of the heart and the gift of · . . the free forgiveness of sins and . . . the Holy Spirit.... (Ap VII 13) the righteousness of Christ. (Ap N 121) [The kingdom of God isJ Simply what 12 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES

we learned in the Creed, namely, that · . . a man is justified. when, with his God sent His Son, Christ our Lord, into conscience terrified by the preaching of the world to redeem and deliver us from penitence, he takes heart and believes that the power of the devil and to bring us he has a gracious God for Chrisfs sake. to himself and rule us as a king of righ­ (Ap IV 292) teousness, life, and salvation. . . . (LC · . . we are talking· about " . a faith III 51) that truly and wholeheartedly accepts the God's name was given to us when we promise of grace. This does not come became Christians at Baptism, and so we without a great battle in the human are called children of God. . . . (37) heart. . . . A faith which' believes that God cares for us, forgives us,and hears C us is a supernatural thing, for of itself the Justification and Christ human mind believes no such thing about . Christ, true God and true man . God. (303) was truly born, suffered, was crucified, · .. faith is not merely knowledge in the died, and was buried in order to be a intellect but also trust in the will, that is;' sacrifice not only for original sin but to desire and to accept what the promise also for all other sins and to propitiate offers - reconciliation and forgiveness of God's wrath (AC III 2, 3) sins. (304) We know that the merits of Christ are It is surely amazing that our opponents are our only propitiation. Because of them unmoved by the many passages in the we are accounted righteous. . . . (Ap Scriptures that clearly attribute justifica­ XXI 31) tion to faith and specifically deny it to Christ takes Moses' place, not by forgiv­ works. (107) ing sins on account of our work but by · .. faith is truly righteousness because it setting his merits and his propitiation is obedience to the Gospel. (308) against the wrath of God for us so that · . . our opponents are deceived with re­ we might be freely forgiven. (Ap XXVII gard to the term "faith." . . . We are not 17) talking about a knowledge of history, how­ There was no counsel, no help, no com­ ever, but about trust in God's promise and fort for us until this only and eternal Son in his mercy. (337) of God, in his unfathomable goodness, had · .. we appropriate God with all his treas­ mercy on our misery and wretchedness and ures. (LC III 60) came from heaven to help us. (LC II 29) · .. this personal faith obtains the forgive­ "Lord" simply means the same as Re­ ness of sins and justifies us. (Ap IV 45) deemer, that is, he who has brought us back from the devil to God, from death Such a faith is not an easy thing . . . nor to life, from sin to righteousness .... (31) is it a human power, but a divine power that makes us alive .and enables us to D overcome death and the devil. (250) Justification and Faith E freely justified for Christ's sake through faith when they believe that they Justification and the Holy Spirit are received into favor .... (AC IV I, To obtain such faith God instituted the 2, Latin) office of the ministry, that is, provided the LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 13

Gospel'ind the sacraments. Through these, and holy for the sake of Christ, our medi­ as through': means, he gives the Holy ator. (SA-III XIII 1) Spirit, who works faith, when and where he pleases, in those who hear the Gospel. G (AC V 1,2) Justification and Gospel · . . faith is . . . a work of the Holy the chief article of the Gospel must Spirit that frees us from death, comforting be maintained, namely, that we obtain the and quickening terrified minds. (Ap IV grace of God through faith in Christ with­ 115 ) out our merits .... (AC XXVIII 52) But Christ was given so that for his sake The Gospel is, strictly speaking, the prom­ we might receive the gift of the forgive­ ise of forgiveness of sins and justification ness of sins and the Holy Spirit, to bring because of Christ. (Ap IV 43) forth in ,us eternal righteousness and a new and eternal life. (132) · . . one cannot deal with God or grasp him except through the Word. Therefore · .. when we are consoled by faith through justification takes place through the Word. hearing the Gospel of the forgiveness of · .. (67) sins, we receive the Holy Spirit, so that we can think rightly about God, fear him, · . . there must needs be a proclamation in and believe in him. (13 5 ) the church from which the faithful' may receive the sure hope of salvation. (119) · . . the kingdom of Christ is the righ­ teousness of the heart and the gift of the This is the essential proclamation of the Holy Spirit. . .. (Ap VII 13) Gospel, that we obtain forgiveness of sins by faith because of Christ and not because · . . the kingdom of God comes . . . to of our works. (274) us ... when the heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit so that by his grace we Properly speaking, the Gospel is the com­ may believe his holy Word. . . . (SC mand to believe that we have a gracious III 7, 8) God because of Christ. (345) But the Holy Spirit has called me through · . . the Gospel offers consolation and the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, forgiveness in more ways than one, for and sanctified and preserved me in true with God there is plenteous redemption faith. . . . (SC II 6) · .. from the dreadful captivity to sin, and this comes to us through the Word, F the sacraments, and the like. . . . (SA-III III 8) Justification and Regeneration · . . the Gospel . . . offe~s counsel and . "to be justified" means to make un­ help against sin in more than one way, righteous men righteous or to regenerate for God is surpassingly rich in his grace: them, as well as to be pronounced or ac­ First, through the spoken word, by which counted righteous. (Ap IV 72) the forgiveness of sin (the peculiar office · . . by faith alone we . . . are justified, of the Gospel) is preached to the whole that is, out of unrighteous we are made world; second, through Baptism; third, righteous and regenerated men. ( 117 ) through the holy Sactament of the Altar; · .. by faith (as St. Peter says) we get fourth, through the power of the keys; and a new and clean heart and . . . God will finally, through the mutual conversation and does account us altogether righteous and consolation of brethren. (SA-III IV) 14 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES

It [Baptism] effects forgiveness of sins, tained by grace, through :faith, without delivers from death and the devil, and our work or pennies. (24) grants eternal salvation to all who believe, [The invocation of saints] is in conflict as the Word and promise of God declare. with the first, chief article and undermines (SC IV 6) knowledge of Christ. (25) · .. it [Baptism] is so full of comfort and The chapters and monasteries. . . . All grace that heaven and earth cannot com­ this, too, is in conflict with the first, fun­ prehend it. (LC IV 39) damental article concerning redemption Now, the whole Gospel and the article of in Jesus Christ. ( SA-II III 1, 2) the Creed, "I believe in the holy Christian ... all the things that the pope has un­ church, the forgiveness of sins," are em­ dertaken and done ... come into conflict bodied in this sacrament [of the Altar]. with the first, fundamental article which · .. (LC V 32) is concerned with redemption in Jesus In this sacrament [of the Altar] he offers Christ. (SA-II IV 3) us all the treasure he brought from heaven This is just about a summary of the doc--­ for us .... (66) trines that are preached and taught in our Toward forgiveness is directed everything churches for proper Christian instruction, that is to be preached concerning the sac­ the consolation of consciences, and the raments and, in short, the entire Gospel amendment of believers. (AC, Concl., and all the duties of Christianity. (LC Part I, 1) II 54) I The Word of God . . . leads us to Christ, Justification and Interpretation of Scripture who is "the book of life." . . . (FC Ep XI 7; see SD II 50) We have now come to the goal of our investigation, the theological presupposi­ H tions for a Lutheran approach to the Scrip­ Justification and Theology tures. On this article rests all that we teach and The preceding collection of excerpts, practice against the pope, the devil, and long as it is, represents only a small frac­ the world. Therefore we must be quite tion of what could have been produced so certain and have no doubts about it. Other­ as mercifully "to avoid prolixity and undue wise all is lost, and the pope, the devil, length," to borrow Melanchthon's phrase and all our adversaries will gain the vic­ tory. (SA-II I 5) (AC Cond., 1). The citations are gleaned from all sections of the Book of Concord The Mass . . . runs into direct and vio­ to show that, though Luther and Melanch­ lent conflict with this fundamental article. (SA-II II 1) thon and the framers of the Formula of Concord express it in different ways, all · . . purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and are committed to the same theology, "the not the work of man, can help souls. (12) soteriological approach to Christian doc­ [Fraternities are] contrary to the first ar­ trine," as F. E. Mayer calls it.2 From the ticle, concerning redemption. (21) 2 F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of Amer­ [Indulgences] are also contrary to the first ica, 3d ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing article, for the merits of Christ are ob- House, 1958), p. 145. LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 15 confession of faith in the forgiveness of church. They noted that a magisterial sins (Apostles' Creed) and the "for us men usurpation of authority on the part of and for our salvation" (Nicene Creed) to human traditions, institutions, and episte­ the final statement of the body of the mologies led to an adulteration of the Formula of Concord, that speaks of "the Gospel of the grace of God. If the Gospel divine truth of the holy Gospel" which is was to be purified and preserved una­ to "lead the poor sinnet to true and sincere bridged, it had to be oriented exclusively repentance, . raise him up through faith, to the prophetic and apostolic writings, strengthen him in his new obedience, and the Word of God, the "clear Scripture of thus justify and save him for ever through the Holy Spirit," and the subordinate, an­ the sole merit of Christ" (SD XI 96), the cillary role of all else had to be recognized. Lutheran Symbols are devoted to the doc­ The first aspect of the relationship be­ trine of justification. Sober prose, rhetori­ tween justification and the Scriptures is cal questions, impassioned pleas, ad homi­ therefore the assertion that justification is nem arguments, indignant denunciations, not a Lutheran sectarian peculiarity sarcasm, invective, exquisite prayers, elo­ ("dieselbige selige Lehre, das liebe, heilige quent apostrophes, poetic descriptions, Evangelium, nennen sie Lutherisch" [Ap sermons - all are put into the service of XV 42} but has its source entirely in the the Gospel in a way that makes these Scriptures. "How and in what manner, on Symbols quite unique in the history of the basis of the Holy Scriptures, these Christian creeds. things are preached, taught, communicated, Sometimes the treatment becomes rather and embraced" is what the Augsburg Con­ verbose and repetitious. The precision in fession is out to demonstrate (AC Pref­ formulations and definitions, in distinc­ ace, 8), and in the very last statement of tions and minutely structured subdivisions this Symbol the Lutherans declare them­ that characterize so much of the work of selves "ready to present further informa­ the great Lutheran systematizers of the tion on the basis of the divine Holy Scrip­ 17th century is still lacking for the most ture" (Concl., 7). In one of the sum­ part. There are unresolved problems and maries of his discussion of justification in some ambiguities, which moved the formu­ Apology IV Melanchthon says: "What we lators of the Formula to suggest certain have shown thus far, on the basis of the clarifications and provide certain safe­ Scriptures and arguments derived from the guards against misunderstanding (e. g., SD Scriptures, was to make clear that by faith III, passim) . Yet the Lutheran confessors alone we receive the forgiveness of sins found the rediscovered and restored Gospel for Christ's sake, and by faith alone are thoroughly exciting and inexhaustible for justified ...." (Ap IV 117; italics added) all areas of Christian theology, faith, and What concerns us here, in the second life. place and in particular, is the obverse side They saw a very close connection be­ of the coin: justification as an approach to tween the intrusion of false sources and the Scriptures, as a theological perspective norms of authority in the church and the (derived from Scripture) from which to intrusion of heresies and abuses in the interpret Scripture. Any intelligent judg- 1.6 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES menton what is a proper exegetical stance to the inexpressible treasure ,and right presupposes and requires a clear under­ knowledge of Christ, and 'it,alone opens standing of the content of Scripture and the door into the whole Bible. (Ap N 2, German) the purpose, which is inseparable from the content. Again, such a judgment is not Justification is the true key to the Scrip­ quantitative but qualitative. It involves the tures. But this also means that the message ability to discern the core and thrust of of justification is the central and ultimate God's Word to man in terms of what God Word of God to man and that all other has in mind for man, to see what is cen­ messages must be distinguished from it tral and what is peripheral, to distinguish and made subservient to k Thus the dis­ the message itself from iis setting, to ap­ tinction between Law and Go!>pel, with preciate, in short, "was Christum treibet" the former in the service of the latter, ex­ and what is in the service of "was Chris­ ercises the extremely important hermeneu­ tum treibet." (It should be. self-evident tical and critical function of keeping the that such judgments have nothing to do Biblical content in proper focus. "All with disparaging or repudiating any part Scripture should be divided into these two of the Biblical content). chief doctrines, the law and the promises." In the context of these observations we (ApIV5) can understand the theological insights ex­ These are the two chief works of God in pressed by Luther in the Large Catechism. men, to terrify and to justify and quicken Not only does. he call the Catechism "a the terrified. One or the other of these works is spoken of throughout Scripture. brief compend and summary of all the One part is the law, which reveals, de­ Holy Scriptures" (LC, Long Preface, 18), nounces, and condemns sin. The other but he also affirms that in the first three part is the Gospel, that is, the promise of parts of the Catechism "everything con­ grace granted in Christ. (Ap XII 53) tained in Scripture is comprehended in In what follows, the Law appears to be short, plain, and simple terms" (Short forgotten. Preface, 18), and he even claims that This promise is repeated continually anyone who knows the Ten Command­ throughout Scripture; first it was given to ments perfectly knows the entire Scrip­ Adam, later to the patriarchs, then illu­ tures. In all affairs and circumstances he mined by the prophets, and finally pro­ can counsel, help, comfort, judge, and claimed and revealed by Christ among the make decisions in both spiritual and tem­ Jews, and spread by the apostles through­ poral matters. He is qualified to Sit 10 out the world. (Ap XII 53) judgment upon all doctrines. . .. (LC, Long Preface, 17) Immediately preceding these lines it is said that Isaiah (28:21) We can also understand why the Con­ calls it God's alien work to terrify because fessions can say of justification, or the for­ God's own proper work is to quicken and giveness of sins, that console. But he terrifies, he says, to make it leads in a pre-eminent way to the clear room for consolation and quickening be­ and proper understanding of the entire cause hearts that do not feel God's wrath Holy Scripture, it alone points the way in their smugnesssputn consolation. In LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 17

this way Scripture makes a practice of join­ says (II Tim. 2: 15). We must see what ing these two,; terror and consolation. . . . the Scriptures ascribe to the law and wpat (Ap XII 51, 52) they ascribe to the promises. (Ap IV 183 The distinction between law and Gospel to 188) is an especially b~illiant light which serves The teaching of the law is certainly not the purpose that the Word of God may intended to abolish the Gospel of Christ, be rightly divided and the writings of the the propitiator. (269; see 272, 371) holy prophets and apostles may be ex­ From this perspective Luther interprets plained and understood correctly. We the Ten Commandments when he makes must therefore observe this distinction their fulfillment dependent on the fear and with particular diligence lest we confuse the two doctrines and change the Gospel love of God and trust in Him, something into law. This would darken the merit which is possible only as a result of the of Christ and rob disturbed consciences of Gospel. ". . . no man can achieve so much the comfort which they would otherwise as to keep one of the Ten Commandments have in the holy Gospel when it is as it ought to be kept. Both the Creed preached purely and without admixture, and the Lord's Prayer must help us ..." for by it Christians can support them­ (LC I 316; see LC II 1-3). All com­ selves in their greatest temptations against mandments of the Law are comprehended the terrors of the law. (FC SD VI) in the first, which in its full dimensions This is in no sense an antinomian repudia­ involves knowledge of the trUe God and tion of the Law. It is rather a most vigor­ of His relations with man, and this pre­ ous affirmation of the Law in its divinely supposes the Gospel. assigned role. This is exactly the meaning and right in­ . . . they quote passages about law and terpretation of the first and chief com­ works but omit passages about the prom­ mandment, from which all others proceed. ises. To all their statements about the This word, "You shall have no other law we answer immediately that the law gods," means simply, "You shall fear, love, cannot be kept without Christ. . . . In and trust me as your one true God." . . . commending works, therefore, we must Thus the entire Scriptures have proclaimed add that faith is necessary, and that they and presented this commandment every­ are commended because of faith as its where, emphasizing these two things, fear fruits or testimony. . . . The rule I have of God and trust in God. (LC I 324, 325; just stated interprets all the passages they see Ap II 9, 10) quote on law and works. For we concede This perspective also enables Luther to that in some places the Scripture presents revise the Biblical text itself, and modern­ the law, while in others it presents the day updaters of Luther's Catechism will Gospel, the free promise of the forgiveness be well advised to appreciate his profound of sins for Christ's sake. . . . Therefore we call upon devout minds to consider the theological concerns and keep their hands promises, and we teach them about the from switching back to the precise Old free forgiveness of sins and the reconcilia­ Testament form. Luther can change the tion that comes through faith in Christ. text of several of the commandments by Later we add the teaching of the law. And omission or substitution and adapt them we must distinguish between these, as Paul to the New Testament situation, as, for 18 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES example, the Third Commandment, of tament and the Gospel to the New but which he says: that both permeate both Testaments. . . . according to its literal, outward sense, Since the beginning of the world these this commandment does not concern us two proclamations have continually been Christians. It is an entirely external mat­ set forth side by side in the church of God ter, like the other ordinances of the Old with the proper distinction. The descen­ Testament connected with particular cus­ dants of the holy patriarchs, like the pa­ toms, persons, times, and places, from all triarchs themselves, constantly reminded of which we are now set free through themselves not only how man in the be­ Christ. (LC I 82; see 293) ginning was created righteous and holy by God and through the deceit of the serpent Luther then proceeds to offer a "Christian transgressed God's laws, became a sinner, interpretation." (83) corrupted himself and all his descendants, Thus the perspective of the Gospel of and plunged them into death and eternal Christ has far-reaching implications for damnation, but also revived their courage the interpretation of the Old Testament in and comforted themselves with the proc­ general. Commenting on the opponents' lamation of the woman's seed, who would insistence on the necessity of observing bruise the serpent's head; likewise, of the traditions to merit the forgiveness of sins, seed of Abraham, by whom all nations should be blessed; likewise, of David's Melanchthon says: "Here our opponents son, who should restore the kingdom of are openly Judaizing . . ." (Ap XV 4). Israel and be a light to the nations, "who "From this point of view there is no dif­ was wounded for our transgressions and ference between our traditions and the bruised for our iniquities and with whose ceremonies of Moses" (Ap XV 10). Acts stripes we are healed." (FC SD V 23) 15: 10 f.: "Here Peter forbids the burden­ ing of consciences with additional outward A favorite passage of Melanchthon's is ceremonies, whether of Moses or of an­ Acts 10: 43 ("To Him all the prophets other" (AC XXVI 28; see Ap XV 30; bear witness"), and he uses it again and XVI 3; XXIII 41, 42; XXIV 27, 30, 36, again. Peter, he says, "cites the consensus 37). "The services of the Mass and the of all the prophets, which is really citing rest of the papal order are nothing but the authority of the church" (Ap IV 83; a misinterpretation of the Levitical order" see Ap XII 66; XX 2). More fully: "Peter (Ap XXIV 52), and such a practice "cor­ clearly cites the consensus of the prophets; rupts the teaching of both the Old and the writings of the apostles attest that they the New Testament.... " (57) believed the same thing ..." (Ap XII 73). Yet in spite of the very real and very It is therefore from the Lutheran perspec­ important differences between the two tive a distortion of Scripture to interpret Testaments, from the perspective of the the Old Testament in isolation from and Gospel or of justification the essential without constant reference to the New theological unity of the Scriptures is rec­ Testament ("as we discern the shadow in ognized. This unity again involves the the Old Testament, so in the New we distinction between Law and Gospel, not should look for what it represents" rAp in that the Law is assigned to the Old Tes- XXIV 3 7J ). At the very least an exegesis LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES 19 of the Old Testament as if there were no sian to reach him with the holy Gospel New Testament is one-sided and incom­ for the consolation of his terrified con­ plete and therefore sectarian. science. The crowning glory of the meo­ The kind of interpretations of the Scrip­ logical presuppositions for a Lutheran ap­ tures of which the Confessions speak is proach to the Scriptures is its conviction impossible for an unregenerate man, that "any interpretation of the Scriptures though his mastery of the external skills which weakens or even removes this com­ may be outstanding. " ... Scripture denies fort and hope is contrary to the Holy to the intellect, heart, and will of the Spirit's will and intent" (SD XI 92). natural man every capacity, aptitude, skill, What Lutheran hermeneutics and exegesis and ability to think anything good or right is all about is magnificendy woven to­ in spiritual matters" (FC SD II 12). The gether in the following trinitarian and proper approach to Scripture is a matter soteriological summary: of faith, justifying faith, which means the Concerning the righteousness of faith be­ gift of the Holy Spirit. True empathy fore God we believe, teach, and confess with the "&ripture of d1e Holy Spirit" is unanimously . . . that a poor sinner is possible only for one who has the Holy justified before God (that is, he is absolved Spirit. God has given us the Holy Spirit and declared utterly free from all his sins, and from the verdict of well deserved in Baptism. As a result "we have been damnation, and is adopted as a child of given the power to interpret the Scriptures God and an heir of eternal life) without and to know Christ, which is impossible any merit or worthiness on our part, and without the Holy Spirit" (LC IV 49). Lu­ without any preceding, present, or subse­ meran exegesis involves the exegete him­ quent works, by sheer grace, solely through self in the depths of his existence as a child the merit of the total obedience, the bitter of God who places himself under the passion, the death, and the resurrection of Word of God and lets God judge and Christ, our Lord, whose obedience is reck­ comfort him. oned to us as righteousness. The Holy Spirit offers these treasures to us in the And that makes Lutheran exegesis in- promise of the Gospel, and faith is the tensely practical. It recognizes that only means whereby we can apprehend, All Scripture, inspired by God, should accept, apply them to ourselves, and make minister not to security and impenitence them our own. Faith is a gift of God but "to reproof, correction, and improve­ whereby we rightly learn to know Christ ment" (II Tim.3:16). Furthermore, ev­ as our redeemer in the Word of the Gos­ erything in the Word of God is written pel and to trust in him, that solely for down for us, not for the purpose of the sake of his obedience we have for­ thereby driving us to despair but in order giveness of sins by grace, are accounted that "by steadfastness, by the encourage­ righteous and holy by God the Father, ment of the Scriptures we might have and are saved forever. (FC SD III 9-11) hope" (Rom. 15:4). (FC SD XI 12) This is where Lutherans stand, and it is Lutheran exegesis feels ineluctably con­ this stance that gives their theology its cerned and responsible for the man "for truly catholic character. "We know that whom Christ died" and is under compul- what we have said agrees with the pro- 20 LUTHERAN APPROACH TO THE SCRIPTURES

phetic and apostolic Scriptures ... and the Scriptures in summary form, they with the whole church of Christ.... " (Ap are silent on many aspects of Biblical IV 389) interpretation that are today agitating Lutheran exegesis has the same purposes the minds of many in the church. Yet as the Lutheran Symbols and Lutheran the­ the commentaries of Luther and other ology in general: "to do and to continue to Reformation writers show that many of do everything that is useful and profitable these problems were not unknown in [lJ to the increase and expansion of the 16th century (e. g., Luther's difficul­ God's praise and glory, ties with James, Revelation, etc., his [2J to the propagation of that Word of largely unsuccessful attempts at resolv­ his that alone brings salvation, ing discrepancies in parallel accounts in [3 J to the tranquility and peace of both Old and New Testaments, his gen­ Christian schools and churches, and erous concessions to other exegetes with [4J to the needed consolation and in­ whose interpretations he could not struction of poor, misguided con­ agree) . sciences." (Preface to the Book of 4. The Lutheran Confessions suggest that Concord, p. 13 ) any new problems arising in the future concerning Christian theology, includ­ A BRIEF EPILOGUE ing the theology of the Word, be eval­ 1. The Lutheran approach to the Scriptures uated and resolved from the perspective is not humanistic, rationalistic, specu­ that controls the enunciation of what lative, detached, academic, legalistic, Lutherans believe, teach, and confess fadistic, capricious, sectarian. (d. AC, Concl., 1). This would mean 2. The Lutheran approach to the Scriptures that they would regard as valid and im­ is baptized, regenerated, tnmtarian, portant those questions that have ex­ Christ-centered, spiritual, soteriological, plicit or implicit relevance for the proc­ evangelical, eschatological, pastoral, re­ lamation, promotion, and preservation sponsible, unfragmented, catholic, dox­ of the holy Gospel, of the righteousness ological. of faith, or the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. 3. Although the Lutheran Confessions claim to present the total content of St. Louis, Mo. Principles of Biblical Interpretation In the Lutheran Confessions RALPH A. BOHLMANN

he Lutheran Confessions suggest the products of Biblical interpretation.1 An Tfollowing Vorverstandnis, or presup­ awareness of the Confessional principles positions, for the Lutheran interpreter of of Biblical interpretation, which we shall Holy Scripture: attempt to set forth in the first part of our 1. He regards the Scriptures as the Word article, becomes necessary both to evaluate spoken by God Himself; he knows the legitimacy of these presuppositions and that God is addressing him in every to appreciate the exegesis of the Confes­ word of the Bible. sions, which was shaped by these presup­ 2. He knows that God Himself must en­ positions. In the second part of our pres­ lighten his understanding in order for entation we shall ask whether some of the him to believe what God is saying in above presuppositions (Law-Gospel, justi­ Holy Scripture; he reads the Scriptures fication) are in fact principles of interpre­ as one who has the Spirit and expects tation and attempt to answer the question the Spirit. on the basis of samples of Confessional 3. He knows that in Holy Scripture God exegesis. We shall conclude with some speaks a condemnatory word (Law) implications of this study for the task of and a forgiving word ( Gospel), the Biblical interpretation today.2 former for the sake of the latter; he therefore seeks to distinguish rightly 1 Here we are taking seriously the Confes­ sions' claim to be expositions of Scripture. between the two words of God lest the word of Gospel become a word 2 In our investigation we are limiting our­ selves to an examination of statements explicitly of Law. referring to Biblical interpretation and to exam­ 4. He reads the Scriptures as one who has ples of Biblical interpretation within the Confes­ sions that illustrate hermeneutical principles. been justified by God's grace for We are not examining the non-Confessional Christ's sake through faith; he knows writings of the Confessional authors (although that Jesus Christ is the center of all this should be done to get a complete picture of the Scripture. their hermeneutical principles). We are also not investigating pre-Reformation hermeneutical But we are here involved in a circle! The principles in detail (something that also should above statements are not merely presup­ be done in order to note the continuity and discontinuity of Biblical hermeneutics in the positions for Biblical interpretation but Confessions). Nor are we attempting to pass judgment on the correctness of the exegesis of in­ dividual Bible passages in the Scriptures. Three Ralph A. Bohlmann is assistant professor of studies on the Biblical exegesis of the Confes­ systematic theology at Concordia Seminary, sions are: Wilhelm C. Linss, "Biblical Interpre­ St. Louis, and is a member of the Commis­ tation in the Formula of Concord," in The Sym­ sion on Theology and Church Relations of posium on Seventeenth Century Lutheranism, I The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. (St. Louis: The Symposium on Seventeenth Cen- 21 22 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

I. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND THEIR plicit statements as well as in the copious INTERPRETATION use of Scripture throughout the Book of A. The Nature of Holy Scripture Concord. The divine authority of Scripture rests substantially on its divine authorship. The principles for interpreting any piece Melanchthon chides the Romanists for of literature are to a large extent deter­ condemning "several articles in opposition mined by the nature of the literature. That to the clear Scripture of the Holy Spirit" this maxim applies also to the Holy Scrip­ CAp, Preface, 9). Amazed that they are tures is clearly evidenced in the Lutheran "unmoved by the many passages in the Confessions. At the risk of repeating ac­ Scriptures that clearly attribute justification cents made in H. J. A. Bouman's paper, let to faith," he asks: "Do they suppose that us examine some of the basic Confessional these words fell from the Holy Spirit un­ attitudes toward the nature of Holy Scrip­ awares?" CAp IV 108).4 The article of ture. Christian liberty is "an article which the 1. The author of Holy Scripture is God Holy Spirit through the mouth of the holy· Himself. The absence of a specific article apostle so seriously commanded the church on the nature of Biblical inspiration in the to preserve" CFC SD X 15). The frequent Confessions should not be overemphasized.3 designation of Holy Scripture as the Whatever the reasons for such an omission "Word of God" adds additional evidence may have been, it is obvious that from that the confessors clearly regarded God as beginning to end the Confessions treat the auctor primarius of Scripture.5 Holy Scripture as divinely authoritative. The divine authorship of Scripture is the This divine authority is expressed in ex- basic reason for its absolute reliability. We know "that God does not lie" and that tury Lutheranism, 1962), 118-135; Edmund Schlink, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, "God's Word cannot err" CLC IV 57). trans. P. F. Koehneke and H. J. A. Bouman Therefore Luther advises: "... believe the (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961), pp. Scriptures. They will not lie to you" CLC 297-317; and ]iirgen Roloff, "The Interpreta­ tion of Scripture in Article IV of Melanchthon's V 76). Our position is based "on the Apology of the Augsburg Confession," Lutheran Word of God as the eternal truth" CFC World, VIII (1961),47-63. SD, Rule and Norm, 13). The Formula Within the Confessions we are limiting our rejects an opinion as wrong because: "In study to the official texts of each document. Our citations are taken from The Book of Concord, this way it would be taught that God, who ed. T. G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959). 4 See AC XXVIII 49: "If, then, bishops have 3 For explanations, see Schlink, pp. If., n. 1; the power to burden the churches with countless Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, requirements and thus ensnare consciences, why trans. Walter A. Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia does the divine Scripture so frequently forbid Publishing House, 1962), pp. 182ff.; and F. E. the making and keeping of human regulations? Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America, 2d ed. Why does it call them doctrines of the devil? (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), Is it possible that the Holy Spirit warned against pp. 142ff. It should be remembered that all them for nothing?" parties involved in the controversies treated in 5 The Preface to the Book of Concord calls the Confessions accepted the divine audlOrity of them the "Holy Scriptures of God" (p. 12), as Scripture. does FC SD V, 3. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 23 is the eternal Truth, contradicts himself" knew that the forgiveness of sins in the (SD XI 35). The Preface to the Book of Christ was promised not only to the Israel­ Concord describes the Scriptures as the ites but to all nations. Otherwise he could "pure, infallible, and unalterable Word of not have promised the king forgiveness of God" (p. 8). The divine authorship of all sins" (Ap IV 262). That the death of Scripture gives it a unity and infallibility Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt not found in other writings.6 but also for eternal death is proved from 2. Holy Scripture is Christo centric. Its Hos.13:14 (Ap XII 140). Passages from content from beginning to end deals with Is. 53 are used directly of Christ (XX 5; the justification of the sinner by God's XXIV 23; SA-II I 2, 5). The burning of grace for Christ's sake through faith. Scrip­ the lamb, the drink offering, and the offer­ ture presents "the promise of Christ . . . ing of flour mentioned in Num. 28:4 ff. either when it promises that the Messiah "depicted Christ and the whole worship of will come and promises forgiveness of sins, the New Testament" (Ap XXIV 36). The justification, and eternal life for his sake, Levitical propitiatory sacrifices are symbols or when, in the New Testament, the Christ of Christ's future offering (Ap XXIV 24, who came promises forgiveness of sins, 53). The Old Testament is used frequently justification, and eternal life" (Ap IV 5). for support throughout Melanchthon's de­ The "promise [of grace in Christ] is re­ tailed treatment of justification in the peated continually throughout Scripture; fourth article of the Apology. Ps. 8:6; first it was given to Adam, later to the 93: 1 and Zech. 9: 10 are cited to show that patriarchs, then illumined by the prophets, the prophets foretell that Christ, the God­ and finally proclaimed and revealed by man, is everywhere present to rule (FC Christ among the Jews, and spread by the SD VIII 27). These and similar examples apostles throughout the world." (XII 53) 7 demonstrate that for the Confessions the unity of Scripture is grounded not only Because of the conviction that the en­ on the fact that it has but one Author but tire Scripture testifies of Christ, it is not on the fact that it has but one basic mes­ surprising that Christological interpreta­ sage, Jesus Christ.8 tions are frequently given to Old Testament texts. Dan.4:27 is thus explained: "Daniel 3. The Holy Scriptures, God's Word centering in Jesus Christ, speak directly to 6 For ~n excelle~t treatment of the authority, use, and lnterpretatlOn of the Bible in the Lu­ 8 Confessional statements reflecting the theran Confessions, see the recently published Christological interpretation of the New Testa­ work of Holsten Fagerberg, Die Theologie der ment have not been cited because they are more lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften von 1529 bis obvious, and in order to conserve space. We 1537, trans. Gerhard Klose (Gottingen: Vanden­ have spoken of "Christocentricity" here to epito­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 14--44. Fager­ mize what is elsewhere more completely de­ berg writes: "Die BK betrachten Gottes Wort scribed as the Law-Gospel content of Scripture, als eine in der Bibel geoffenbarte Wahrheit. Da or the centrality in Scripture of the doctrine of justification by grace for Christ's sake through nur sie eine sichere Kenntnis von Gottes Willen faith. v~rmitteln kann, wird die Schrift, ein einzelnes See H. ]. A. Bouman, "Some Thoughts on Blbelwort oder andere bibelnahen Worte Gottes the Theological Presuppositions for a Lutheran Wort genannt," p. 18 f. Approach to the Scriptures," pp. 2-20, for a 7 See also Ap 24 55 and FC SD VI 23. more complete treatment of this point. 24 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS the reader. This is not to suggest that they and you would not!" are used to show that are "suprahistorical" or that the original no injustice is done when the Holy Spirit context and setting of the words of Scrip­ does not illuminate a man who despises ture are unimportant. It is rather to affirm the instruments of the Holy Spirit (FC SD that they are "omnihistorical"; they speak II 58). Examples of this direct application to the reader and his age, whatever that of Scripture abound in the Book of Con­ may be. One is struck by the frequency cord. They suggest that the Confessions' with which the Confessions apply passages interest in Scripture is both existential and directly to contemporaneous situations historical. The Confessional exegete asks without a discussion of the original pur­ not only, "What did God through the hu­ pose or context of the passage. A few man author say to His audience then?" but examples will have to suffice. also, "What is God saying to us now?" Emperor Charles V is implored not to He is convinced that the answer to both "agree to the violent counsels of our oppo­ questions is the same.9 In short, the Con­ nents but to find other ways of establish­ fessions approach the Scriptures under the .. ing harmony" because God "honors kings conviction that "everything in Scripture, as with his own name and calls them gods St. Paul testifies, was written for our in­ (Ps.82:6), 'I say, You are gods'" (Ap struction that by steadfastness and by the XXI 44). Matt. 23: 2, "The Pharisees sit encouragement of the Scriptures we might on Moses' seat," is used in support of the have hope." (FC Ep XI 16, 16, italics doctrine that "the sacraments are efficacious added; s~e SD XI 12) 10 even if the priests who administer them 4. Holy Scripture, God's Word to us are wicked men" (AC VIII). John the about Jesus Christ, is clear and understand­ Baptist's preaching of repentance is applied able (allgemeinverstandlich). The perspicu­ directly (SA-III III 30-32). Both Acts ity of Scripture was one of the most im­ 5:29 and Gal. 1:8 are applied to the pon­ portant assertions of the Lutheran Ref­ tiffs "who defend godless forms of wor­ ormation. For centuries the Scriptures had ship, idolatry, and doctrines which conflict been regarded as a dark and mysterious with the Gospel" (Treatise, 38). "Beware book requiring the interpretation of the of false prophets" (Matt. 7: 15) and "Do church and the utilization of allegorical not be mismated with unbelievers" (2 Cor. exegesis to understand its mysteries. 6: 14) are used in support of the statement Through his understanding of the Christo­ that all Christians ought to "abandon and centric and revelational nature of the Scrip­ execrate the pope and his adherents as the tures, as well as from Scripture's own claim kingdom of the Antichrist" (Treatise 41). to clarity, Luther came to emphasize the The words "for you" in the words of in­ 9 This is not to suggest that the Confessions stitution of the Lord's Supper "are not are unaware that the ordinances under the Old preached to wood or stone but to you and Covenant and certain other prescriptions do not me" (LC V 65). Christ's words over Jeru­ bind the Christian today, e. g., Ap XXIII 41; XXIV 27, 37; XXVIII 16. salem in Matt. 23:37: "How often would 10 This reference to Rom. 15:4 includes the I have gathered your children together as New Testament within the scope of "Scripture," a hen gathers her brood under her wings, as the context makes clear. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 25 perspicuity and general understandability It is not surprising that the belief in the of the Bible. Luther maintained both the claritas Scripturae should permeate the Lu­ "external clarity" of the text and the "in­ theran Confessions. To be sure, this truth ternal clarity" of the Christocentric subject is not set forth in a systematic way nor matter of Scripture gained through the defined as carefully as we might like. But Holy Spirit.11 This does not mean that it is evident in several ways. there are no diflicult or obscure passages in Perhaps the most obvious and compel­ Scripture. But such passages can be inter­ ling Confessional evidence for the clarity preted through clearer passages or through of Scripture is the manner in which Scrip­ philological and grammatical studies. If ture is cited as the basis of Confessional such passages still remain unclear after doctrine. Again and again passages are such investigation, Luther suggests that the simply quoted without any explanation. reason lies not in the obscurity of the text Of the more than 1,700 Scripture citations but in the mind of the reader. The im­ in the Confessions, the preponderant ma­ portance of this emphasis on the clarity of jority are simply direct quotations of the .. Scripture cannot be overestimated: it freed sacred text without explanation or ex­ the Bible from the need for official inter­ tended commentary. At times several para­ pretation by the church, helped place the graphs in succession present the Confes­ Book of Life into the hands of anyone who sional argument simply by quoting passage could read, and stimulated exegetes to after passage almost without comment search the Scriptures.12 (e.g,. FC SD II 10ff.; XI 28ff.; SA-II I 1 ff.). Melanchthon almost tires of citing 11 See Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston so much evidence: "... since it is obvious (Westwood, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Company, throughout the Scriptures" (Ap VII 37). 1957), pp. 70-74, 123-134, et passim. 12 For an excellent treatment of the claritaJ of the Christian faith are 'clear', in the sense Scripturae and Luther's major hermeneutical that God has clearly revealed these mysteries for rules in relationship to pre-Lutheran exegesis, us and thus given them to us and has not left see Gerhard Krause, Studien zu LutherJ AUJle­ anything to out initiative to find out. . . . This gung der Kleinen Propheten (Tiibingen: J. c. B. is not affected by the fact that some passages are Mohr, 1962), pp.I71-281. Krause states: "Es obscure and that we may have to resort to com­ ist nun sehr bezeichnend fiir Luthers Gesamtauf­ mentaries, dictionaries or gifted exegetes to find fassung von der Bibelexegese, dass er sich nicht out what they mean. For hand in hand with the begniigt mit der dogmatischen Behauptung einer perspicuity of the document goes, as we saw, 'claritas scripturae' in Christus" (p. 268) but the perspicuity of its subject matter, the Law and spoke "von der grundsatzlichen Klarheit der Gospel of God, the salvation offered in Christ." Schrift in sprachlicher Hinsicht und in der In TeJtimonia Pat1'um: The Function of the Glaubens-Summa ihrer Botschaft" (p. 281). Pat1'iJtic A1'gument in the Theolog'Y of Philip The most complete study of Luther's concept Melanchthon (Geneva: Libraire E. Droz, 1961), of the clarity of Scripture is Rudolf Hermann, pp.209f. Von de1' Kla1'heit de1' Heiligen Sch1'i/t (Berlin: With reference to the Confessional under­ Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958). standing of the clarity of Scripture, Fagerberg Peter Fraenkel describes Melanchthon's views states: "Die hl. Schrift ist ihrem Inhalt nach on Scriptural clarity in a similar way: "Just as grundsatzlich klar, so dass das, was sie sagen Melanchthon had a high regard for the Scrip­ will, in begreifbare 5atze gefasst werden kann. tures as a text and connected this closely with Wenn Zweifeliiber den Gehalt. einer Schrift­ their saving import and force, so also he thought stelle herrschen, dann haben die deudichen that both the text as such and the entire matter Stellen die undeudichen zu erklaren," p. 41 f. 26 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

Again he states: "We would cite more testament and of his abiding covenant and passages if they were not obvious to every union, he uses no flowery languagee but devout reader of Scripture, and we want the most appropriate, simple, indubitable, to avoid being lengthy in order to make and clear words (ganz eigentliche, ein­ faltige, unzweilelhaftige und klare Wort our case more easily understood" (XII 83). gebraucht) , just as he does in all the The use of Scripture in this unadorned articles of faith and in the institution of way in documents that at least in part were other covenant-signs and signs of grace intended for a nonclerical audience indi­ or sacraments, such as circumcision, the cates the Confessional belief in the general many kinds of sacrifice in the Old Testa­ understandability of Scripture. ment, and holy Baptism. (SD VII 50; There are explicit statements on the italics added) clarity of Scripture as well. The prophetic The Confessions maintain in article after and apostolic writings of the Old and New article that their argument rests on "clear Testaments are described as "the pure and passages" of Scripture. The following are clear fountain of Israel" (FC SD, Rule and examples of teachings for which the Cori~ Norm, 3) .13 This description of the Scrip­ fessions claim clear Scripture: Communion tures, the source of all doctrine, as lauter, in both kinds (AC XXII 2), the institu­ or limpidissimus, is an affirmation of their tion of marriage to avoid immorality clarity. In the Preface to the Apology (9) (XXIII 3), no humanly established regula­ Melanchthon says the authors of the Con­ tions merit God's grace (XXVIII 43), lust futation "have condemned several articles is sin (Ap II 40), justification through in opposition to the clear Scripture of the faith (IV 314), the distinction between Holy Spirit." In the matter of transferring human and spiritual righteousness (XVIII the Lord's Supper to the dead ex opere 10), the Eucharistic words of institution operato, the Romanists could claim support (LC V 45; FC Ep VII 15; SD VII 50), and from Gregory and later medieval theolo­ that conversion is to be attributed to God gians, but "we set against them the clearest alone. (SD II 87) and surest passages of Scripture (nos op­ 5. The Holy Scriptures are literary doc­ ponimus clarissimas et certissimas scrip­ uments. This point is not stated as such turas)" (Ap XXIV 94). A highly signifi­ in the Confessions but is assumed through­ cant passage appears in the Formula's treat­ out. The Scriptures were written by God ment of the Lord's Supper: through human authors in particular lan­ In the institution of his last will and guages and times. This fact, while obvious, has important implications for the inter­ 13" . zu dem reinen, lautern Brunnen Israels . . ."; ". . . ut limpidissimos puris­ pretation of Scripture, as we shall see simosque Israelis fontes . . .," Die Bekenntnis­ below. schri/ten der evangelisch-Iutherischen Kirche, 5th rev. ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup­ B. Principles of Biblical Interpretation recht, 1963), p. 834. With reference to Scrip­ ture as the source of doctrine, Fraenkel states: The Holy Scriptures are God's clear lit­ "The 16th century, like its ancient models and erary Word to us about Jesus Christ. How ourselves, used Ions as a technical term for liter­ ary origins or intellectual and spiritual presuppo­ do I get at the meaning of this Word? sitions," p. 190, n. 83. How do I hear what God is saying to me BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 27

in His Law and in His Gospel? The Con­ c. Their actual exegesis is careless, slov­ fessions give basically one answer (with enly, illogical, and often dishonest. They many aspects) to these questions: through add words to the text (IV 264) or omit grammatical-historical exegesis. To enthu­ a word and the central thought as well (N siasts of every kind "who boast that they 357). They quote passages in a garbled possess the Spirit without and before the form (IV 286) or out of context (XXIV Word and who therefore judge, interpret, 15 ). They are guilty of bad grammar (by and twist the Scriptures or spoken Word applying a universal particle to a single according to their pleasure" (SA-III VIII 3), part [IV 283]), of neglecting grammar the Confessions assert that God's message (XII 163), or even of despising grammar does not lie behind or above or apart from (XII 106). Their use of logic in under­ the Word but in the Word.14 standing the text is sophistic or wrong (IV 1. "Derive the meaning from the text" 222, 335, 360 f.). They "make the effect may thus be regarded as the basic Confes­ the cause" (XX 13). Melanchthon laments: sional principle of Biblical interpretation. "Who ever taught these asses such logic? .. This principle is especially evident in the This is not logic or even sophistry, but Apology's criticism of the exegesis of the sheer dishonesty" (XII 123). Such "exe­ Roman Confutation. This criticism is of gesis" had indeed obscured "important three kinds: teachings of the Scriptures and the Fa­ thers." (II 32) a. The Romanists are selective in their use of Scripture. They select "passages In short, the Romanists "do violence not about law and works but omit passages only to Scripture but also to the very usage about the promises." (IV 183; see also N of the language" (N 357; see also IV 286, 107, 221, 284, 286; XII 34) where Melanchthon summarizes the above criticisms of Roman exegesis). The criti­ b. They twist and distort the Scriptures cisms of the Apology make it very clear to suit their own non-Scriptural opinions. that the Romanists held wrong presupposi­ "Our opponents twist many texts because tions for their interpretation of Scripture. they read their own opinions into them in­ They were wrong in the first instance he­ stead of deriving the meaning from the cause they were not derived from the texts themselves" (N 224; see also N Scriptures through careful and objective 244, 253, 255, 260, 286; XII 123; XXN, literary exegesis. Implicit in the above 14). While this "eisegesis" usually takes criticisms is the contention that sober exe­ the form of imposing a false human opin­ gesis will lead not only to proper presup­ ion about justification on the text of Scrip­ positions but also to correct conclusions. ture, the Romanists also read later inven­ The actual exegesis in the Confessions tions, such as canonical satisfactions or makes it clear how seriously they took the monasticism, into the Scriptures. (XII 131; principle of deriving the meaning from XXVII 29) the text of Scripture. Statements like the following are frequent: "we shall simply 14 Note that Luther regards "enthusiasm" as "the source, strength, and power of all heresy" present Paul's meaning" (Ap N 231); (SA-III VIII 9). "the text does not say this" (264); "as .the 28 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS narrative in the text shows" (267); "what unusually severe; this they called a trespass we have said is what Paul really and truly offering. Sometimes they offered up means" (XII 84); "Where does Scripture human sacrifices, perhaps because they had say this?" (138); "the prophet's own words heard that a human victim was going to give us his meaning" (XXIV 32). The placate God for the whole human race. The Greeks called them either "refuse" or appeal throughout is to what God is ac­ "offscouring." (Ap XXIV 23) tually saying through His holy penmen. Later in the same article Melanchthon dis­ The Confessions evidence a careful con­ cusses the use of the word "liturgy" by the cern for many of the aspects of grammati­ Greeks. He quotes Demosthenes, the re­ cal exegesis. They know the importance script of Pertinax, and Ulpian, a commen­ of word study and usage. We note how tator on Demosthenes, and concludes: carefully the words "to be justified" and "justification" are explained (Ap IV 72; But further proofs are unnecessary since see FC Ep III 7: "according to the usage anyone who reads the Greek authors can find examples everywhere of their use·· of Scripture," and SD III 17: "And this is of "liturgy" to mean· public duties or the usual usage and meaning of the word ministrations. Because of the diphthong, in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the philologists do not derive it from lite, New Testaments"). Particular attention is which means prayers, but from leita, given to understanding "faith in the true which means public goods; thus the verb sense, as the Scriptures use the word" (Ap means to care for or to administer pub­ IV 112; see IV 304). Similar attention is licgoods. (81-83) given to deriving the meaning of the word Readers of the Large Catechism will also "Gospel" from the Biblical usage, and it remember that Luther explains the Greek is noted: "The word 'Gospel' is not used and Latin background of the word in a single sense in Holy Scripture" (FC "Kirche." (II 48) 15 Ep V 6; see SD V 3-6). The Biblical Particular weight is often laid on one meaning of the word "necessity" is studied word in a passage. Melanchthon carefully (SD IV 14, 17), and the Biblical usage of explains the force of the word "judge" in the word "repentance" is analyzed. 1 Cor.11:31 (Ap XII 163). The word (V 7-8) "bread" in 1 Cor.11:28 and 10:16 is Sometimes extra-Biblical data are help­ enough Biblical basis to oppose transub­ ful for the understanding of a word used stantiation (SA-III VI 5). Much impor­ in Scripture. Commenting on the meaning tance is attached to the exclusive particles of "sin offering" in Is. 53: 10 and Rom. 8: 3, ("alone," "freely," "not of works," "it is Melanchthon writes: a gift") in passages dealing with justifica­ We can understand the meaning of the tion (Ap IV 73; FC SD III 52). Melanch­ word more readily if we look at the cus­ thon feels no compulsion to do so but of- toms which the heathen adopted from their misi11terpretation of the patriarchal 15 Luther's derivation of Kit-ehe from the tradition. The Latins offered a sacrificial Greek is generally held to be correct, although his attempt to associate it with the Latin "curia" victim to placate the wrath of God when, is probably faulty. See Bekenntnisseh,.;ften, p. amid great calamities, it seemed to be 656, n. 7. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 29 fers a distinction between the words exegesis practices what Melanchthon "faith" and· "hope" (Ap IV 312). The preaches: Greek text is appealed to for a deeper It is necessary to consider passages in understanding of key words (e. g., LC III their context, because according to .the 113: "In the Greek this petition reads, common rule it is improper in an argu­ 'Deliver or keep us from the Evil One, or ment to judge or reply to a single passage the Wicked One' "; or FC SD II 12, which without taking the whole law into ac­ explains that the Greek expression "does count. When passages are considered in not receive" in 1 Cor. 2: 14 actually means their own context, they often yield. their "does not grasp, take hold of, or appre­ own interpretation. (Ap IV 280) hend"). 2. "Seek the native sense of the text" Grammar is of the utmost importance, may be posited as a second principle of as the general exegesis of the Confessions Confessional hermeneutics, and it is closely related to the first. The insistence of the from beginning to end makes very clear. The Treatise, for example, can argue that Lutheran Reformation that every passage the plural form of the word "you" in Matt. of Holy Scripmre has but one simple sense 16: 15; 18: 19; John 20:23 shows that "the constimted a major breakthrough in the history of Biblical interpretation. 16 In me­ keys were given equally to all the apostles and that all the apostles were sent out as dieval times Scripmre was expounded by means of the Quadriga, or fourfold rule, equals." (Treatise, 23) according to which Bible passages could The literary context and historical set­ have a literal, moral, allegorical, and ana­ ting must also be carefully considered. gogical sense. The moral, or tropological, Luke 7:47 is interpreted on the basis of its sense applied to the individual believer, context, especially verse 50 (Ap IV 152). the allegorical to the church, and the ana­ 1 Peter 4:8 is explained on the basis of its gogical to the fumre. This type of exegesis closer context and its wider context, 2:4,5, made of the Scripmres a "waxen nose," and 6 (238). James 2:24 is explained on a book filled with obscurity and mystery the basis of its context, especially 1: 18 which only the church could interpretP (246 f.). Tobit 4: 11 is interpreted by vv. It might be observed, however, that 5,19 (277-280). 1 Tim. 5:8,9, 14 help us understand vv. 11, 12. That the word 16 For the prior history of this rule and its "Gospel" in Mark 1: 1 is to be interpreted significance in Luther's thought, see F. W. Far­ rar, History of Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: in the wider sense is based on Mark 1: 4 Baker Book House, 1961). See also Krause, pp. (FC SD V 4). Not only the context of 174f., n. 6. the words of instimtion but also the cir­ 17 Farrar states: "He [Luther} saw as clearly cumstances of the Last Supper help us to as Melanchthon that the pretense of a multiplex intelligentia destroyed the whole meaning of understand our Lord's words (VII 44, 48). Scripture and deprived it of any certain sense at The "purpose and context of St. Paul's en­ all, while it left room for the most extravagant tire discourse" in 1 Cor. 10 help us explain perversions, and became a subtle method for transferring to human fallibility what belonged his words in v.16 (VII 57). Such exam­ exclusively to the domain of revelation" (Pp. ples could be multiplied. Confessional 327f.). 30 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS throughout the Middle Ages and into the gories, but it is evident that allegory does period of the Reformation only the literal not prove or establish anything" (Ap sense was valid in disputations and the XXIV 35). Melanchthon ridicules such exegete was not compelled to search for all an example of Roman exegesis. Comment­ four senses in every verse.1S Over against ing on the Roman use of Prov.27:23, this view of Scripture, Luther asserted: "Know well the condition of your flocks," "The literal sense of Scripture alone is the to justify a priest's investigating the sins whole essence of faith and Christian the­ of a penitent, Melanchthon observes: ology"; and again: "If we wish to handle By a marvelous transformation, our op­ Scripture aright, our sole effort will be to ponents make passages of Scripture mean obtain the one, simple, seminal and certain whatever they want them to mean. Ac­ sense." 19 Or again: "The Holy Spirit is cording to their interpretation, "know" the plainest writer and speaker in heaven here means to hear confessions, "condi­ and earth and therefore His words cannot tion" means the secrets of conscience and have more than one, and that the very not outward conduct, and "flocks" means, men. The interpretation surely is a neat simplest sense, which we call the literal, one, worthy of these men who despise ordinary, natural sense." 20 grammar. (Ap XII 106) Once again this principle of Confes­ Melanchthon counters by pointing out that sional hermeneutics can be seen most Solomon is not talking about confession clearly in the consistent exegetical practice but merely giving a bit of domestic advice of setting forth the simple, literal, or na­ to the head of a household. He does not, tive sense intended by the author as the however, rule out the possibility of apply­ meaning of passages. A few examples may ing this passage to a pastor "by analogy." serve to illustrate this fact. We note Again, commenting on the Confutation's Melanchthon's disregard for allegories: use of 1 Sam. 2: 36 to justify distributing "Our opponents will really achieve some­ only the bread to the laity, Melanchthon thing if we let them defeat us with alle- comments: "Our opponents are obviously

18 A. Skevington Wood, Luther's Principles clowning when they apply the story of of Biblical Interpretation (London: The Tyn­ Eli's sons to the sacrament." (Ap XXII 10) dale Press, 1960), pp. 24 f. This 36-page book­ let gives a clear and basically accurate overview Nowhere is the Confessions' appeal to of Luther's hermeneutics. the native sense of the text' more evident 19 Quoted by Farrar, p. 327. than in their interpretation of the Eucha­ 20 Martin Luther, Dr. M. Luther's Answer to ristic words of institution. We remember the Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Super­ Luther's words in the Large Catechism: learned Book of Goat Bmser of Leipzig, with a Glance at His Comrade Murner, 1521, trans. "Here we shall take our stand and see who A. Steimle, Works of Martin Luther, III (Phila­ dares to instruct Christ and alter what he delphia: A. ]. Holman Company, 1930), 350. This writing is particularly useful for under­ has spoken. . . . For as we have it from standing Luther's exegetical principles. the lips of Christ, so it is; he cannot lie For Luther's distinction between sententia or deceive" (V 13 f.). Again: "Mark this generalis et specialis and his understanding of the scopus of the text, see Krause, pp. 213-223, and remember it well. For upon these 241-260. words rest our whole argument, protec- BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 31 tion, and defense against all errors and de­ he was about to begin his bitter passion ceptions that have ever arisen or may yet and death for our sin" (44), the Formula arise." (V 19) concludes: The Formula of Concord deals with the We are therefore bound to interpret and interpretation of these words explicitly and explain these words of the eternal, truth­ in great detail. At the risk of belaboring ful, and almighty Son of God, Jesus Christ, the obvious, we shall cite the Formula in our Lord, Creator, and Redeemer, not as some detail. After setting forth the Sac­ flowery, figurative, or metaphorical expres­ ramentarian position, the Formula quotes sions, as they appear to our reason, but we must accept them in simple faith and at length from earlier Lutheran confessions due obedience in their strict and clear and the writings of Luther to indicate the sense, just as they read (wie sie lauten, true Lutheran position on the Real Pres­ in ihrem eigentlichen, klaren Verstand). ence. Commenting on the Wittenberg Nor dare we permit any objection or Concord of 1536, the Formula remarks: human contradiction, spun out of human Thereby they wished to indicate that, even reason, to turn us away from these words, though they also use these different for­ no matter how appealing our reason may mulas, "in the bread, under the bread, find it. (45) with the bread," they still accept the words The article cites the example of Abraham of Christ in their strict sense and as they as one who did not ask for a "tolerable and read (eigentlich und wie sie lauten), and loose interpretation" of God's command to they do not consider that in the proposi­ tion (that is, the words of Christ's testa­ sacrifice his son Isaac but "understood the ment) , "This is my body," we have to words and command of God plainly and do with a figurative predication, but with simply, as the words read" (46). Then it an unusual one (that is, it is not to be returns to the words of institution. understood as a figurative, flowery formula All circumstances of the institution of or quibble about words). (SD VII 38) this Supper testify that these words of The Formula asserts that the Lutheran our Lord Jesus Christ, which in themselves position set forth above are simple, clear, manifest, certain, and rests on a unique, firm, immovable, and indubitable, can and should be under­ indubitable rock of truth in the words stood only in their usual, strict, and com­ of institution recorded in the holy Word monly accepted meaning. (48) 21 of God and so understood, taught, and The next paragraphs show how the con­ transmitted by the holy evangelists and text of the Last Supper indicates that there apostles, and by their disciples and hearers can be no metaphor or metonymy (change in turn. (42 ) in meaning) in Christ's words. We must The article then turns to an interpretation of Christ's words, pointing out that Christ 21 "Nun zeugen aIle Umstande der Einset­ zung dieses Abendmahls, dass diese Wort unsers speaks not as a mere man or angel but as Herrn und Heilands Jesu Christi, so an sich the one who is "himself the eternal truth selbst einfaltig, deutlich, klar, fest und unzweifel­ and wisdom and the almighty God" (43). haftig sein, anders nicht dann in ihrer gewohn­ lichen, eigentlichen und gemeinen Deutung kon­ Noting the great care and deliberation nen und sollen verstanden werden." (Bekennt­ with which our Lord chose His words "as nisschrijten, p. 987) 32 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS remain with the simple meaning of the evident in the Confessions. The Scriptures words. can employ figures of speech, e. g., synech­ In the institution of his last will and doche (Ap IV 152) or perhaps hyperbole testament and of his abiding covenant and (277). In the same article we have been union, he uses no flowery language but quoting above, the Formula asserts that the most appropriate, simple, indubi­ John 6:48-58 refers to a "spiritual" eating table and clear words, just as he does in of the flesh of Christ (SD VII 61). In the all the articles of faith and in the institu­ following article the Formula adopts Lu­ tion of other covenant-signs and signs of ther's explanation that the right hand of grace or sacraments, such as circumcision, God "is not a specific place in heaven, as the many kinds of sacrifice in the Old the Sacramentarians maintain without Testament, and holy Baptism. And so that no misunderstanding could creep in, he proof from the Holy Scriptures. The right explained things more clearly by adding hand of God is precisely the almighty the words, "given for you, shed for you." power of God which fills heaven and He let his disciples keep this simple and earth . . ." (VIII 28). Our Lord's state-· strict understanding and commanded them ment in Matt. 16: 18: "On this rock I will to teach all nations to observe all that build my church," does not have reference he had commanded them (that is, the to a literal rock but to the "ministry of the apostles). (50 f.) confession which Peter made when he After a number of pages dealing with fur­ declared Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of ther explanations of the doctrine of the God." (Treatise, 25) 22 Lord's Supper, the article returns to the Luther's interpretation of the Ten Com­ matter of interpretation. mandments should be studied carefully in We shall not, can not, and should not per­ this connection. With regard to the Third mit any clever human opinions, no matter Commandment he says: what appearance or prestige they may Therefore, according to its literal, outward have, to lead us away from the simple, sense (nach dem groben Verstand), this explicit, and clear understanding ( von commandment does not concern us Chris­ dem einfiiltigen, deutlichen und klaren tians. It is an entirely external matter, like Verstand) of Christ's word and testament the other ordinances of the Old Testament to a' strange meaning different from the connected with particular customs, per- way the letters read, but, as stated above, we shall understand and believe them in 22 Luther gives this advice' for postulating the simple sense. (92) figures of speech in Holy Scripture: "Rather let this be our conviction:. that no 'implication' or It is not surprising, then, that the Formula 'figure' may be allowed to exist in any passage explicitly condemns those who hold that of Scripture unless such be required by some obvious feature of the words and the absurdity the words of institution "through tropes or of their plain sense, a,s offending against an arti­ a figurative interpretation are to be given cle of faith. Everywhere we should stick to just a different, new, and strange sense." (113) the simple, natural meaning of the words, as yielded by the rules of grammar and, the habits The native or proper sense of a passage, of speech that God has created among men.... however, is the sense intended by the au­ All 'figures' should rather be avoided, as being the quickest poison, when Scripture, itself does thor, and the Biblical authors do not always not absolutely require them." (Bondage of the speak in literalistic terms. This fact is also Will, pp. 191£.) BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 33

sons, times; and places, from all of which of the sacrifice of Christ which was to be we are now set free through Christ. (LC the one propitiatory sacrifice" (53).' How­ I 82) ever: "By analogy (similitudine) they were Luther then proceeds to offer "ordinary satisfactions since they gained the righ­ people a Christian interpretation of what teousness of the ceremonial law and pre­ God requires in this commandment" (83). vented the exclusion of the sinner from At first glance it would appear that Luther the commonwealth" (24) .24 For the Apol­ interprets the Third Commandment as hav­ ogy it would appear that there is but one ing a double sense, the one "literal" and proper meaning of the Levitical "propiti­ the other "Christian." But as Luther's con­ atory" sacrifices: they are symbols of the text makes clear, the true and proper sense coming sacrifice of Christ. The New T es­ of the commandment is its "Christian" tament (in this case, Hebrews) has not sense, and it was also this for the Old added "another" meaning to their "origi­ Tesament Jews. Its proper sense, then and nal" meaning. In fact, it is only by way now, is "that we should sanctify the holy of "similitude" to what they signify that day or day of rest" (81). True: "As far as they are called "propitiatory" in terms of outward observance is concerned, the com­ their civil function 1fi the Israelite com­ mandment was given to the Jews alone" munity. ( 80), but this "outward observance" for 3. "Let Scripture interpret itself" is a Luther is not the real, proper meaning of third major Confessional principle of Bib­ the text. Much the same explanation should lical interpretation. The classic formula­ be given to Luther's remarks on the last tion Scriptura Sacra sui ipsitts interpres is twO commandments: "These two com­ evident in Luther's writings as early as mandments, taken literally, were given 1519.25 The same principle is sometimes exclusively to the Jews; nevertheless, in expressed as "Scriptura Scripturam inter­ part they also apply to us." (293) 23 pretatut," the "analogy of Scripture," or the A related problem greets us in Melanch­ thon's comments on the Levitical sacrifices 24 See paragraph 56, where it is stated that "by analogy (similitudine)" Old Testament sacri­ in Apology XXIV. AlI Levitical sacrifices fices can be said to have "merited civil reconcilia­ can be classified under two heads, propitia­ tion." tory or eucharistic ( 21 ) . Yet there has 25 Karl Holl, "Luthers Bedeutung fiir den really been only one propitiatory sacrifice Fortschritt der Auslegungskunst," Gesammelte' in the world, the death of Christ ( 22 ) . Au/satze zm Kirchengeschichte, 1, Luther (Tii­ bingen: ]. c. B. Mohr, 1927), 569. Holl ex­ What, then, were the Levitical "propitia­ plains: "Luther weist mit ihm zunachst den tory" sacrifices? They were so called only Anspruch ab, den die kirchliche Auktoritat be­ as "symbols of a future offering (ad signifi­ ziiglich des Rechts der Schrifterklarung fiir sich candum futurum piaculum)" (24). That erhob. Aber wichtiger noch war das dadn lie­ gende Positive, die Hervorhebung des Eigen­ is, they were "merely a picture (imago) rechts der Urkunde. Nach dieser Seite hin war Luthers Satz ein Ereignis fiir die ganze Geistes­ 23 "Diese zwei Gepot sind fast den Jiiden wissenschaft. Und vielleicht konnte die Erkennt­ sonderlich gegeben wiewohl sie uns dennoch nis, dass jede U rkunde aus sich selbst ver­ auch zum Tei! betreffen." (Bekenntnisschri/ten, standen werden muss, nur an einem religi6sen, p.633) Denkmal gewonnen werden." (Pp.559f.) 34 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

"analogy of faith." 26 Although the Lu­ sidered and explained in terms of its theran Reformation gave this principle context; thus the context of any Bible classic expression and meaning, it cannot passage is ultimately the entire Scripture. be said to be a new discovery of Luther's.27 That the "context" of Scripture can give In fact, the principle is in a general way a true explanation of any passage rests on applicable to any piece of literature. Be­ the fact of its divine authorship, by virtue cause this principle presupposes the fun­ of which Scripture is held to be in agree­ damental clarity of Scripture, it is not sur­ ment with itself.29 Likewise the Christo­ prising that some observers regard Luther's logical content and soteriological purpose emphasis on the clarity and self-interpret­ of the entire Scriptures can never be di­ ing nature of the Scriptures to have been vorced from this principle. motivated primarily by his desire to free In the practice of exegesis this principle Scripture from the need of ecclesiastical means that passages dealing with the same interpretation.28 That these two factors are matter (parallelismus realis) can be used closely related to the sola Scriptura prin­ to explain and corroborate each other: . ciple cannot be denied. However, that this More importantly (and this has been its principle was more a historical necessity chief use in Lutheran circles), the principle than a theological deduction cannot be means that the less clear or plain passages granted. For the principle follows not only are to be considered in the light of the from the revelatory nature of the Word clearer passages. Ludwig Fuerbringer com­ but especially from its unity of authorship, ments: "In accordance with this general content, and purpose. That the Scriptures rule, we must expound the Old Testament were authored by God suggests that the in the light of the New Testament, the principle Scriptura Sacra sui ipsius inter­ New Testament being the clearer portion pres is simply an extension of the general of Holy Writ." And again: "In like man­ hermeneutical principle of grammatical in­ ner figurative passages or metaphorical ex­ terpretation that any passage must be con- pressions touching upon a certain matter must be expounded in the light of such 26 While some have understood the "analogy of faith" to refer to the creeds or other fixed passages as speak of the same matter summary formulations of belief, Lutherans have plainly and in proper terms." 30 generally defined it as the clear passages of Holy Scripture. Wood says of Luther: "For him the 29 Cf. FC SD Rule and Norm 13; FC SD rule of faith is the Scripture itself. No extrane­ XI 35; LC IV 57. Ludwig Fuerbringer wrote: ous canon is invoked. He finds his sufficient "The complete agreement of Scripmre with itself criterion within the Word of God" (p. 22). must be accepted a priori as a basis in its inter­ The "analogy of faith" suggests, however, that pretation. This claim must under no circum­ the whole of Scripmre should be kept in mind stances be surrendered, because the divine origin in the interpretation of any of its parts. of the Scripmres makes impossible any inconsis­ 27 See F. Kropatscheck, Das Schriftprinzip tency of thought or speech, any contradiction, or der lutherischen Kirche, I, Die Vorgeschichte: even the smallest error." (Theological Herme­ Das Erbe des Mittelalters (Leipzig: 1905) , neutics [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 448£., for the use of this principle by Luther's 1924], p.14) predecessors. 30 Ibid., p. 16. To Fuerbringer's first point 28 This is suggested by Fr. Torm, Hermeneu­ we might add that New Testament interpreta­ tik des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vanden­ tions of the Old Testament are the Holy Spirit's hoeck & Ruprecht, 1930), p. 229. and therefore authoritative. BmLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 35

This principle is consistently followed Besides, examples ought to be interpreted in the Confessions. It is in evidence in the according to the rule (juxta reguJam) , many places where long lists of passages that is, according to sure and clear pas­ are cited as being in agreement with one sages of Scripture, not against the rule or the passages. It is a sure thing that another and therefore expressing the same our observances do not merit the forgive­ truth. A few examples will illustrate this. ness of sins or justification. When the Passages from Paul and John are used side Rechabites are praised, therefore, we must by side (Ap IV 29-33), as are citations note that they did not observe their way from Paul, John, Acts, Habbakuk, and of life out of the belief that they would Isaiah (88-99). 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, merit forgiveness of sins by it.... (Ap Matthew, Acts, John, and Colossians are XXVII 60f.) 31 cited in the same paragraph (FC SD II 10). It is to be noted thatMelanchthon's use of The host of citations in SD II 26 is taken the doctrine of justification to clarify the from 15 different Biblical books, three of nature of Rechabite vows is based on the them from the Old Testament. Passages rule that sure and clear Scripture passages -. from Romans, Genesis, and Hebrews are interpret those that are unclear; he is not cited together to explain how Abraham using justification by grace as an indepen­ was justified before God through faith dent hermeneutical principle. Melanchthon alone (III 33). These samples could be has much the same point in mind when he multiplied. The mutually explanatory na­ says with reference to Luke 11:41 ("Give ture of Scripture passages is further evi­ alms; and behold, everything· is clean for denced not only by the use of New you"): "A study of the whole passage Testament passages to explain Old Tes­ shows its agreement with the rest of Scrip­ tament references (as we shall illustrate ture." (Ap IV 281, 284) below) but correspondingly by using Old Sometimes a passage is cited simply to Testament passages with reference to New corroborate the interpretation given to an­ Testament Christians. For example, Old other passage. Thus the meaning of "re­ Testament references are used to describe membrance" in 1 Cor. 11: 24 is illustrated the voluntary nature of the works done by by the citation of Ps.111:4-5 (Ap XXIV "the people of the New Testament" (FC 72). That Matt.26:27 indicates that all SD IV 17). A passage from Deut. 12 is communicants should receive the wine is used as the basis for the assertion that corroborated by the evidence of 1 Cor. 11: believers should not "set up a self-elected 23-28 (AC XXII 2-3). 1 Cor. 10: 16 is service of God without his Word and cited and discussed to show that the words command." (VI 20). of institution teach the real presence of Moreover, the hermeneutical principle Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Sup­ that Scripture should interpret itself is per. (FC SD VII 54-60) stated rather explicitly in the Confessions. The principle that Scripture is to inter­ In his article on monastic vows Melanch­ pret itself is particularly helpful in finding thon deals with the Romanists' interpreta­ 31 It seems likely that regula here is a refer­ tion of the vows of the Nazarites and ence to the regula fidei or analogia fidei, al­ Rechabites. He states: though this cannot be proved. 36 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS the meaning of a passage that is somewhat 24:46-47, a passage which does not eon­ obscure or difficult to interpret. Of key tain the word "Gospel," is used to explain significance for understanding the interpre­ the word "Gospel" in Mark 16:15 (FC SD tation of the Law in Apology IV are the V 4). The reason that some of those who following statements: receive the Word with joy fall away again In the preaching of the law there are two (Luke 8: 13) is not that "God does not things we must always keep in mind. want to impart the grace of perseverance First, we cannot keep the law unless we to those in whom he has 'begun the good have been reborn by faith in Christ, as work.' This would contradict St. Paul in Christ says (John 15: 5 ), "Apart from me Phil.1:6" (XI 42). The Second Com­ you can do nothing." Secondly, though mandment, which enjoins the proper use men can at most do certain outward works, of God's name, explains the question "that this universal statement must be permitted has tormented so many teachers: why to interpret the entire law (Heb. 11: 6 ) , swearing is forbidden in the Gospel [Matt. "Without faith it is impossible to please 5:33-37], and yet Christ, St. Paul [Matt.-- God." (256) 26:63 f., Gal. 1:20, 2 Cor. 2:23], and other Whenever law and works are mentioned, saints took oaths."- (LC I 65) 32 we must know that Christ, the mediator, should not be excluded. He is the end of Of particular interest is the Confessional the law (Rom. 10: 4), and he himself use of New Testament passages to inter­ says, "Apart from me you can do nothing" pret Old Testament ones. Eph.5:9 and (John 15: 5 ) . By this rule, as we have Col. 3: 10 are used to interpret "image of said earlier, all passages on works can be God" in Gen. 1:27 (Ap II 18,20). Abra­ interpreted. ( 372 ) ham's faith and Abel's sacrifice are ex­ We should note that the Apology's "rule" plained on the basis of Rom.4:9-22 and here again consists of clear passages of Hebrews 11:4 (IV 201-202). "Purify Holy Scripture. yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the Other examples of the use of this prin­ Lord" (Is. 52: 11) is interpreted by Titus ciple in the Confessions should be noted, 1 : 15 : "To the pure all things are pure" first of all within the New Testament. (XXIII 64). The Levitical sacrifices are in­ That Paul in Rom.3:28 is talking about terpreted as symbolical of Christ's death the whole Law and not just Levitical cere­ on the basis of the Epistle to the Hebrews monies is proved not only from Rom. 7: 7 (XXIV 20, 22, 53). That the drink offer­ and 4:1-6 but also from Eph.2:8 (Ap IV ing referred to in Num.28:4ff. has refer­ 87). The scope of Matt. 23: 3 ("Observe ence to the sanctifying of believers whatever they tell you") is limited by Acts throughout the world with the blood of 5: 29 ("We must obey God rather than Christ is proved by 1 Peter 1:2 (36). In men") (XXVIII 21). The plural form of an extremely interesting use of Scripture "you" in John 20:23 (as well as in two 32 The Confessions use the principle of the Matthean passages) indicates that in Matt. self-interpreting Scripture also within the Old 16: 15 Christ was addressing not only Peter Testament. E. g., Ap XXIV 28-31, where sev· eral Old Testament texts are used side by but Peter as representative of the entire side to show that also the Old Testament con­ company of apostles (Treatise 23). Luke demns ex opere operata worship. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 37 the Formula cites Gen. 17:4-8, 19-21 V 4). Over against the contention of against the Anabaptist denial of infant Flacius that original sin is man's substantia, Baptism (SD XII 13; Ep XII 8). Paul's the Formula argues that a distinction must words in Rom. 8: 7 and Gal. 5: 17 explain be made between our nature as it was Gen. 8:21; "The imagination of man's created by God and original sin, which heart is evil from his youth." (SD II 17) 33 dwells in the nature. Why? 'The chief An important aspect of the principle articles of our Christian faith compel us that Scripture interprets itself is the legiti­ to maintain such a distinction" (SD I 34). macy of using deductions, inferences, or The article goes on to show how the ar­ analogies based on Scripture (see FC SD ticles of Creation, Redemption, Sanctifica­ XI 55, which cautions against making tion, and Resurrection are opposed to the deductions on the basis of our own specttla­ Flacian position (34-47). That "articles tions) . Faith is necessary to receive the of faith" in the above citation means noth­ benefits of the sacraments because the sac­ ing other than the teaching of Holy Scrip­ raments are signs of the promises, and ture is evident (a) from the parallel state­ a promise is useless unless faith accepts it, ment: "According to the Holy Scriptures as Paul teaches in Rom. 4: 16 (Ap XII 61). we must and can consider, discuss, and One of the chief Confessional arguments believe these two as distinct from each for infant Baptism is this: The promise other" (33); and (b) from the explicit of salvation also applies to little children; demonstration or claim of Scriptural basis Christ regenerates through the means of apparent in each of the four articles. grace administered by the church; there­ Several Scriptural deductions are evi­ fore it is necessary to baptize children so dent in Formula VII and VIII, dealing with that the promise of salvation might be the Lord's Supper and the person of Christ applied to them (Ap IX 2; see SA-III respectively. Because all four accounts of the words of institution use "the same 33 In light of the many ways in which the Confessions apply the principle that Scripture words and syllables" in saying, "This is interprets Scripture, it would appear that my My body," and "apply them in one and the colleague Norman Habel has not accurately de­ same manner ... without any interpreta­ fined this principle and has limited the meaning of the clarity of Scripture. He writes: "In apply­ tion and change," there can be no doubt ing this principle [,relate all of Scripture to its that the words of Paul and Luke: "This center, viz., salus Christus'} the Lutheran exe­ cup is the new covenant in My blood," gete must follow the rule that 'Scripture inter­ prets Scriprure' (Scriptura Scripturam interpre­ have no other meaning than the words of tatur). Understood in its primary sense, this Matthew and Mark: "This is My blood of rule means that the clear passages of Scripture, the new covenant" (SD VII 52-53). Sev­ namely those which display the teaching of justi­ fication by grace through faith in all its force eral non-Eucharistic passages of the New and glory, must be used to interpret and evalu­ Testament (e.g., Matt. 11:28: "Come unto ate those portions of Scripture where this truth Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and is obscure. In short, the right distinction be­ tween Law and Gospel must be rigorously main­ I will give you rest") are used to illustrate tained in all biblical exegesis (Apology IV 5)." that the Lord's Supper is intended also for In The Form and Meaning of the Fall Narrative, A Detailed Analysis of Genesis 3 (St. Louis: those whose faith is weak (70-71); this Concordia Seminary Print Shop, 1965), p. 1. inference is possible because of the Con- 38 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS fessional belief that the Lord's Supper is But it did not. The sola Scriptura principle, Gospel. The rule: "Nothing has the char­ with its closely related emphases on the acter of a sacrament apart from the use clarity and self-interpreting nature of instituted by Christ," which is used in dis­ Scripture, means that "the prophetic and cussing several aspects of the Supper, is apostolic writings of the Old and New "derived from the words of institution" Testaments are the only rule and norm (85) . Article VIII accepts the Christo­ according to which all doctrines and teach­ logical rule (inferred from the Scriptures) ers alike must be appraised and judged" that whatever the Scriptures say that Christ (FC Ep, Rule and Norm, 1). But the sola received in time He received according to S criptura principle does not rule out a re­ His human nature and not according to spectful listening to the testimony of the His divine nature (VIII 57). The personal fathers, and this has implication for the union of the two natures in Christ is used interpretation of Scripture. as an analogy to help us understand the The Lutheran Symbols reflect a high sacramental union of Christ's body and regard for the fathers of the church and the. blood (VII 36 f.). The doctrine of the testimony of the church in general, for exchange of properties in Christ (which they are convinced that the church of the was so crucial in the debate against the Augsburg Confession is in direct historical Sacramentarians) is derived from the per­ continuity with the true church of all ages. sonal union and the communion of natures They did not see their movement as a rev­ (VIII 31). Furthermore, the Formula ar­ olution, but as a restoration and re-forma­ gues inferentially that since there is no tion of the church. Melanchthon claims: variation with God (James 1: 17), "nothing "They [our preachers} have not introduced was added to or detracted from the essence any innovations, but have set forth the and properties of the divine nature in Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Christ through the incarnation" ( 49 ) . holy Fathers" (Ap II 50). Again: "Let Finally let us note a deduction from Scrip­ no one think that we are teaching any­ ture that is also related to the interpreta­ thing new in this regard when the Church tion of Scripture. Because everything in Fathers have so clearly handed down the the Word of God is written that we might doctrine that we need mercy even in our have hope, "it is beyond all doubt" that the good works" (IV 325; see 389). The Con­ true understanding of God's foreknowl­ clusion of the Augsburg Confession main­ edge will not cause or support either im­ tains that we have "introduced nothing, penitence or despair. (SD XI 12) either in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Holy ,Scripture or the universal C. The Testimony of the Fathers Christian church." (5) The sola Scriptura principle is some­ The Confessions cite a great many fa­ times taken to mean that Lutherans must thers in support of their exegesis. You have a total disregard for the tradition of need only check the ll-page "Verzeichnis the church. It could very easily have meant der Zitate aus kirchlichen und Profan­ that for Luther and the Lutheran Confes­ schriftstelIern" in the back of the Bekennt­ sions in the light of their circumstances. nisschriften to see the truth of this state- BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 39 ment. What the Apology says about the souri Synod - cannot determine our doc­ doctrine of justification ( "We have proof trine; only Holy Scripture can do that. for this position of ours not only in the In a day when traditional interpretations Scriptures, but also in the Fathers" [IV are being questioned, we need to beware 29}) is something they say often, not only of a real "Romanizing tendency" - that of about entire doctrines and confessions but using tradition as a source and norm of about the interpretation of individual pas­ doctrine. sages as well. For example, Melanchthon The testimony of the fathers says some­ claims that his interpretation of "on this thing else. It suggests that we listen care­ rock" in Matt. 16: 18 has the support of fully and respectfully and humbly to the "most of the holy Fathers" (Treatise, 27 past interpretations of Scripture. It sug­ to 29). Or there is the claim that the gests that we think at least twice before doctrine of the real presence has been "the advocating radically different interpreta­ unanimous teaching of the leading Church tions from the traditional ones. It implies Fathers." (FC Ep VII 15) that the interpretations of Scripture which Neither the Confessions nor we are sug­ men under the Spirit have held to be true gesting that the testimony of the fathers for hundreds of years may well be true is a source or norm of doctrine or even today. In this process of appreciative, yet a hermeneutical principle. We and they critical listening, the testimony of the fa­ recognize: "It will not do to make articles thers can serve as a hermeneutical guide. of faith out of the holy Fathers' words or works" (SA-II II 15). The principle is: II. SOTERIOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES Other writings of ancient and modern teachers, whatever their names, should not At this point we should raise the ques­ be put on a par with Holy Scripture. tion: Do the Lutheran Confessions employ Every single one of them should be sub­ their soteriological presuppositions as her­ ordinated to the Scriptures and should be meneutical principles? More precisely, can received in no other way and no further we say that the Law-Gospel distinction than as witnesses to the fashion in which and the doctrine of justification by grace the doctrine of the prophets and apostles are actually used as principles for deriving was preserved in post-apostolic times. the meaning from the text of Scripture? (Fe Ep, Rule and Norm, 2) 34 Those who would answer these questions The Confessional use of the testimony affirmatively often cite the following pas­ of the fathers has two things to say to us as expositors of the Scriptures today. One sages from the Confessions: is the constant reminder that the exegesis The distinction between Law and Gospel of the fathers- whether they be fathers is an especially brilliant light which serves of the ancient church, the Reformation the purpose that the Word of God may be rightly divided and the writings of the church, or The Lutheran Church - Mis- holy prophets and apostles may be ex­ plained and understood correctly (eigent­ 34 For an excellent study of the role of the testimony of the fathers in Melanchthon's theol­ lich erkliiret und verstanden). (Fe SD ogy see Fraenkel. VI) 40 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

[The article of justification} is of especial message from the passage?.35 The Formula, service for the clear, correct understand­ judging from its own methodology, would ing of the entire Holy Scriptures, and answer: Through the illumination of the alone shows the way to the unspeakable Holy Spirit in the practice of careful gram­ treasure and right knowledge of Christ, matical-historical exegesis. This passage and alone opens the door to the entire does not suggest that the distinction be­ Bible .... (Ap IV 2 [German}) tween Law and Gospel is a hermeneutical A few comments on each of these passages principle.36 may be helpful. The citation from Justus Jonas' unofficial The citation from the Formula quite and paraphrastic translation of the Apology obviously states a basic Lutheran perspec­ likewise expresses a most important Lu­ tive or presupposition for explaining and theran presupposition for understanding understanding the Scriptures. But what the Scriptures. We might well ask, how­ does it mean to distinguish Law and Gos­ ever, what it means to have a clear and pel? The immediate context answers: that correct "understanding of the entire Holy we do not "confuse the two doctrines and Scriptures." To understand the Scriptures change the Gospel into Law." Confusing correctly is to know and believe their mes­ the doctrines of Law and Gospel means sage of salvation in Jesus Christ! To have that "what belongs to one doctrine is the door opened "to the entire Bible" ascribed to the other"; thus "the two doc­ means to read the Bible as a believing trines would be tangled together and made Christian, knowing that in it and through into one doctrine" (SD V 27). In effect the Formula is saying: What is Law in .35 The distinction between Law and Gospel is both quantitative and functional. In some Scripture must be explained and under­ passages God is clearly speaking Law ("Thou stood as Law, and what is Gospel in Scrip­ shalt not steal) "; in others He is clearly speak­ ture must be explained and understood as ing Gospel ("Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house"). Still Gospel. If all Scripture is understood and others can be both Law and Gospel, depending explained as Law, there wUl be no instru­ on the emphasis; e. g.: "Christ died for our sins" ment for the Spirit to create faith and is Law because it emphasizes the enormity of our sins, and Gospel because it shows the extent as a result no comfort against the terrors of God's redeeming love in Jesus Christ. See of the Law. If all Scripture is explained FC Ep V 9f. and understood as Gospel, there will be no .36 For an excellent discussion of the relation­ ship of the Law-Gospel distinction to the inter­ instrument for the Spirit to convict man pretation of Scripture, see C. F. W. Walther, of his sin and show him his need for a The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gas­ Savior, thereby weakening also the force pe!, trans. W. H. T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1929), pp. 60-67. of the Gospel. But the citation from the With regard to "die Regel von Gesetz und Formula does not answer these questions Evangelium," Fagerberg states: "Niemals wird directly: How do I determine whether diese Regel als ein libergreifendes, hermeneuti­ sches Prinzip verwandt oder gar als hahere In­ a passage in Scripture is Law or Gospel stanz liber die hI. Schrift gesetzt. Sie will dem or both? When I have determined whether Bibelleser vielmehr dazu verhelfen, sich in den Aussagen der hI. Schrift liber die guten Werke it is Law or Gospel, how do J derive the zurecht zu linden und ihnen einen guten und specific Law message or specific Gospel eindeutigen Sinn zu geben," p. 38. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION' IN THE CONFESSIONS 41 it God speaks to me about my Savior and man-made theory that by our works we through His· Spirit makes me His son. In purchase the forgiveness of sins. CAp IV short, Jonas is here expressing the convic­ 260) tion of the Confessions that the Scriptures With reference to the Confutation's sug­ are Christocentric and that their central gestion that there are sacrifices in the New purpose is to make men wise unto salva­ Testament besides the death of Christ tion. The man who believes the doctrine which are valid for the sins of others, of justification by grace will understand Melanchthon states: this; he will see that everything in the This notion completely negates the merit Bible is directly or indirectly related to of Christ's suffering and the righteousness this center. As one who knows himself to of faith, it corrupts the teaching of both be justified by God's grace, he will expect the Old and the New Testament, and it and find nothing in the divine Scriptures replaces Christ as our mediator and pro­ pitiator with priests and sacrificers who to be contrary to this doctrine; he will have daily peddle their wares in the churches. his eyes opened by the Spirit to the won­ CAp XXIV 57) ders of God's grace throughout the Scrip­ Similar references are found frequently in tures. All of this Jonas is saying; but he is the Apology, e. g., IV 231, 277; XXVII not advocating a hermeneutical principleP 64-65. In the Smalcald Articles Luther But are there not passages in the Con­ argues similarly that the Mass as a means fessions where the doctrine of justification for meriting God's favor (II II 7), purga­ and the distinction between Law and Gos­ tory (12), indulgences (24), the invoca­ pel are used as hermeneutical principles? tion of saints (25) and monastic vows to Let us note some passages where this achieve God's favor (III 2; III XIV) must seems likely. Commenting on the work­ all be opposed as contradictory to the fun­ righteous interpretation given by the Ro­ damental article. manists to two passages, Melanchthon To be sure, the above references ( and comments: many others too) argue from the doctrine . . . in the preaching of penitence the of justification. But two things should be preaching of the law is not enough be­ noted: (1) all such arguments deal with cause the law works wrath and continually accuses. The preaching of the Gospel must passages or practices where the doctrine be added, that is, that the forgiveness of of justification itself is at stake; and sins is granted to us if we believe that ( 2) the doctrine of justification is derived our sins are forgiven for Christ's sake. from the Scriptures.38 To argue from the Otherwise what need would there be of doctrine of justification in such contexts is Christ, what need of the Gospel? We in reality to employ the principle Scriptura must always keep this important teaching Sacra sui ipsius interpres. For this princi­ in view. In this way we can oppose those ple means not only that a single passage who reject Christ, destroy the Gospel, and may shed light on another one but also maliciously twist the Scriptures 1:0 suit the 38 See, e. g., Ap IV 117,89-101,213. Note 37 "Hermeneutical principle" is used here in also that Luther's formulation of the "fundamen­ the sense of a rule applied by the interpreter to tal article" is made up almost entirely of Bible the text in order to discover its meaning. passages (SA-II I). 42 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

that an article 0/ faith, derived as it is from ful exegesis. The Apology is interested in Scripture, may be used to clarify individual "what James meant" (244). It carefully passages.39 reads the text, noting that James "does not Are the doctrine of justification and the omit faith nor exalt love in preference to distinction between Law and Gospel then it" (245). It takes the context seriously by used as hermeneutical principles by the pointing out that in James 1:18 40 "regen­ Confessions? Yes, in the sense that Law­ eration takes place through the Gospel" Gospel and justification as clearly enunci­ (247). Thus "the context demonstrates that ated Scriptural doctrines are used to inter­ the works spoken of here are those that fol­ pret other passages where the Law-Gospel low faith" (246). In short, "James says none distinction or the doctrine of justification of this, which our opponents shamelessly is at stake. In such passages (and there infer from his words" (253). Nowhere in are many of them, for this is indeed the the whole chain of argumentation is a Law­ fundamental article of Scripture) the dis­ Gospel hermeneutical principle applied, tinction between the Law and the Gospel nor is there any evidence that the Con-· and the doctrine of justification by grace fessions considered this an "obscure" pas­ function not only as hermeneutical presup­ sage requiring interpretation by a clearer positions but as applications of the her­ one. James teaches-he is not made to meneutical principle that Scripture inter­ teach - justification by grace. prets itself. In interpreting passages where the doc­ The Lutheran Confessions never arbi­ trine of justification or the distinction be­ trarily impose the doctrine of justification tween Law and Gospel is not the issue (and by grace on any passage where it is not in there are such instances), the Confessions fact taught. This would violate the prin­ likewise make it very evident that their ciple of deriving the meaning from the exposition is based on the principles out­ text itself through grammatical-historical lined above (I, B). For example, in the exegesis. Let us look at an example of lengthy discussion of the meaning of "This Confessional exegesis where the doctrine is My body" in Formula VII,u the appeal of justification is clearly the issue: the in­ is consistently made to deriving the mean­ terpretation of James 2:24: 'You see that ing from the text itself, using the context a man is justified by works and not by and setting of the Supper and noting paral­ faith alone;' in Ap IV 244-253. How lel passages. Neither the doctrine of justi­ . does the Apology reach the conclusion that fication nor the Law-Gospel distinction was this passage does not violate the Pauline an issue in this controversy, both sides re­ doctrine of justification by grace? Not by garding the passage in question as Gospel. imposing Paul's teaching on the passage Does not this example suggest that it is but by deriving it from the passage by care- rather pointless to regard the distinction between Law and Gospel and the doctrine 39 Some would prefer to call this hermeneuti­ cal principle the "analogy of faith" because it 40 "Of his own will he brought us forth by employs an article rather than an individual passage. This is certainly legitimate, provided it the word of truth that we should be a kind of is recognized that articles of faith, no less than first fruits of his creatures." individual passages, are derived from Scripture. 41 Cited at length above, pp.37ff. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 43

of justification by grace as independent of Christianity"), but it also determines the hermeneutical principles of general ap­ interpretation of all Scripture" (p. 18; plicability? italics added)? Is "soteriological concern" We have dealt with this point at some enough of a basis to assert that exegesis length because of the current tendency to will lead to basically the same applica­ confuse soteriological presuppositions with tion? 43 Is this statement accurately formu­ hermeneutical· principles. May I cite two lated: "All theology that receives its di­ examples? mensions and contours from this guiding The recent essay "The Lutheran Confes­ principle is pure and true" (p. 11)? As sions and Sola Scriptura" presents a "sum­ I understand the document (and my un­ mary of the confessional views regarding derstanding may well be at fault), I would the purpose, content, and interpretation of have to answer "No" to all of the above the Scriptures."42 The essay does an ex­ questions.44 cellent job of setting forth the soteriologi­ Another item that raises some similar cal purpose and Christological content of questions is "A Response to Questions­ the Scriptures on the basis of the Confes­ Raised by Memorial 331, Propositions 1 sions. It likewise documents very well the and 2," submitted by the Commission on Confessional commitment to the sole au­ Theology and Church Relations to the De­ thority of Scripture. It offers the proper troit convention of The Lutheran Church 45 perspective for Biblical interpretation from - Missouri Synod. Both "A Response" the vantage point of the doctrine of justi­ and the synodical resolution (Proceedings, fication by grace. There can be no question p. 101) recommend that the first two prop­ about the validity of these accents. But as ositions of Memorial 331 46 be studied "in a "summary of the confessional views re­ the light of the approach to the Scriptures garding the . . . interpretation of Scrip­ that is enunciated in the Lutheran Con- ture" it is remarkably quiet about the prin­ 43 "Where this soteriological concern is pres­ ciples outlined above (1, B). Granted the ent, exegesis, whether it deals with a single arti­ need for interpreting the Scriptures "in cle of faith or with Scripture as a whole, will conformity with the purpose of God ex­ lead to basically the same application" (ibid., p. 18). pressed in the Scriptures" (p. 17) - and 44 These questions are asked in keeping with I agree with this statement completely­ the spirit of the Preface, which states: "The first can we really derive hermeneutical prin­ two of these study documents are herewith pre­ ciples from this purpose alone, apart from sented to members of the churches for study and discussion, with the suggestion that joint con­ the nature of Holy Scriptures as God's in­ ferences be arranged at the local level for this spired Word? Is it correct to state: "The purpose" (ibid., p. 3). doctrine of the forgiveness of sins through 45 Proceedings 0/ the 46th Regular Conven­ faith in Christ is not only the praecipuus tion 0/ The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Detroit, Michigan, June 16--26, 1965, pp.296 locus doctrinae christianae ("main doctrine to 298. 46 The first proposition asks whether the six 42 Essays Adopted by the Commissioners 0/ days of Creation described in Genesis and Exo­ the American Lutheran Church and The Lu­ dus are ordinary, calendar days; the second prop­ theran Church - MisJOuri Synod, Nov. 22 and osition asks whether the Genesis account of the 23, 1964; April 19 and 20, 1965, p. 3. Creation and Fall is literal, factual history. 44 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

fessions which we all subscribe" (p. 296). Scripture and which are not? Can this last "A Response" then gives considerable em­ question be answered in, ahy other way phasis to the doctrine of justification and than by clarifying the hermeneutical prin­ the proper distinction. between Law and ciples of grammatical-historical exegesis as Gospel as the proper perspectives from it deals with literary. forms (as' "A Re­ which to interpret the Scriptures. Further­ sponse" itself begins to do when it em­ more, "A Response" speaks very relevantly phasizes the importance of ,the "Biblical and correctly in insisting that the inter­ context" for determining the form, p. 297)? preter is not "free to disregard any of the The doctrine of justification by grace hard facts of the Scriptures" and that he and the proper distind:ion between Law can determine the form in which the and Gospel are indeed vital presupposi­ Scriptures speak "by observing it in each tions for the proper interNetation of Holy case in its Biblical context as it presents Scripture. These presuppositions, more­ itself to him" (p. 297). There can be no over, are derived from the Scriptures them­ quarrel with these accents; they are Biblical selves and epitomize, the: content of the and Confessional. My questions deal merely entire Bible. As such they serve as con­ with the emphasis and relevance of the trols over against interpretations of Scrip­ document to the issues raised in Proposi­ ture that weaken or destroy the doctrine tions 1 and 2. In the final analysis, how of justification by grac~ for Christ's sake does the doctrine of justification or the through faith or confuse the. condemning proper distinction between Law and Gos­ Law with the saving Gospel. But they are pel help to determine the length of the not principles for interpreting the message days in Genesis 1 (Proposition 1) or of Scripture; they are the message of Scrip­ whether the Genesis account of the Crea­ ture.47 What God is saying in His Law and tion and Fall is literal, factual history in His Gospel can be heard only through (Proposition 2)? Is it not possible that the ears of a grammatical-historical exe­ the differences of opinion among us on gesis that operates with principles of inter- these questions come from men who, on both sides of the argument, proceed from 47 Fagerberg states: "Die Rechtfertigung ist wichtig auf Grund ihrer biblischen Verwurze­ the doctrine of justification by grace and lung und sie gibt den Aussagen der hL Schrift in properly distinguish Law and Gospel 10 bezug auf das Heil ihren guten Sinn, Ein gene­ these accounts? Granted that: reller Schliissel zur hI. . Schrift ; ist sie jedoch nicht.... Statt das einzige Prinzip fUr die Deu­ To interpret the Scriptures in terms of tung der hI. Schrift zu sein, ist sie diewichtigste Law and Gospel, as the Lutheran Con­ Regel, die das Verstandnis der hI.Schrift das fessions do, does not mean that the inter­ Verhaltnis von Glauben und .guten Werken be­ treffend klarlegt," p. 36. Gerhard Gloege reaches preter is free to disregard any of the hard a similar conclusion: "Das bedeutet nun nicht, facts of the Scripture, whether these are dass die Rechfertigungslehre in clem Sinne ein the creation and the fall or the cross and hermeneutisches 'Prinzip' ware, dass mit ihrer the resurrection (p. 297), Hilfe jedweder Text des AT oder NT von der Rechtfertigung zu reden hatte, bzw. auf die how does the doctrine of justification or Rechtfertigung entfaltet" oder atigewendet wer­ den miiszte. 1m GegenteiH'~ "Die Rechtferii­ the Law-Gospel distinction help us to de­ gungslehre als hermeneutische Kategorie," Theo­ termine which are the "hard facts" of logische Literaturzeitung, 89.(1964), 163. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 45

pretation consistent with the nature of the 2. In subscribing to the Lutheran Con­ Scriptures. Sola Scriptura and salus Chris­ fessions we bind ourselves to the Confes­ tus are inseparably joined together; let no sional doctrine of the nature, content, and man put them asunder! purpose of Holy Scripture (namely, that Holy Scripture is God's literary Word III. SOME CONCLUSIONS about Jesus Christ for man's salvation) and AND IMPLICATIONS to all hermeneutical presuppositions and 1. The Confessions want to be under­ principles implicit in this doctrine. Agree­ stood and accepted as expositions and sum­ ment on proper hermeneutical principles maries of Holy Scripture, which remains cannot be expected without prior agree­ "the only rule and norm according to ment on the nature of Holy Scripture as which all doctrines and teachers alike must God's own Word. be judged and appraised" (FC Ep, Rule 3. The soteriological presuppositions of and Norm, 1) .48 Subscription to the Con­ the Confessions give direction and purpose fessions is thus our affirmation that the to the exegetical application of Confes-· doctrinal content of the Confessions is a sional hermeneutical principles. As a re­ correct explanation and summary of Holy sult, the Lutheran interpreter will utilize Scripture, and our pledge to God and to grammatical-historical exegesis to explain one another that we will preach, teach, and the Scriptures of both the Old and the administer the sacraments accordingly.49 New Testaments from the center of all Scripture, Jesus Christ.50 In deriving the 48 Helmut Echernacht puts it well: "Was ist Bekenntnis? Das Bekenntnis steht der Schrift meaning from the text, seeking the native gegeniiber als die Antwort der Kirche auf die sense of the text, and permitting Scripture Rede Gottes. In ihm sagt die Kirche anbetend to interpret itself, the Lutheran interpreter und gelobend ihrem Herrn das wieder, was Er ihr zuvor in der Bibel gesagt hat. Es ist damit Dialog und Liturgie" ("Schriftprinzip und Be­ church's assurance that its teachers have recog­ kenntnis," Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzei­ nized the interpretation and understanding of tung, V [Feb. 15, 1951], 38). Scripture which is embodied in the Symbols as correct and will therefore interpret Scdpture as 49 In view of the Confessions' self-under­ the Church interprets it." standing as· expositions of Holy Scripture, it is "Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers, and not entirely accurate to say that confessional sub­ Professors Subscribe Unconditionally to the scription does· not "bind" us to the exegesis of Symbolical Writings of Our Church," translated the Confessions. C. F. W. Walther wrote: and condensed by Alex Wm. C. Guebert, Con­ "If, for instance, an exegete does not reach cordia Theological Monthly, XVIII (April the specific sense of a Bible passage and yet in­ 1947), 242, 246. terprets it in such a manner that his interpreta­ 50 Nils Alstrup Dahl comments: "For the tion rests on other clear Bible passages, he is person who allows the church's confession to indeed mistaken in supposing that a certain direct him to biblical exegesis, the elementary teaching is contained in this specific Bible pas­ task of exegesis remains the most important and sage, but he is not erring in doctrine. In like the most authentic one: the precise reading of manner, he who unconditionally subscribes to what is written. . . . The actual goal of his the Symbolical Books declares that the interpre­ work remains to arrive at an understanding of tations which are contained in the Symbols are the gospel attested in the Scriptures in its signifi­ 'according to the analogy of faith: " cance for the total life of the church and the Walther summarized the meaning of Confes­ world:' "The Lutheran Exegete and the Con­ sional subscription thus: fessions of His Church," Lutheran Worid, VI "A subscription to the confessions is the [June 1959], 10) 46 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS

of Scripture continues to hear God speak­ 6. The Confessional presuppositions and ing Law and Gospel for the gracious justi­ principles of Biblical interpretation are not fication of all men through faith in Jesus a set of neatly formulated rules and guide­ Christ. He hears this message throughout lines, which, if followed consistently, will the Scriptures, not because he has manipu­ yield guaranteed and unanimous results in lated the text or practiced eisegesis but every exegetical detail. On the other hand because that is precisely what God is saying they are prescriptive enough to measure in the text of Scripture. the validity of every exegetical approach 4. Because God is their author and Jesus to the Scriptures. The Lutheran interpreter Christ their chief content, the Scriptures of Scripture who follows these principles are a literary and theological unit and must carries out his task with the confidence be interpreted as such. Because God's au­ that the Holy Spirit will open his eyes to thorship was accomplished through human behold "the things of the Spirit of God." authors living and writing at various times (1 Cor.2:14) as men of their times, the Scriptures must And after God, through the Holy Spirit-­ also be read as historical literary docu­ in Baptism, has kindled and wrought a ments. Because of the theanthropic nature beginning of true knowledge of God and of every word of Scripture, the interpreter faith, we ought to petition him incessantly that by the same Spirit and grace, through is obliged to utilize - and be judged by­ daily exercise in reading his Word and the canons of both theological and histori­ putting it into practice, he would preserve cal interpretation, with the latter clearly in faith and his heavenly gifts in us and the service of the former. strengthen us daily until our end. Unless 5. Because of the interrelationship of God himself is our teacher, we cannot the sola Scriptura and salus Christus prin­ study and learn anything pleasing to him ciples, the church should be rightfully con­ and beneficial to us and others. (FC SD cerned with any interpretation or interpre­ II, 16) tive technique that is contrary to these St. Louis, Mo. principles or creates uncertainty about them. In employing nontraditional tech­ they understand Christ and the New Testament to be saying. They are thus concerned for the niques or advancing nontraditional inter­ sola Scriptura principle: Do these "new" inter­ pretations the Lutheran interpreter, out of pretations suggest that the Bible is unreliable? love for the people he serves, should clearly If the Bible is unreliable in these points, may I trust it when it tells me about my Savior? demonstrate that he has not violated either These people are also concerned about the salus the sola Scriptura or the salus Christus Christus principle: Do these "new" interpreta­ principle. 51 tions imply that Christ was wrong? And if Christ was wrong, then He' was not omniscient; and if He was not omniscient, then He was not 51 Some of the "minor" problems confronting God; and if He wasn't God, how could He be the church are not so minor as they appear at my Savior? If I cannot trust Christ's words on first glance. Many people are concerned about such matters, can I trust them on any matter? matters like the authorship of the Pentateuch, Perhaps such people have an unclear understand­ Isaiah, and Ps. 110 or the historicity of Jonah, ing of what Christ and the New Testament are not because of the intrinsic importance of these actually saying on such matters, but for their questions but because they feel that some current sake this needs to be demonstrated with all love answers to these questions are contrary to what and patience. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE CONFESSIONS 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY Krause, Gerhard. Studien zu Luthers Auslegung der Kleinen Propheten. Beitrage zur histo­ A. Primary Sources rischen Theologie, 33, ed. Gerhard Ebeling. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-Iuthe­ Tiibingen: J. c. B. Mohr, 1962. rischlJn Kirche. 5th rev. ed. Gottingen: Van­ Kropatscheck, Friedrich. Das Schriftprinzip der denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. lutherischen Kirche. I. Die Vorgeschichte: The Book of Concord. Ed. T. G. Tappert. Phila­ Das Erbe des Mittelalters. Leipzig: A. delphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959. Deichert, 1904. Linss, Wilhelm C. "Biblical Interpretation in B. Secondary Sources the Formula of Concord," The Symposium on Seventeenth Century Lutheranism, I (St. Commission on Theology and Church Relations. "A Response to Questions Raised by Memo­ Louis: The Symposium on Seventeenth Cen­ rial 331, Propositions 1 and 2," Proceedings tury Lutheranism, 1962), 118-135. 0/ the 46th Regular Convention of The Lu­ Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. theran Church - Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Trans. ]. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston. West­ Concordia Publishing House, 1965), pp. 296- wood, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957. 298. ______. D-,. M. Luther's Answer to the Dahl, Nils A. "The Lutheran Exegete and the Confessions of His Church," Lutheran World, Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Super­ learned Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig, with - VI (June 1959),2-10. Echternacht, Helmut. "Schriftprinzip und Be­ a Glance at His Comrade Murner. 1521. kenntnis," Evangelisch-Iutherische Kirchen­ Works of Marti.n Luther, Vol. III, trans. A. zeitung, V (Feb. 15,1951), 38ft Steimle (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Com­ Elert, Werner. The Structure 0/ Lutheranism, pany, 1930), 307-401. trans. Walter A. Hansen (St. Louis: Concor­ "The Lutheran Confessions and Sola Scriptura," dia Publishing House, 1962), pp. 179-200. in Essays Adopted by the Commissioners of Fagerberg, Holsten. Die Theologie der lutheri­ the American Lutheran Church and The Lu­ schen Bekenntnisschriften t'on 1529 bis 1537. theran Church - Missouri Synod, Nov. 22- Trans. Gerhard Klose. Gottingen: Vanden­ 23, 1964; April 19-20, 1965, pp. 11-19. Mayer, F. E. The Religious Bodies of America. hoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Farrar, F. W. History 0/ Interpretation. Grand 2d ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961. House, 1956), pp. 142-144. Fraenkel, Peter. Testimonia Patrum: The Func­ Roloff, Jiirgen. "The Interpretation of Scripture tion 0/ the Patristic Argument in the The­ in Article IV of Melanchthon's Apology of ology 0/ Philip Melanchthon. Geneva: Li­ the Augsburg Confession," Lutheran World, braire E. Droz, 1961. VIII (June 1961), 47-63. Fuerbringer, Ludwig. Theological Hermeneutics. Schlink, Edmund. Theology of the Lutheran St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House Print, Confessions. Trans. P. F. Koehneke and H. 1924. ]. A. Bouman. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Gloege, Gerhard. "Die Rechtfertigungslehre als Press, 1961. hermeneutische Kategorie." Theologische Li­ Torm, Fr. Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments. teraturzeitung, 89 (1964), 161-176. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Habel, Norman. The Form and Meaning of the 1930. Fall Narrative, A Detailed Analysis of Genesis Walther, C. F. W. The Proper Distinction Be­ 3. St. Louis: Concordia Seminary Print Shop, tween Law and Gospel. Trans. W. H. T. 1965. Dau. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, Hermann, Rudolf. Von der Klarheit der Heili­ 1929. gen Schrift: Untersuchungen und Erorterun­ ______. "Why Should Our Pastors, Teach­ gen iiber Luthers Lehre von der Schrift in ers, and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally De servo arbitri.o. Berlin: Evangelische Ver­ to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church." lagsanstalt, 1958. Translated and condensed by Alex Wm. C. Holl, Karl. "Luthers Bedeutung fiir den Fort­ Guebert. Concordia Theological Monthly, schritt der Auslegungskunst," Gesammelte XVIII (April 1947), 241-253. Aufsitze zur Kirchengeschichte, I, Luther Wood, A. Skevington. Luther's Principles of (Tiibingen: ]. C. B. Mohr, 1927) pp. 544- Biblical Interpretation. London: The Tyndale 582. Press, 1960. The Introduction of the Historical-critical Method .and -Its Relationship to Lutheran Hermeneutics FRED KRAMER

hen this topic was assigned to this concerned, in "elendes stets undurchsich­ W writer, it ·was suggested that he tiges umstandliches Deutsch. . . wohl das should concern himself particularly with schlechteste, das ie ein Deutscher von Johann Salomo Semler and his part in geistigem Rang geschrieben hat.'; the introduction of the historical-critical This writer has therefore confined him­ method in Lutheranism. It is true that self very largely to a number of apparently Semler is probably the most influential very excellent and thorough secondary person in c()ooection with the develop­ sources. He would mention first of all ment and introduction of the historical­ Hans-Joachim Kraus, GeschicMe der hi­ critical method within Lutheranism. It is, storisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten however, also true that Semler had prede­ Testaments. 1 The second source of our cessors who prepared the way for him. In material is Gottfried Hornig, Die Anfange fact, proponents of the historical-critical der historisch-kritischen Theologie: Johann method like to claim Luther and the Re­ Salomo Semler'S Schriftverstandnis und formers as their forerunners in their oppo­ seine Stellung zu Luther.2 Another emi­ sition to what ,they consider the aberrations nently scholarly though. secondary work is of Lutheran Orthodoxy. Emanuel Hirsch, Geschichte der neuern . In a study of this breadth it is not pos­ evangelischen Theologie, Vol. IV.3 A sible to work solely or even predominantly shorter but nevertheless very useful work on the basis of primary sources. Many of is Wolfgang Schmittner, Kritik und Apo­ the primary sources are not available in the logetik in der Theologie J. S. Semlers, in libraries. of our two seminaries, and it could hardly be expected that if they were, 1 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Geschichte der hi­ any member of the two faculties would storisch-kritischen Erforschung des Atten Testa­ ments von der Reformation his zur Gegenwart have the tille to work solely on the basis (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des of these primary sources, which are very Erziehungsvereins, 1956). All translations from numeroUs, very voluminous, and, if we German and Latin in thisartic1e are by this writer. may trust the judgment of Emanuel 2 Gottfried Hornig, Di'e Anffinge der hi­ Hirsch, written, at least so far as Semler is storisch-kritischen Theologie: Johtmn Salomo Semlers Schriftverstiindnis und seine Stellung zu Fred Kramer is professor of systematic the­ Luther (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ology at Concordia Seminary, Springfield, Ill. 1961) . He is academic dean of the faculty and a 3 Emanuel Hirsch, "Joh. Salomo Semler," member of the Commission on Theology and in Geschichte der neuem evangeUschen The­ Church Relations of The Lutheran Church­ ologie, IV (Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, Missouri Synod. [1952J), pp. 48-89). 48 HISTORICAL· CRITICAL METHOD 49

Theologisch'e Existenz Heute.4 All these sought to arrive at the sensus litteralis, writers i'appear to i have worked very ex­ which must be understood as the intended tensively .with the· primary sources. While sense of the writer. Concerning this there they do not at all times agree in all par­ is no debate. The claim of the proponents ticulars in their judgments, there is nev­ of the historical and literary criticism of ertheless considerable unanimity both with the Bible is that the doctrine of verbal in­ respect to the facts and with respect to the spiration as set forth in Lutheran Ortho­ evaluation of the facts as they concern the doxy made a study and understanding of beginnings and the .development of the Scripture in the sense of Luther unlikely historical-'ctiticalmethod and its relation­ if not impossible. In speaking of Luther ship to Lutheran. hermeneutics. as one who was not hostile to literary and historical criticism Kraus says: I Luther realized that Isaiah and Jeremiah THE ATIITlJDE OF LUTHER AND THE did not publish their books themselves ... REFORMERS TOWARD THE SCRIPTURES Rather their speeches - according to Lu­ Kraus makes the demand that in pre­ ther's understanding - were excerpted by senting the history of the historical-critical scribes. The exact historical order could theory we ask again and again, "What did not be maintained. Also the Psalter was the Reformers say?"5 It is neither germane not arranged according to a careful plan when it was composed. Luther goes quite to our topic, nor does it appear necessary far when he even considers it possible that that we dwell here on Luther's profound Moses could also have drawn from the reverence for Holy Scripture as the in­ tradition of other (heathen) peoples. But spired Word of God. We must, however, in any case the tradition of the fathers refer to Luther's hermeneutical principles came to Moses to be fixed Scripturally. and to any statements by Luther which He then shapes it like a "Virgil ian poet." might indicate that he had leanings toward Here problems arise concerning the com­ literary and historical criticism of Scrip­ position of Biblical books and also ques­ ture. It is a fact, as any student of Luther tions about the tradition behind Bible knows, that Luther turned against the fan­ stories. From Luther's Table Talk we re­ ciful allegorical interpretations of Scrip­ ceive the following information in this ture which had been customary in medieval connection: "Thereafter Master Fortemius Christendom and insisted on grammatical­ said that many assert that the JtEV'ta:tEu­ v historical exegesis. By studying the text of xo was not written by Moses. The Rev­ erend Doctor responded: What has that to Scripture according to the meaning of the do with the matter? Let be, that Moses words and according to the grammar in did not write, nevertheless it is Moses' the historical setting of the text Luther book. ... 6

4 Wolfang Schmittner, Kritik und Apolo­ 6 Ibid., pp. 13 f.; quotation from Martin getik in der Theologie J. S. Semters, Nr. 106 Luther, D. Martin Luthers TiJchreden, 3, in D. in Theologische Existenz Reute (Munich: Chr. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar: Herman Biih­ Kaiser Verlag, 1963). laus Nachfolger, 1914), 23, Nr. 2844b. This; 5 Kraus, p. 21. edition will be cited as W A. so HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

Kraus continues: to the Pentateuch he asks: "From whom In any case critical insights are stated is the speech of the five Books of Moses openly. They do not touch the unshakable and the nature of the discourse?" He ex­ certainty that God Himself speaks in Holy presses his thoughts in the following Scripture and that the Biblical witnesses words: worked and wrote from the Holy Spirit. The discourses of the authors, achieved The human form of Scripture which be­ with so much labor, we judge more rightly comes visible in the problems of compo­ to be by editors of the books. Indeed, sition and tradition Luther did not take filled with this kind of concern I began too seriously: "It does not matter much. to doubt about the writer of the last two If a dispute occurs with respect to Scrip­ Books of Esdras . . . thinking also about ture and it is not possible to harmonize the historian of the Books of Moses I was it, then one should let it go." 7 uncertain who might have written the five We may refer here also to the sharp volumes of the Law, who might have been words which Luther spoke concerning the their writer. Moreover, so far as the hap­ Book of Esther in his exegesis on Ex. 4: penings are concerned, I by no means' 24-26. Luther expresses his amazement doubted that they were performed by those that the Holy Ghost mixed "this crazy stuff to whom they are attributed, whether to Moses or to others, but so far as the writer into such great and important and high of the history is concerned, I was moved matters." Similarly Luther often noted ap­ by a by no means groundless persuasion parent contradictions in the matter of to believe that it was another than Moses. historical facts and chronological diffi­ - First of all I was shaken by this reason culties.s that, when Moses died, the story is woven Not only Luther but also other Reform­ together by the same phraseology and ers are claimed as forerunners of the his­ diction in which it had been begun to torical and literary criticism of the Bible. be written earlier, but it is clear that In Kraus, Karlstadt is given a special chap­ Moses, after he died, neither said nor wrote anything, wherefore the style of the ter because of his critical investigations history is given to a man other than Moses. with respect to the canon. On account of Moreover, we see that many things be­ these studies Kraus says that Karlstadt is long to Deuteronomy which Moses did the fir.st forerunner of the literary-critical not publish; these and others, as one can study of the Old Testament within Protes­ see from the last chapter of Deuteronomy, tant theology. Karlstadt first of all separ­ throughout the speech of the historian are ated the s<;>-called apocryphal books from the words of the writer of the history of those he considered canonical. He also de­ Deuteronomy. . . . From this it is demon­ voted considerable attention to the Pen­ strated that the proposition that Moses tateuch. He do>:s not doubt that Moses was not the writer of the five books can received the Law from God and trans­ be defended since, when Moses had been mitted it to the people, but with respect buried, we see the style of the speech the same; certainly it would be ridiculous to 7 Kraus, p. 14 (Kraus' s italics); quotation assume that the same Moses, the dead irom W A, 46, 727. Moses, spoke these words: "Moses died at 8 Kraus, p. 14. the command of God, and He buried him HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 51

in the land of Moab, and no man knows Joshua as the author. The total content his grave." These things and others which of the book speaks against such an under­ follow no one except a manifest madman standing. Calvin frankly declares that the will attribute to Moses as author.9 assumption that Joshua must have written Karlstadt was critical with respect to the book because the superscription bears his name rests on very weak grounds, for the authorship of other Old Testament also the name "Samuel" is found in books. He considers the author of the another book of the Holy Scripture which Books of Samuel unknown; he holds that simply cannot have been written by Sam­ the self-praise in the Book of Ezra (7: uel. Calvin then catefully sets forth the 6-25) makes it impossible to consider Ezra assumption that it was probably the high the author of this book. The Book of Dan­ priest Eleazar who gathered the reports iel is critically examined. Katlstadt would concerning the events out of which the like to delete the Greek additions.1o book was constructed later. This concep­ With all this literary and historical tion goes back to the supposition ex­ pressed by Calvin in another place that. criticism Karlstadt has no inclination to the manuscripts pertaining to the Law and deny the Protestant principle of sola Scrip­ the historical reports of the Old Testa­ tura.11 ment were gathered in the Ark of the John Calvin Covenant by whoever happened to be high Calvinism is known for its early formu­ priest at the time they were written. But lation of a doctrine concerning Holy Scrip­ then he says with the greatest caution: ture and of a confessional fixing of the "We ate ready to leave undecided what we cannot search out and what finally is canon.12 Yet also John Calvin has his not of the greatest importance. But this doubts about the authorship of some Old most important thing must be accepted, Testament books. Comparing Calvin's way that the doctrines contained in this Book of operating in this atea with that of Lu­ were inspired by the Spirit of God for ther, Kraus says: our use."13 Calvin operates in a similat manner in II his interpretation of the Old Testament LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY AND - even though in his criticism of the content of the text he is more reserved ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD SCRIPTURE than Luther. A notable example of the Whereas proponents of the historical criticism that Calvin practiced is in the and literary criticism of the Bible believe foreword of the exegesis of the Book of that they find allies in the Reformers­ Joshua. The inherited tradition is given Luther, Melanchthon, Katlstadt, and Cal­ up, because it is impossible to think of vin - they have harsh words for the Lu­ theran dogmaticians and their doctrine of 9 Ibid., p. 26. verbal inspiration. We must therefore ask 10 Ibid., p. 27. what the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians 11 Ibid. in company with the Reformed dogmati­ 12 E.g., "The French Confession of Faith, A.D. 1559," Art. III; see Philip Schaff, The cians of the same age taught concerning C1'eeds of Ch1'istendom, III (New York: Harper & Bros., 1905), 360 f. 13 Kraus, pp. 14 f. 52 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD the inspiration of Scripture and how this cerning the doctrine of· verbal inspiration doctrine affected any efforts at historical in the Lutheran dogmaticians as follows: and literary criticism of the Bible_ Viewing matters as a whole we gather It is a fact, too well known among us that the question about the historical to need demonstration here, that Luther's origin of the canonical Holy Scriptures free criticism of certain books in the Old was asked only here and there. In the and New Testament canon was not shared foreground there stands the very schematic and constructive conception of the man­ by the dogmaticians of Lutheran Ortho­ ner in which the Word of God became doxy. While the Orthodox dogmaticians Scripture as it was described in the fol­ could not deny the doubts which had per­ lowing manner by John Gerhard: "Divine sisted in the church from ancient times inspiration is such an action by which with respect to the canonicity of certain God in a supernatural manner communi­ books, they did their best to establish the cated to the intellect of the writers not canonicity of also these books, and the only the concepts of all things which were criticisms of Luther are for the most part to be written, in conformity with the ob­ silenced among Lutherans during the 17th jects, but also the concepts of the words century. Hornig gives the following char­ themselves and of all things by which acterization of the doctrine of verbal in­ these were to be expressed, and moved spiration in the Lutheran dogmaticians: their will to the act of writing." The authors of the Bible are "God's helpers, Through the doctrine of verbal inspi­ Christ's hand, the writers and notaries ration, which they sought to establish by of the Holy Spirit; they wrote not as men means of 2 Tim. 3: 16 and other passages but as God's men." Therefore "no error of Scripture, the dogmaticians maintain even in little things, no lapse of memory, that the writings of both the Old and the much less a lie can find a place in all New Testament are divinely inspired in Scripture." 15 their very words and therefore to be looked upon as infallible. The concept With respect to the Hebrew vowel points of inspiration, or Theopneustie, has a very Kraus says: definite meaning in the framework of A characteristic example for the rigid the orthodox doctrine of Scripture. It maintenance of the doctrine of inspiration signifies the unique act through which God may be seen in the dispute concerning as the author of Holy Scripture communi­ the Hebrew vowel points. The problem cated His Word to prophets and apostles was again raised through the writing of and moved them at the same time to the Jew Elias Levita, Massoreth hammas­ write it down. This revelation of God, soreth (1538). . . . Zwingli, Calvin, and which is given through inspiration, hap­ Luther opposed the view of the originality pens according to the orthodox under­ of the vowel points in the original autoe standing with the intention that the Word graphs. Luther rejects the "new human of God may be transmitted to coming invention of the rabbis." 16 On the other generations in its original and authentic form uncorrupted and unchanged.14 15 Kraus, p. 30. 16 Discussing the contested passage Ps. 22: 7 Kraus expresses similar sentiments con- Luther says with reference to the vowel points: "Denn dass man die Punkte verandern, und 14 Hornig, pp. 41 f. kii'arl und kii'1iru lesen kiinnte, das geniigt nicht, HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 53

hand Matthius Flacius is an eager defender opneuston." By means of this example of the conviction that the vowel points one can see that strong supports are possess a high antiquity. The incipient everywhere built into the orthodox doctrine confirmation of the dogma of inspiration of inspiration. The Scriptural principle of could not dispense with the acceptance of the Reformation is fortified in its untouch­ the archaic validity of the Hebrew vowel ableness down to the very vowel points. points. For if one should have declared Without a single gap this dogma sur­ himself for a later introduction of these rounds the Holy Scripture like a protecting signs, the text of the whole Scripture wall.17 would have become uncertain. This dared According to Hornig this orthodox doc­ not happen under any circumstance. trine concerning Scripture experienced a Flacius in the ensuing debate even appeals development in later Lutheran Orthodoxy. to the Word of Jesus that not an iota [not an apostrophe} of the Law was to He writes: perish. Yes, if the Hebrew points were a In the framework of the orthodox doc­ late invention, then according to John trine of Scripture a development can be Gerhard it would follow: "Scripture was noticed insofar as the doctrine of verbal­ not given by God through the prophets inspiration is emphasized ever more down to the separate words since without strongly. With Calov, Quenstedt, Hollaz, the vowel points the words could stand and other dogmaticians of late Orthodoxy only in a naked manner, therefore the this doctrine is developed down to an whole of Scripture would not be the- exact explanation of the process of inspi­ ration. By inspiration they understood the da es hinIanglich bekannt ist, dass man den divinely worked suggestio rerum, suggestio Punkten nicht glauben darf, da sie erst eine neue verborum, and the impulsus ad scriben­ Erfindung sind." Martin Luther, Dr. Martin dum. Therefore the Biblical writers did Luthers Sammtliche Schriften, 2d ed., ed. Joh. Georg Walch. IV (St. Louis: Concordia Pub­ not act on their own impulse when they lishing House [I88I}, 1284. This edition will wrote down the books of the Old and of be cited as St. L. the New Testament but formulated them In his rather violent writing Yom Schem under the guidance of God and as a result Hamphoras Luther counsels Christian scholars of the Hebrew Old Testament that, if they could of His direct command. Therefore God is change the vowel points in the Hebrew and the real originator (causa principialis) other grammatical details so that they would get [sic} of Scripture while prophets and away from the Jewish understanding so that it apostles are only tools (causae instru­ would agree with the New Testament, they should do this confidently and joyfully. He says mentales) which God used in the compo­ in this connection: sition of Scripture. In consequence of this "Mit dieser Weise kiinnte man der Juden thinking the Biblical writers are called Verstand in der Bibel fein schwachen, und ist amanuenses, and the process of inspiration das Vortheil da, dass Mose und die Propheten is described as a dictation of the Holy nicht haben mit Punkten geschrieben, welches ein neu Menschenfiindlein, nach ihrer Zeit auf­ Spirit, a dictamen in calamum.18 gebracht; darum nicht not ist, diesel ben so steif As representatives of the dictation theory zu halten, als die Juden gerne wollten, sonder­ lich wo sie dem Neuen Testament zuwider Hornig names Calov, Quenstedt, and Hol­ gebraucht werden .... Darum, wo sich die laz and quotes from Hollaz the words: aequivocatio in einem vocabulo begibt, so nehme man die significatio, die mit dem Neuen Testa­ 17 Kraus, pp. 30 f. (Kraus's italics). ment stimmt, so wird sie gewiss. " St. L. XX, 2106 f.; see WA 53, 647 f. 18 Hornig, p. 43. 54 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

Omnia et singula verba, quae in sacro could believe any sentence in Holy Scrip­ codice leguntU1', a Spiritu Sancto Prophetis ture. First he had to accept the verbal et Apostolis inspirata et in calamum dic­ inspiration before it was possible for him tata sunt.19 to receive the forgiving grace of God in saving faith.22 Kraus accuses the Lutheran dogmaticians of seeking to establish the authority of To the extent that this principle was Scripture by means of rationalistic prin­ actually carried out in Lutheran theology ciples. He says: the Christian faith took on a very intel­ The authority of the Bible is established lectualistic cast. It was as if a man were on rational grounds, and the whole of saved by the correctness and completeness Scripture is represented as something of his conception of the Christian doctrine given in a supernatural manner. One is rather than by a commitment to his Lord amazed at the zeal with which the au­ and Savior in confidence in His atoning thority of the Bible is "proved" with an work. This situation within Lutheran Or­ appeal to its venerable age, the dependa­ thodoxy seemed like a challenge to men of .. bility of the historical information, and critical temperament. On this point Kraus the absence of contradictions in content. says: These rational postulates, which stood in the service of a demonstration of the super­ Scriptural principle of the Reformation is natural character of Scripture, later on the foundation of Protestant Biblical became factors which inflamed criticism exegesis. For this reason it was necessary in an especially violent manner.20 . . . to set forth this important point of departure. It will have become clear how The orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians, serious the misplacing of the theological according to Hornig, considered the ortho­ accents during the age of orthodoxy was. dox doctrine of verbal inspiration neces­ The dogma of inspiration with all its her­ sary to convince men that Holy Scripture meneutical consequences is the deciding is the codex of truths revealed by God factor which challenges criticism. The Himself. As soon as these basic presup­ divinization (Vergottlichung) of Scrip­ positions were fulfilled, so they supposed, ture calls the humanistic reaction onto the the assent to the remaining articles of faith field.23 in the dogmatic system would come of Hornig summarizes the results for dog­ itself.21 matical and exegetical theology that fol­ If we may believe Hornig's characteriza­ lowed from the position of Orthodoxy as tion of the orthodox Lutheran use of the follows: doctrine of verbal inspiration, it amounted The verbally inspired Scripture is con­ to this: sidered by Orthodoxy as the source of A man had first of all to accept one doc­ knowledge out of which all doctrines of trine of orthodox dogmatics before he faith are to be proved and derived. But as soon as the hermeneutical principles of 19 Ibid., p.41; quotation from D. Hollaz, orthodox exegesis are examined, the secret Examen Theologicum Acromaticum, I (Rostock dominance of the already established dog- and Leipzig, 1718), 94 f. 20 Kraus, p. 28. 22 Ibid., p. 50. 21 Hornig, p. 49. 23 Kraus, p. 34 (Kraus's italics). HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 55

matical doctrines over the testimony of and ear witnesses of the words and deeds Scripture become clearly apparent. The of Jesus Christ.25 deciding factor is not the intended sense Kraus criticizes Orthodoxy particularly of the words of the Biblical writers. The for being unable to study the Scripture his­ real hermeneutical principle is rather an exegesis according to the analogy of faith. torically. He says: The result is therefore a dogmatically The basic orthodox idea of pure doctrine bound exegesis, which can indeed furnish failed at one essential point to bring a dogmatics with new dicta probantia but suitable manner of regarding the Bibli­ can hardly correct its own doctrines or cal facts: It was not able to enter into even question them.24 the essence of the history.26 The following may stand as a represen­ This, according to Kraus, entered Re­ tative criticism of the Orthodox Lutheran formed theology only through Johannes doctrine of verbal inspiration: Coccejus, and Lutheran theology through Insofar as one proceeds from the pre­ George Calixt.27 supposition that the verbally inspired The doctrine of verbal inspiration had original texts have been transmitted es­ far-reaching theoretical consequences in sentially uncorrupted, it is necessary to Lutheran Orthodoxy. Because it was held declare on the basis of the doctrine of that Scripture contained neither errors nor verbal inspiration that every form of lies nor lapses of memory nor oversights textual criticism is illegitimate. Strictly with respect either to the matters treated speaking, however, also a study of the text or to the words used, Orthodox theologians from the standpoint of the history of often drew conclusions from the Bible thought or the history of religion of the content of the Biblical message is for­ with respect to other sciences which were bidden. For this content is not the result coming to the fore during the period of of a historical development but has as the Orthodoxy, as for instance the sciences of Word of God a supernatural character. history, geology, physics, and astronomy. Laudable as the endeavor is to maintain The bitter disputes that grew out of this the dependability of Holy Scripture as situation have come down into our own the only fountain of man's salvation, so time and are with us today as we all well serious are nevertheless the objections know. which the Orthodox doctrine of verbal III inspiration arouses. Through this doctrine the human-historical character of the HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE Biblical message is negated. But this doc­ DURING THE 16TH AND 17TH trine also gets into conflict with the self­ CENTURIES testimony of the New Testament text at If the 16th century was the age of the important points. For when the apostles Reformation, during which the sola Scrip­ demand faith for their message, this is not tura was firmly established in Protestant done with the claim that their words are divinely inspired but rather with a 25 Ibid., p. 44. reference to the fact that they were eye 26 Kraus, p. 33 (Kraus's italics).

24 Hornig, p. 51. 27 Ibid. 56 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD theology, and the 17th century was the era as dark oracles of something future. The of Reformed and Lutheran Orthodoxy, truth of Scripture was considered the eter­ these centuries were nevertheless not with­ nal truth of reason. The Socinians consid­ out voices :which ~emanded literary and ered it their duty to free this eternal truth historical criticism of the Bible. In the of reason from its historical elltanglements. following we shall consider a few of these. With these principles the Old Testament was practically superfluous. All this was Hugo Grotius an inheritance from humanism.29 Hugo Grotius, a Dutch statesman and scholar, sought to read the Bible histori­ Historical Criticism Within cally. First of all l}e practiced determined Roman Catholicism textual criticism, -seeking out to the best According to Kraus, Andreas Masius, a of his ability the beSt readings. Further­ Roman Catholic scholar commenting op. more, he placed the' Old Testament and its the Book of Joshua, expressed the opinion statements against the background of secu­ that the Book of Joshua had been written., lar history, seeking a purely historical ex­ not by Joshua; as the Jewish commenta­ planation. Philology, textual criticism, and tors maintained, but by Ezra or some other history - these are the viewpoints from man equal with Ezra. Masius then ex­ which he practiced' Biblical interpretation. panded his ideas to the Pentateuch and ex­ Grotius wanted to read the Old Testament pressed not only the opinion that Moses on its own terms apart from any depend­ had not written the Pentateuch but that ence on the New Testament. Consequently most of the writings of the Old Testament Grotius missed' Chlist· in the Old Testa­ are totally undependable as historical docu­ ment, and the Ebed-Jabwe in Isaiah was ments. never Christ' but first Isaiah and later J ere­ Masius had a learned pupil, Benedict miah. The Psalrtis 'became exclusively ex­ Pereira. Pereira, a Spanish Jesuit, became pressions of individual piety. In his in­ the teacher of Richard Simon, a noted terpretation of Scripture Grotius was a Catholic scholar, who had a strong histori­ good humanist bui: not a good Biblical cal-critical bent. Pereira wrote on the Pen­ exegete.28 tateuch. While he sought to hold fast to The Socinians the conviction that essentially the Penta­ What Hugo Grotius did in his way the teuch is the work of Moses, he expressed Socinians had' done, .if .possible, even: more the opinion that many things in these radically before him. . They interpreted writings "leave Moses behind."30 Psalm 2 only of David, Psalm 22 of an unhappy Israelite, Psalm 45 of the wedding The Role of the Philosophers in the of Solomon.' The ,pr~phecies of the Old Development of the Historical and Testament were not. thought to be direct Literary Criticism of the Bible prophecies ~fChrist, but insofar as they Influenced by the Dutch Hugo Grotius, actually transcended the immediate his­ the British Lord Herbert of Cherbury at- torical setting, they were to be looked upon 29 Ibid., pp. 37-39. 28 Ibid., pp. 46-49. 30 Ibid. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 57 tacked the Orthodox position with respect planation a history of 'the Biblical litera­ to divine .revelation. Cherbury believed ture has been worked out. Only on the that all religions, also Judaism and Chris­ basis of sure facts and principles can the tianity, are the result of a falling away meaning of the Biblical authors be grasped. from an original natural religion. It is In other words, we must know the literary easy to see how the Biblical concept of history of the Pentateuch before we can revelation was relativized, not to say de­ profitably study and hope to understand nied, by the position taken by Cherbury. the Pentateuch. He demanded that in the Perhaps more influential than Cherbury study of all texts the student must estab­ was the philosopher Thomas Hobbes_ lish who the writer was, on what occasion Hobbes attacked the Mosaic authorship of he wrote, at what time, to whom, and fin­ the Pentateuch and declared this whole ally in what language he wrote. It is ob­ complex of books to be post-Mosaic. He vious that such study could be conducted did, however, grant that anything of which only where there was an exact knowledge the Pentateuch· itself said that Moses had of the language and, above all things, of . written was written by him. the history of the language. For only where there is a history of a language and of its The English Deists were very much in­ idioms can the history of the literature be terested in the study of the Old Testament. known. The Se1ZStts literalis can therefore They believed that in the Old Testament not be ascertained except on the basis of they could uncover a natural religious con­ a knowledge of the language and the his­ nection of Christianity with the univer­ tory of the literature.31 sal pheonomena of belief in God and the manner in which this belief is manifested It would seem self-evident on the basis in people's lives. of such a hermeneutical demand that the Bible will be a closed book to all but the The Jewish philosopher Spinoza (1632 highly learned in language, history, and to 1677), a younger contemporary of literature. Hobbes, also tried to show that Moses could not have been the author of the Spinoza assumed a certain accommoda­ Pentateuch. tion of Scripture to vulgar opinion. He wanted to separate the divine doctrine of Furthermore, Spinoza set forth certain Scripture and the vulgar opinion to which hermeneutical rules which he considered the Scripture must accommodate itself. necessary for a proper understanding of From here it was not far to the extremes Scripture. Spinoza is considered the first that were to show themselves in the vulgar to work out the principles of a historical­ rationalism that was soon to prevail and critical hermeneutics. He insisted that na­ to the position of Reimarus in the so-called ture can be properly explained only when W olfenbuttler Fragmente, in which not a natural history has been written on the only the disciples of our lord but our lord basis of which the definition of objects of Himself were considered conscious cheats nature bec~mes possible. Similarly, he and deceivers. holds, Holy Scripture can be conscienti­ ously explained only if previous to the ex- 31 Ibid., p. 57. 58 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

The Immediate Theological Forerunners of Scripture. However, it remained for of Johann Salomo Semler Johann Salomo Semler to bring these crit­ ical theories in their full force and devel­ While these things were taking place in opment into the theology of the church. the philosophical world, the so-called Auf­ ktarung was proceeding on all sides. Nat­ In the above we have given only the briefest overview of the forerunners of ural science, particularly in the area of as­ Semler. Many other men contributed tronomy, had been making steady strides through philological study of Hebrew and since the time of Copernicus, a contempo­ rary of the Reformers. The theologians the cognate languages, through the writing of hermeneutical treatises, through the de­ were by no means unaware of these devel­ velopment of a science of isagogics, opments or unaffected by them. A new through the study of history and literature. TV eltbild, a new understanding of nature We turn now to a study of the role played and of the universe, was knocking power­ by Semler. fully at the doors of the theological world. Kraus states that Michaelis had sought Sigismund Jacob Baumgarten (1706-57, to patch the bursting ring of the dogma professor at Halle) introduced current phi­ of inspiration, but Semler destroyed it losophical methods into theology while completely as he sought for new founda­ seeking at the same time to maintain an tions for a valid Protestant Biblical theo­ orthodox Lutheran dogmatical stance. He logy.32 became the teacher of Semler, who was but 19 years his junior. Semler, who published IV many of Baumgarten's works and in part JOHANN SALOMO SEMLER: furnished them with introductions running THE INTRODUCTION OF THE as high as 160 pages, praised the theologi­ HISTORICAL-CRITICAL MJ;THOD IN cal method of Baumgarten. He saw in LUTHERAN THEOLOGY Baumgarten a theology which had begun Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91) is to depart from the rigid formulas of the acknowledged as the father of the modern later Lutheran Orthodox dogmaticians. historical and literary criticism of the Bi­ Another theologian who tried to hold ble. He was raised in pietistic surround­ the positions of Orthodoxy yet felt deeply ings but drifted more and more into ra­ obligated to the so-called Enlightenment tionalism, although he despised the vulgar was Johann David Michaelis (1717-91). rationalists and according to his own testi­ Michaelis, like others before him, con­ mony at least desired to hold on to the cerned himself with the question of the fundamental Christian doctrines. authorship of the Pentateuch. He says that While Semler had, as we have seen, Moses is the author but assumes that Moses forerunners in the matter of the historical used sources that were in existence before and literary criticism of Scripture, he is his time. Others, including Luther, had generally acknowledged as the man who made this assumption before Michaelis. helped these theories to triumph in the It is evident that forces were stirring on Protestantism of his age. Semler appears numerous fronts before Semler that au­ gured the literary and historical criticism 32 Ibid., p. 83. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 59 to have been a highly gifted man with a Schmittner judges that in this work the great capacity for work. We quote from old Protestant doctrine concerning Holy Hornig: Scripture is overcome.34 In line with his many and varied gifts Students of Semler agree that one of his Semler worked extensively in all areas most important contributions to theologi­ of theology. As a newly elected professor cal learning lies in the area of hermeneu­ in Halle he lectured during his first year tical method. In this he turned against on hermeneutics and church history. A few both Orthodoxy and Pietism. It is on ac­ years later (winter 1758-59) he also lectured on dogmatics, ethics, polemics, count of these labors in the area of canon and the history of the Reformation. As and of hermeneutics that he is considered the bibliography prepared by J. G. Eich­ the father of the hitorical-critical method. horn shows, Semler published learned What was Semler's concern? According treatises also in the area of archaeology, to Schmittner we find Semler fighting a numismatics, textual criticism, hermeneu­ war on two fronts: on the one hand against tics, exegesis, patristics, church history, Orthodoxy, which he accuses of fostering history of dogma, and dogmatics. Witness a legalistic doctrinal system which discour­ to his special interest in the theology and history of the Reformation is the pub­ ages, a man from thinking and all but for­ lication by Semler of thorough studies in bids him to examine the Bible critically, primary sources and of manuscripts and and on the other hand against the vulgar documents which had not before been rationalism which he saw as a destroyer of published. the Christian faith. We quote from After the death of his teacher and friend Schmittner: Baumgarten, Semler published this man's On the one hand it is necessary to give voluminous writings. Furthermore the to the Christian religion an unshakable German theology of that time owes to territory which is capable of withstanding the initiative of Semler the exact knowl­ all attacks of philosophical, historical, and edge of important works of English, scientific criticism; on the other to safe­ French, and Dutch authors. Semler either guard to the individual who has become caused the translation of these works or, of age the right to make decisions ac­ in case other learned men sent him trans­ cording to his conscience without any lations, he provided these with introduc­ compulsion stemming from dogmatics. tions and often with very detailed com­ He calls upon theology to speak under­ mentaries. Semler wielded great influence through his four-volume Abhandlung von standably, ad hominem, "according as men freier Untersuchung des Canon (1771 to can receive it"; that is, theology is to enter 1775 ) . This belongs to the most im­ into their epistemological problems and portant theological works produced during not be content with a blind submission to the 18th century. In this work Semler the authority of received doctrine. When brought the evidence for the gradual opinions occur which depart from the growth of the canon and at the same time received doctrine, they are not to be con­ proved the legalistic and formalistic un­ demned a priori, but they are to be heard derstanding of the canon that prevailed and discussed in open dialog, in intel­ in Orthodoxy as untenable.33 lectual honesty, "in honest use ... of

33 Hornig, p. 11. 34 Schmittner, p. 23. 60 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

reason," ,for God desires no sacrificium historical or hermeneutical or true sense . inteUectl1S but a "free, moral, proper . . . Everywhere I found too. little_ ., acceptance" of the· truth. He is concerned historical sense, always the theological about the right grounds of the Christian perversions." 37 doctrine' as opposed to the scruples of "thin.kingChristians" that arise from their Semler's Hermeneutics reason and to the elite followers of Semlercriticizec! the exegetical efforts of rationalism,· but on the other hand also both Orthodoxy and Pietism. He found as opposed, to the need for security of Orthodoxy struggling under a dogmatically Orthodoxy which Semler considered ques­ bound exegesis, and Pietism suffering from tionable.35 mystical, allegorical interpretation. He be­ It will be well in the following to keep lieved that both of these were arbitrary in mind these two sides of Semler's con­ and failed to find the' sense intended by cern. Hornig presents this concern as the Biblical writers. Against the method follows: of both Orthodoxy and Pietism Semler Semler looks· upon Holy Scripture as "the praised the exegetical principles of luther. ground of true Christianity"; he wishes to He declared that luther had the most cor­ further' the right use of Scripture and is rect hermeneutical principle so far as the certain that no one can justly accuse him sense of Scripture is concerned. As Luther of "looking to other fountains of knowl­ had done before him, so also Semler con­ edge beside, Holy Scripture." Semler, like demned allegorizing the text and instructed Luther before him, does not, in stressing his students to search for the meaning of the Scriptural' pfinciple, desire to encour­ the words. This does not mean, however, age a legalistic Biblicism. Semler rejects the idea oIa formal Scriptural principle that Semler's hermeneutics is simply that which' considers all Biblical statements in of luther and the Reformers. A careful principle of the same value. In construct­ examination of Semler's hermeneutics will ing theology he wants to take his point of reveal that it departs in important respects departure' from exegesis and hermeneutics. from luther's hermeneutics. If the results of exegesis get into conflict Semler saw the task of hermeneutics as with previously accepted exegetical and a double one. First of all, the exegete had dogmatical formulations, then the tradi­ to get at the intended sense of a passage tional understandings are not to be held, but the results of a scientifically grounded in its historical setting. Second, he had to exegesis. are to be followed.36 translate it for his hearers into concepts and language suited to their understand­ In seeking the meaning of Scripture ing. Schmittner quotes Semler on these Semler stresses the importance of the his­ points as follows: torical sense: Hermeneutical skill depends on sure and Everything depends on the "true histori­ exact knowledge of the Biblical way of cal. understanding of Holy Scripture. I de­ speaking and also on an exact grasp of sired always first of all to seek the first the historical circumstances of a Biblical speech. Then one must be able to speak 35 Ibid., pp. 6 f.

36 Hornig, p. 151. 37 Schmittner, pp. 28 f. HISTORICAL~CRITICAL METHOD 61

concerning, these, things now in 'such a What this means for hermeneutics and way as the' altered time and othercircum~ exegesis may be made clear by.the follow­ stances of II1enarqund ,us demand, or one ing paragraph from Hornig: " must make hise~planation in such a way that they cap, understand it. All of Only when one seeks to understand the Biblical texts without, introducing ex­ hermeneutics can ,be subsumed under these traneous thoughts as accounts of definite two points.38 historical happenings wholly in the light In the following quotation we attempt of their own time does one, according to to show what all, according to Semler's Semler, realize completely how far these understanding, belongs to theological her­ texts are removed from us in time, and meneutics. only so does one become capable of ap­ Theological hermeneutics according to propriate exegesis. He does not deny that Semler must pay attention to the universal the Biblical texts and the W~rd of God rules of scientific interpretation of texts, contained in them concern' Us also and are but it must, also t3ke into consideration to be proclaimed to us. But what a given those factors which arise out of the special Bible text has to say to us today is, ac- ., nature of the biblical texts and of their cording to Semler, a question which can contents. Semler figru.es as belonging in be answered only when one has estab­ the realm of hermeneutics not only gram­ lished the original historical, sense of this mar, rhetoric and logic, but also the his­ text. Only in this manner can we, in view tory of the transmission of the text, the of the changed historical situation, reach translations, textual criticism, and exe­ a correspondence in content, between the gesis. past and the present proclamation of the Word of God. According to Semler the The cardinal rule ,of any scientific in­ historical exegesis does' riot yet solve the terpretation of the text must, according to problem of the actual proclamation, which Semler, be the enqeavor to be guided must be directed to man today' arid speak strictly by the words of the text and to to him in his specific situation: It does, carry nothing of one's own thoughts into however, constitute a ,necessary condition the text. . . ., "The Holy writers," so for a proper fulfillment, of this task. 40 Semler declares, "must alone be the lords and masters to tell us what they really The historical understanding of Scrip- meant." Seml,er is in sympathy with the ture which Semler demands brings the traditional grammatical interpretation of exegete squarely up against the question the text but comes to the conclusion that of the canon. this alone does not yet offer a guarantee According to orthodox doctrine the canon that the text is being explained and under­ is a divinely, verbally' inspired and un­ ,stood according to its original intended changeable collection of. writings which sense. The epoch-making importance of equally obligates Chrisj:ians in all its Semler for the history, of hermeneutics parts.41 and exegesis lie,s in the (for his time) new demand for a historical interpretation Semler is convinced that anyone who of the text.39 would arrive at a ,true understanding of the

38 Ibid., p. 18. 40 Ibid., p. 82. 39 Hornig, p., 7.9 (Hornig's italics). 41 Ibid., p. 60. 62 HISTORICAL·CRITICAL METHOD canon must not orient himself by means of himself is for the most part quoting the orthodox doctrine but must examine Semler: the history of the origin of the canon. "That the special practice and skill which There one will arrive at the conclusion is called criticism should under no cir­ that the beginning of collecting the New cumstances be applied to Scripture . . . Testament writings was made during the I have never been willing to be forced second century, that the lists of books onto me, because now for a long time which constituted the canon varied greatly I have ascribed divinity and importance to the truths, to their efficacious ... con­ in different churches, and that the fixing tent, but considered the copying and the of the canon in the form we know today printing of the Bible to be the same was the result of a process which lasted human labor as when copyists and printers for some centuries, was carried on between went to work on Plato or Roratius. rivaling traditions, and was accomplished A special divine rule and supervision of by means of ecclesiastical compromises.42 God in connection with the work of copy­ Semler is convinced that all theological ing only he can maintain who believes questions which concern historical matters that his dreams are reality." Semler dis­ - and to these belong the inscripturation tinguishes between divine content and human transmission. In this way Holy of oral tradition, the origin and delimita· Scripture gains historical plasticity and tion of the canon, questions of genuine· fullness. To gain its content in its original ness and authorship - cannot be answered form it is necessary to examine the pro­ by means of dogmatical assertions but can cess of transmission critically without be answered with some degree of depend­ respect for the taboos prescribed by the ability only through historical investiga­ reigning understanding of Scripture. So tions. From this premise Semler raises the Semler conceives "the idea . . . little by accusation against the Orthodox doctrine little to gather freer conceptions . . . of Scripture that it lacks a foundation that concerning the history of the Bible as rests on historical investigations. Semler a book." Re says that the historian will believed that this understanding of the find it questionable whether the Biblical text "came to us so directly and unaltered origin of the canon would shake to its that it is still quite genuine." Feeling the foundations the doctrine of verbal inspir­ need for a dependable critically opened ation as held by Orthodoxy. text with the best possible reading he de­ Also, textual criticism played a most im­ fends the right of philological analysis portant part in Semler's hermeneutics and against the suspicion of Orthodoxy, which exegesis. If we may trust the criticisms flowed from the concern for the integrity leveled against some of the representatives of Scripture, and against the disinterest of Pietism, which grew from the aversion of of Orthodoxy by their detractors, some of Pietism against scientific meticulousness the Orthodox theologians must have of­ and abstraction. Realizing that he was fered a good bit of resistance to textual entering a very wide field which had for criticisms in the beginning. In the fol­ the most part not been worked, Semler lowing we quote from Schmittner, who gives_ himself to the task of examining the Biblical texts according to principles 42 Ibid. developed in connection with secular HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 63

literature. He was convinced that it was positions of Biblical teaching, the church legitimate to use textual criticism with has expected its pastors and theologians Bible texts as well as with secular writers. to refrain from interpreting Scripture con­ In this way ... he rent the veil between trary to the Lutheran Confessions. There­ hermeneutica sacra and hermeneutica pro­ fore in a sense the Confessions were viewed fana. 43 as a norm for interpretation, one of the Along with other criticisms of Ortho­ hermeneutical principles according to doxy Semler criticized the strict separation which Scripture is to be understood. On of theology from philosophy which the this point Hornig writes: dogmaticians had at least in theory advo­ Already in his early writings during the cated. He held that not only the rules of years 1757-60 Semler called for the logic but also the best contemporary his­ realization of a theology that proceeds torical, philological, and text-critical meth­ from hermeneutics and exegesis. Neither ods must be applied, as in all scientific dis­ the Confessions of the church nor the ciplines, so also in theology.44 received dogmatical systems can, accord- .. ing to Semler, claim the rank of a norm On one point in particular Semler de­ of interpretation, because this would place parts radically from the hermeneutics of them above Scripture itself.46 Lutheran Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy recog­ nized the Lutheran Confessions as one Semler repeatedly appeals to Luther in norm for the interpretation of Scripture. matters hermeneutical and exegetical. We The demand was that Scripture should be therefore ask wherein Semler's hermeneu­ interpreted in harmony with the analogy tics differs from Luther's. On this subject of faith. This was sometimes understood we find the following significant statements as the sum total of the clear sedes doc­ in Hornig: trinae, at other times as the confessional It is true there are in Luther noticeable doctrinal statements of the church. These tendencies in the direction of historical two understandings are not as far apart as criticism, but these occur only sporadically and are not carried through methodically. they might seem to be on the surface, be­ Decisive for Luther's inner relationship to cause the doctrinal statements were under­ Holy Scripture is the experience that in it stood to be based on the clear passages of we are met by the living Word of God. Scripture. Any careful student of the Lu­ This inner boundness to Scripture causes theran Confessions soon realizes that the the text-critical considerations and ques­ Confessions understand themselves as ex­ tions one meets occasionally in Luther to position of Scripture.45 recede into the background. For this Because the Lutheran Confessions are reason one cannot really call Luther a believed by that body to be faithful ex- representative of a historical-critical study of Scripture. 43 Schmittner, p. 21. The differences which are apparent here 44 Hornig, p. 131. may be seen also in the interpretation of Scripture which is focused on the mean­ 45 See Edmund Schlink, Theologie der Lu­ therischen Bekenntnisschri/ten 3d ed. (Munich: ing of the words. While Semler desires Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1948), pp. 6-11, 35, 38, 55-66, 418, 420. 46 Hornig, pp. 78 f. 64 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL. METHOD

to hold' fast the, Christocenttic understand­ the religious ideas and, the general under­ ing of Scripture, he differs from Luther standing of the universe (Weltbild) of in this, that he will not place the Christ their hearers. Closely connected with this principle ahead of the exegesis of any pat­ was the other question, how such tem­ ticulat point or passage. And it is speci­ porally conditioned elements of the New fically the exegetical demand to find the Testament message ate to be judged from sensus literalis historicus which forbids the the standpoint of .tpodern. science. The use of a Christological or Christocentric manner in which these questions were method' 'of interpretation. Referring a answered had considerable consequences passage to Christ, according to Semler's not only for systematic theology but also historical-critical' principles, is possible for the immediate practical proclamation. only where it rests directly on the wording For the demand was made 'that the ideas of the text and can consequently also be which were recognized as temporally con­ verified by means of the text. In the in­ ditioned and erroneous should not be terpretation of Scripture the sensus litera­ considered when the essence of Chris­ tis is for Semler the historical sense, for tianity is defined and should also be­ Luther on the other hand the sense which banished from the sermon.48 refers it· to' Christ. Schmittner states the case as follows: Hornig adds significantly: How does Semler believe that the prob­ This difference in method, which Semler lem is to be dealt with that the most did not discuss particularly, had to be­ central statements of the ,New Testament, come apparent particularly in the inter­ the words of Jesus Himself and the testi­ pretation- of the Old Testament and can mony of the apostles to Christ, are most be documented there most cleatly.47 intimately bound up with ideas which appear questionable to modern critical Semler's Theory of Accommodation thinking, which is bound by the results We COJ;llenow to a discussion of one of the researches of natural and historical science? Does it not represent an essen­ of the very important elements of Semler's tial limiting of Christian truth, a dis­ hermeneutics, his particular theory of ac­ regatd of the authority of Jesus and of commodation. This subject furnishes the the apostles, if one chooses here on the material for Hornig's last chapter in his basis of critical examination? We have book on the historical-critical theology. It arrived at the deciding point in the covers in all 25 pages. struggle between Orthodoxy and En­ The question of course goes far beyond lightenment. . Everything depends on Semler, and many theologians and philoso­ whether the filtering judgment which phers had· dealt with the subject before wishes to distill that which is usable out of that which is foreign actually is that Semler. Hornig.states the question as fol­ . which "Christum treibet." 49 lows: The"dispute revolved around the question The theory of accommodation was not whether and in how far it can be main­ formulated by Semler. I~ belonged to the tained that Jesus and the apostles in their burning questions whicli toward the end proclamation accommodated themselves to 48 Ibid., p. 21t. 47 Ibid., p. 208. 49 Schmittner, p. 40. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 65 of the 18th century occupied theological human and historical element of the most discussion. According to Hornig many widely differing linguistic usage, the dog­ publications of that time occupied them­ maticians held a theory of accommoda­ selves with this theme and took position tion according to which they maintained that the Holy Spirit in the -dictation ac­ either for or against.50 Researchers in ~he­ commodated Himself to the style and the ological literature tell us, that the thought language of the various Biblical writers.53 that the incarnation of Christ represents a divine accommodation, the thought also In a footnote Hornig quotes Quenstedt that the Biblical writers in their proclama­ on this subject, whose Latin w,e 'translate tion made use of a certain accommodation, freely as follows: goes back to the time of the Greek church There is a great diversity among the holy fathers.51 writers so far as style, and manner of speaking are concerned,whichseems to Even the dogmaticians 'of 'Orthodoxy come from this: because the Holy Spirit had a certain theory of accommodation accommodated Himself to the ordinary during the 17th century, Semler, who knew mode of speaking, leaving to each one his -- all this, never claimed to be the author of style of speech; it must not for this reason the theory of accommodation, although be denied that the Holy Spirit inspired some have accused him of being the origi­ to them individually the very words. 54 nator.52 The debate about the theory of accom- The Orthodox dogmaticians taught a modation was in full swing during the certain theory of accommodation in con­ time of Baumgarten, the teacher of Semler. nection with the doctrine of the verbal What it was all about, or wh~t it was in inspiration of Scripture, which they viewed part about, may be made ,clear by the as a direct dictation of the Holy Spirit to following quotation from Hornig: the Biblical writers. Hornig says the fol­ As an example of ,such expressions lowing on their theory of accommodation: where we assume that an accommodation Every philosophically trained reader of of the Biblical writers to, traditional ideas the Hebrew and Greek Bible texts could and to the limited power of comprehen­ establish without difficulty that the Bibli­ sion of the common people Baumgarten cal writings differ from one another in quotes the so-called "optical expres­ grammar, style, and manner of expression. sions ..." used in Holy Scripture, concern­ The discovery of these differences ap­ ing the fixity of the earth and the rising peared to be in contradiction to the basic and setting of the sun. ,Since these ex­ Orthodox teaching that Holy Scripture pressions in Scripture are not a correct has only one author and that it is the description of what actually happens in result of direct dictation of the Holy nature, the question' arises ,how these Spirit. In order to, be able to continue to words of Scripture are to be understood hold fast the verbal inspiration of Scrip­ and to be interpreted. ture without being compelled to deny the

53 Ibid., p. 214. 50 Hornig, p. 21l. 54 Ibid., quotation from J. A. Quenstedt, 51 Ibid., p. 213. Theologia didactio-polemica sive Systema The­ 52 Ibid. ologicum, I (Leipzig, 1702, 76b. 66 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

Iri . answering this question Baumgarten more rapid spread of Christianity. It con­ gives three possible positions. The op­ sists in this, that Jesus and the apostles ponents of the theory of accommodation in a measure accommodated themselves to understand these optical expressions in a the specific way of thinking and to the literal sense and consider them true as traditional religious conceptions of their such. They proceed from the assumption hearers. Semler sees an act of accommo­ that the words of Scripture are always an dation already in the fact that Jesus speaks adequate description of what actually to the people in parables but in speaking takes place, therefore also of the workings with His disciples dispenses with this of nature (Naturvorgange). Therefore mode of speaking and presents His they assume that these sayings of Scripture thoughts directly. Yet even in speaking are to be considered the "basis for natural with His disciples Jesus took into con­ science" and demand that natural science sideration that they were not yet able be derived from Holy Scripture. The to bear the full truth. 56 hypothesis that Jesus Christ and the Semler widened the theory of accom­ apostles had accommodated themselves to modation in explaining what he and others' contemporary understandings of nature - which are recognized as erroneous by with him consider the explanation of dif­ modern research - is met by these theo­ ferent ways of teaching that occur in the logians with the following arguments: New Testament. On this subject Hornig (1) The assumption that there could be says: an accommodation in Holy Scripture That the four evangelists in their way of "denies the truth of Holy Scripture"; and presentation, argumentation, and termi­ (2) the theory of accommodation "mili­ nology differ among themselves Semler tates against the divine character of Scrip­ explains from the missionary intent of the ture and the omniscience of God, who is evangelists, who in composing their writ­ the best natural scientist." 55 ings consciously accommodated themselves While both philosophers and theologians to the religious and national origin of had dealt with theories of accommodation their readers. Thus the Gospel according to St. Matthew is directed to the repre­ before Semler, he remains one of the chief sentatives of a strict, legalistic Judaism. representatives of these theories of accom­ Therefore it contains many quotations modation. from the Old Testament and intends to Semler does not appear to have treated convince the reader that in Jesus the the Biblical view of nature as based on promised Messiah has come. Also the accommodation. Rather he seems to be Gospel according to St. Luke is destined of the opinion that the Biblical writers for Jews and contains a genealogy which shared the understanding and the mis­ is meant to prove the descent of Jesus from the house of David. John on the understanding of nature that prevailed in other hand addresses Greek-speaking Jews their time. His theory of accommodation in Asia Minor. He dispenses with the cuts deeper. Hornig tells us: genealogy, shortens the historical accounts Accommodation according to Semler is considerably, and does not attempt to a pedagogical act for the purpose of the prove his message with quotations from

55 Homig, p. 216. 56 Ibid., p. 222. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 67

the Old Testament. Rather he seeks to the results of research in the natural make the importance of Jesus Christ for sciences. Semler is convinced that the­ salvation clear by taking the concepts of ology must accept the independence of Logos and Monogenes which were al­ the disciplines of natural science and must ready familiar to the Hellenistic Jews and surrender the orthodox claim to authority applies them to Jesus Christ.57 over these disciplines. In sharp contra­ diction to the orthodox conception Semler How Semler differs in his theory of ac­ formulates as follows: "Whatever is true commodation from the theologians of Or­ in philosophy is also true in theology." thodoxy will be clear from the manner in Against the orthodox argument that by which he treated the account of the crea­ this Holy Scripture was subjected to the tion in Genesis. On this subject Hornig judgment of human reason Semler argued says: with the statement that through our According to Semler's understanding the reason, which was given us by God, the Christian faith implies belief in creation, very matters are recognized which are the that is, the conviction that God has created result of God's creative work. Here, even. the world and all things. Therefore, so as in the interpretation of Scripture, Sem­ Semler emphasizes, belief in the creation ler assumes that the insights of reason are must under all circumstances be main­ not acts of subjective arbitrariness but the tained. This does not, however, mean, ac­ result of strict scientific work. cording to Semler, that the Christian is Semler considers Holy Scripture the obligated to recognize the conception of human-historical witness of the revelation nature and the descriptions of nature in of God, and reason not as the sum of the Old Testament. In accord with his definite innately known facts but as a historical-critical understanding of Scrip­ function for knowing. Therefore also ture and on the basis of the conviction Semler does nbt wish to understand Scrip­ that in particular in connection with the ture and reason as two magnitudes that Biblical conceptions of nature we are often might rival each other. Rather he em­ dealing with temporally conditioned and phasizes that reason is absolutely necessary mythological concepts, Semler declines to for the understanding of Scripture and for look upon all individual statements of the arrival at Christian conviction. Therefore Biblical account of the creation as histori­ a conflict between Scripture and reason cally dependable statements.58 is simply inescapable when Scripture is What this did to the orthodox doctrine understood as a collection of verbally of Scripture and to the relation of Scrip­ inspired truths which can be used to dis­ prove the results of natural science. Sem­ ture to the sciences may be made clear by ler considered this kind of use of Scrip­ the following quotation from Hornig: ture a misuse. Therefore he sharply Since [according to Semler] the ortho­ opposes the representatives of a Biblicistic dox doctrine that everything in Scripture fundamentalism who "on account of the rests on a verbal inspiration from God letter of Scripture, and in order to think itself rests on an error, Semler can see and to speak Biblically, wished to deter­ no reason why theology should not accept mine the system of the planets and of natural occurrences according to Biblical 57 Ibid., p. 223. expressions contrary to astronomy and 58 Ibid., p. 220. physics which we consider incontro- 68 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

vertible."Senilerrecognizes that the From this historical-critical attitude orthodox doctrine of Scripture drives the there follows Semler'srejectioJ1 of the Christian into the dilemma of a double mythological and legendary:traditions and truth or forces him to deny the results his demand for demythologization of the of natural science.59. New Testament message. ·Not the circum­ stance that the myths. speak. of metaphysi­ Semler's theory of accommodation led cal entities demands criticism, according him to demythologize the New Testament to Semler, but the fact that they personify in certain respects." On this subject Hor­ spiritual realities, that. they historicize the nig says: ahistorical. Semler sees. in mythology the The circumstance that the writers of the anthropomorphic tendency at work, to New Testament practiced accommodations describe divine and metaphysical beings which can be recognized both in their in the form of a man, according to human nature and in their. extent by means of ways of acting and human ways of be­ historical-cri~ical exegesis, according to having. Thus mythology" is . a hypostasiz­ Semler justifies inner Biblical criticism as ing, an elevating of spiritual experience~. to content. The real proclamation of the and of religious concepts to substance. Word of God is not: to orient itself by He wants to reverse this process through means of the concepts that represent ac­ demythologizing. commodations which were demanded at With his demand for demythologizing the time when Christianity was introduced Semler does not intend a reduction of the on pedagogical grounds, but above all saving message of the New Testament. things on the clear principles of New Rather his demand has an apologetic Testament proclamation as they lie before intent: to defend the uniqueness and the us particularly in John and Paul. The historicity of the revelation of God in realization of. this demand leads Semler Jesus Christ over against ccintemporary to demythologize, that is, to give up attacks. When the reality of the resur­ mythological concepts which come from rection of Jesus Christ was denied and a pre-Christian religious tradition and in declared to be a product of religious fan­ part were retained by New Testament tasy and mythology, the 'distinction be­ writers. Semler did not develop a clear tween history and myth -appeared neces­ definition of the :concept of "mythology" sary. Otherwise it seemed that the whole or of "myth." When he speaks about New Testament message of . salvation oriental and Jewish mythology, this con­ would be condemned as mythology. Sem­ cept serves to designate a primitive pic­ ler is of the opinion tha~ the mythological torial way of thinking and speaking which concepts and pictures are n<;>t. an inte­ has its origin in .. the religious imagina­ grating part nor the necessary form of tion and speaks. of supernatural divine expression of the New Tesatrilent mes­ things in anthropomorphic language.6o sage but that they can' certainly be sepa­ rated from it. We quote the fo1l6wlng from Hornig If we compare the critical understand­ to show that thil!. _concept is already very ing of reality of Semler with the so-called strong in Semler:. Biblical reali~m of ronteriipbrary Wiir­ temberg theologians, we see basic differ­ 59 Ibid., pp. 221 f. ences. While Semler seeks td distinguish . 60. Ibid., p. 225.' in the New Testament:between the re- HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 69

demptioh accomplished by Christ and the Christ. In harmony ,with the orthodox human-historical concepts of redemption, Lutheran dogmatics .Semler distinguished between the historical facts and mytho­ between' revelatio generalis and revelatio logical pi~es, the representatives of specialis. For the revelatio generalis he Biblical realism reject such distinctions uses the German word allgemeine Offen­ a priori.. They consider all Biblical state­ barung, and the revelatio specialis he calls ments t,o be' equally real and in harmony naehere Offenbarung.63 Trying to make with realii:y. Clinging to the tradition of the Orthodox' understanding of Scrip­ clear what Semler understood by these ture they ,consider the Bible as "the terms Schmittner says: trustworthy textbook of history," and on Already natural revehition aimed at the the basis of· chronological statements in salvation of man, '''the ultimate aim of the Bible they seek to calculate the date God." It gave to man the possibility of when the world began and also the date understanding himself as coming from when it will come to an end. Consciously God, that is, as Hiscteature.' It is pos­ they hold fast to the idea that the devil sible to agree with, Semler 'in this and in .. is a concrete personal being. Semler's view of Rom. 1:19ff.; 2:14ff.; and John attempt to. explain the New Testament 1:4 to speak of a $chopfungsofJenbarungj statements concerning the devil as an ac­ but then one ~ust also say: The dark­ commodation to mythological Jewish ness comprehended it not. In the opinion ways of thinking is felt on the basis of of Semler, and even earlier of the Biblical realism to be an unacceptable Wolffian orthodoxy, this darkness is not spiritualizing of Biblical statements.61 so very dark but rather a moderate semi­ darkness, which grows lighter and lighter We believe that with this we have suffi- as the Enlighten,ment proceeds, and ciently characterized the theory of accom­ finally in consistent rationalism it no modation as it was in part taken over by longer needs a second sllpernatural source Semler from' previous theologians and phi­ of light. By means of this natural source losophers and' in part developed further by of light, which Semler does not consider him. In the following we shall attempt to to have been completely obliterated, a evaluate critically. from the standpoint of large number of "general natural truths," its effect on Biblical theology the historical­ in particular the existence of God and critical method as represented by Semler. His demands on men, can be known. "Therefore one must cease to denigrate The Effect of Semler's Historical-critical the natural know ledge of God so very Theory on the Doctrines of the Church much, since it is' and remains the first step to revealed ~owledge." Men are, Semler thought of himself as an enemy "as men, capable when they use their of the crass rationalism fostered by the human capacities purposefully . . . to contemporary deism and naturalism which arrive at such a knowledge of God and came from England and France into Ger­ of His will that' it is sufficient to obligate many.62 He wanted to hold fast to and them to a behavior' consonant with this defend the revelation of God in Jesus will." Semler emphasizes that "God Him­ self wisely arranged it that men were 61 Ibid., pp. 233 f. 62 Ibid., p. 12. 63 Ibid., p. 101; Schminnet, pp. 11-14. 70 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

never lacking who saw into these natural other New Testament epistles. To suppose truths quite independently of the Scrip­ that this is one and the same thing as dis­ ture." Here one may ask why a revelation tinguishing in Scripture between that in Christ was necessary if man on the which is the Word of God and that which basis of his natural powers could know is not the Word of God is one of the both God's existence and His demands, great confusions in modern theology of but Semler does hold to the necessity of a "nearer revelation."64 which already Semler seems to have been guilty.67 Beginning with Semler the old Holy Scripture is, according to Semler, orthodox formula Scriptura Sacra est Ver­ th~ bearer of the revelatio specialis. How­ bum Dei is changed to Scriptura Sacra ever, the greater part of the total concept continet Verbum Dei.68 On Semler's un­ of Scripture consists of truths that are derstanding of the concept "Word of God" known by nature, which all rational men Hornig says: are able to recognize. Only a small part Semler considers the Word of God first is concerned with supernatural truths, the of all Christ Himself, for Christ is the' eternal counsels of God. Semler says: incarnate Word of God. That is to say It is undeniable that Holy Scripture . . . that also Jesus' doctrine must be counted contains only a very few sentences . . . as being Word of God. Jesus Christ as which ... specifically concern the possi­ Logos and Monogenes is "the originator bility of the best union with God and the of wholesome insights for men" and has agreement with all the purposes which He "disseminated grace and truth or perfect has for us. It is these sentences which knowledge of God" among them. Semler really are the subject of the nearer revela­ does not yet recognize a basic distinction tion, whereby it is distinguished from between the doctrine of Jesus and Pauline that which men know concerning God by proclamation, between the Gospel of Jesus natural revelation.65 and the Gospel concerning Jesus. In har­ mony with his own concept of revelation Semler, so his defenders tell us, did not Semler is able to call the apostolic mes­ intend to attack the uniqueness of Scrip­ sage of Christ, of the Christ who was de­ 66 ture. Nevertheless, Semler distinguished livered for our offenses and raised again fundamentally between Holy Scripture and for our justification, the content of the the Word of God. He refused to identify Christian faith and therefore the one the one with the other. Here Semler and "Word of God" which alone concerns others after him confused what he said us. 69 with something Luther had said before. Semler distinguishes between the divine Luther had distinguished between the rel­ content and the human form of Scripture. ative importance of various Biblical books. He refuses to identify revelation with It is well known that among the Gospels Scripture itself. On this point Hornig says: he preferred John to the Synoptists. He In harmony with the understanding which preferred the Epistle to the Romans to had been developed in Orthodoxy Sem-

64 Schmittner, p. 12. 67 Ibid., p. 30. 65 Ibid., p. 13. 68 Hornig, p. 84. 66 Ibid., p. 28. 69 Ibid., p. 85. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 71

ler understands by revelation the impart­ ating CrItlclsm can now proceed: "Since ing of divine truths to definite historical we are not morally improved by all the persons who at the same time received 24 books of the Old Testament, we can­ the command to make known these not convince ourselves of their divine divine truths through oral proclamation origin." Divine is therefore that which or through fixation by means of writing. morally improves us, and this in turn is Since Holy Scripture contains both the measured with general norms. Semler witness of the Old Testament revelations proceeds even more radically and judges: and also of the New Testament revelation "The canon of the Old Testament consists in Christ, Scripture has a continuing and of a collection of coarse Jewish prejudices normative importance for the Christian which are positively opposed to Chris­ religion as witness to revelation. How­ tianity, and only a small part of this canon ever, Semler differs from the Orthodox contains divine and inspired writings for understanding in this, that he rejects the the Jews in which useful and usable identification of revelation and Scripture, truths also for Christians are found." Here because this negates the human-historical the general evaluation of usable eternal element. According to Semler, revelation truths is combined with a view of the Old is preserved through the medium of Testament which one can only call human understanding, restatement (Wie­ "gnostic." The New Testament, according dergabe), and tradition but at the same to Semler, contains the universal en­ time is veiled in a temporally conditioned lightened, eternal religion compared with garb. Since the communication of the which the Old Testament seems narrow, divine truths may be viewed as inspiration national, Jewish, and temporally bound. of the matter (Realinspiration), not, how­ Kraus adds, and this we may well note: ever, as verbal inspiration, Semler con­ We cannot sufficiently emphasize that siders the Orthodox designation of Scrip­ these judgments seek to dominate the ture as "written revelation" as misleading understanding of the Old Testament and not in harmony with the facts. 7o down to the present. They spring from Kraus is quite critical of Semler with the spirit of the Enlightenment and from respect to his understanding of revelation. that modern Gnosis which to a large ex­ He finds Semler and men of similar stripe tent has become the real impulse or at as placing themselves into a position where least the dominating characteristic of the they become the judges of revelation. In historical-critical research ....71 this connection we quote Kraus: We are not surprised that Semler had Where are the valid norms for such a an idea of what ought to be done with the critical evaluation of what is past? If one Old Testament. He writes: follows up this question, one very soon A healthy excerpt from the books of the finds that the Biblical witness of revelation Old Testament would recommend the is subjected to a general concept of Christian doctrine and religion much bet­ rational religious truths and moral laws. ter and much more convincingly than the The historical-critical research is begun cold repetitions of happenings which are by a rejection of the Biblical concept of totally outlandish, totally foreign and revelation. Without hindrance this evalu- unknown for us and for our taste in

70 Ibid., p. 100. 71 Kraus, pp. 99 f. 72 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

knowledge and morals and will continue ticians of this passage. The expression to be so.72 ltiioCi. YQCI.

73 Schmittner, p. 27. 74 Hornig, pp. 68 f. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 73 fulfilled in the New Testament but a nar­ Hirsch adds: row document of Jewish nationalism. This changes for Semler the whole rela­ Hirsch, summarizing Semler's understand­ tion of the Christian to the Old Testa­ ing of the Old Testament, says: ment. The old view of Heilsgeschichte, The expected Messiah is a national libera­ which was thought to work itself out with- tor from the "foreign domination and the in Biblical religion, loses the ground under founder of a Jewish world kingdom which its feet. In its place there comes the pic­ subjugates the heathen. This they call the ture of a religious history of mankind kingdom of God.75 which follows a universal law, that the beginning and perfection are generally not Still paraphrasing Semler, Hirsch says: found together. Only slowly there is pre­ The Christian religion on the other hand pared in the particularistic pre-Christian has the spiritual worship which rests religions, Judaism and heathenism equally, wholly upon the conscience which recog­ the knowledge of a universal and inward nizes the divine content of the doctrine religion. What is special about Old Testa­ and is borne by the element of purity and ment and Jewish religion is only this, .. perfection of life in imitation of God. that by chance it became the historical The promises of the Christian religion ground for Him whom God had destined comprehend the inner happiness of such to be the Savior of humanity, that is, the a heart and mind, the freedom from the bringer of the perfect religion.77 fear of death, and the expectation of com­ Hirsch judges that the true heir and suc­ pletion in the invisible, eternal realm of spirits under God. The blessing of Jesus, cessor of Semler is Schleiermacher. Of finally,' as .the true Savior of all men con­ him Hirsch says: sists in this, that He makes us inwardly He developed the new theological system spiritually new and good men. In one which Semler with the vast amount of his point after the other therefore the Chris­ preliminary work and the limitations of tian religion is different from the Old his own nature did not accomplish.78 Testament and Jewish. Its relation to this What kind of theology this is in the is no other than its relation to heathenism: matters that most intimately concern our It demonstrates itself through its univer­ salvation we intend to examine briefly In sality and inwardness as another, better religion which in an ethical religious the following. manner becomes for men the way to per­ Hornig tells us that Semler "tried to fection.For a' Christian who has in the hold fast both to the supernatural character doctrine of Jesus found this better reli­ of the revelation in Christ and to the his­ gion, only those passages of the Old Testa­ toricity of the death, resurrection, and ment can become a genuine Word of God ascension into heaven of Christ.79 This in which individual men rising above the should not be understood as though Semler confines of Jewish thinking have ap­ had held to everything in the Apostles' proached the knowledge of a universal Creed. On this point Schmittner says: inner religion that aims at the goodness and perfection of men.76 77 Ibid., p. 63.

75 Hirsch, p. 62. 78 Ibid., p. 88. 76 Ibid., pp. 62 f. 79 Hornig, p. 126. 74 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD

After all that has been said heretofore, it ever . . . is . . . a Christian must . . _ as does not seem strange that Semler could it were, be a new creature and must accept the Apostles' Creed only in a de­ through his moral condition and be­ cidedly reduced form .... havior show himself to be a disciple of Christ.81 He quotes Semler as follows: One cannot exactly say that all articles Semler appears to have held that all doc­ of the Symbol are necessary to know and trinal articles of the Lutheran Confessions to believe for salvation.8o were without exception derived from Holy Scripture and grounded in the same.82 The But a few fundamental propositions, so difficulty one finds with this statement is Semler insists, must be held fast since in that Semler seems to have had a different them the efficacious Word of God, expe­ idea of what constitutes a doctrinal article rienced in all its importance, is expressed in the Confessions from what the confes­ in a manner we must accept. He quotes sors themselves believed. This is certainly Semler further as follows: indicated by the fact that he spoke for· a It is certain that all Christians, no mat­ quatenus subscription to the Lutheran Con­ ter how they may differ otherwise in their fessions. 83 concepts . . . nevertheless agree in a few articles or principles. . . . This only foun­ We quote from Schmittner to show how dation of the Christian religion ... in­ Semler understood soteriology: cludes such doctrinal truths as were there The majority of statements by Semler in from the very beginning and are really the matter of soteriology seem to indicate contained in the primary sources of the that he cannot accept the thought of a Christian religion, whose acceptance and reconciliation of man with God by means application brings forth a better inner of the death of Christ in the sense of an frame of mind than took place in Judaism expiatory sacrifice or a vicarious obedience, and heathenism, which therefore are since he could in such a happening see affirmed by all Christians and are ex­ only an external, mechanical, natural, pressively confessed at baptism, namely: magical, event, valid through the mere fact (1) a better living knowledge of a that it happened, independently of human God who is the most proper father of knowledge concerning it. Such a radical all men, (2) a sure conviction that Jesus extra hominem would be for him without taught the best and most fruitful knowl­ any reference to moral and spiritual con­ edge of God, his true spiritual worship, sciousness; it could in no way be accom­ and also the most perfect duties in divine modated as significant in a self-under­ authority . . . (3) that God through the standing which stresses the importance of Holy Spirit further imparted to the personal encounter and a decision in one's apostles this true knowledge through the own conscience.84 Holy Spirit ... after the death of Jesus, As he appears to have departed from the through whose doctrine all Christians re­

ceive their measure of the Holy Spirit, so 81 Ibid., pp. 56 f. that in a Christian life they constantly 82 Hornig, p. 153. show their better frame of mind. Who- 83 Ibid.

80 Schmittner, p. 56. 84 Schmittner, p. 53. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 75

Biblical doctrine of the atonement, so he taught by the Reformers and also to the also definitely departs from the doctrine of distinction between Law and Gospel. original sin as taught in the Lutheran We have. noted previously that Semler Church. Referring to Semler's understand­ does not seem to have had a Biblical un­ ing of soteriology Schmittner says: derstanding of the work of Christ.. This is This understanding shapes Semler's pre­ borne out by Hornig: sentation of the doctrine of sin and grace. Since Semler defends the New Testament He rejects the doctrine of original sin thoughts of reconciliation and redemption (especially that of the late anti-Pelagian and of the sacrifice and vicarious satis­ Augustine) in the same way as he rejects faction of Jesus Christ against the rational­ the view of Flacius and of gnesio-Lu­ istic criticism· of the radical theology of therans concerning the asynergistic-passive, the Enlightenment, we may be surprised yes, resisting disposition of man in the to find that he is sometimes rather indif­ appropriation of grace.81S ferent toward the differences in the under­ For the same reason Semler is very criti­ standing of these concepts. An explanation of this attitude may be found in the fact cal of Luther's De servo arbitrio, and he that, according to Semler, the statements speaks well of Erasmus.86 of the New Testament are not a strict, If all this adds up to the fact that Semler closed, doctrinal unity but also with had an un-Lutheran understanding of hu­ respect to soteriology admit varying un­ man nature, we must grant this. We must derstandings and interpretations. Semler not, however, conclude that he shared the is of the opinion that the redemption optimistic understanding of human nature wrought through Jesus Christ must be that was prevalent in rationalism. Hornig understood in a spiritual sense as a re­ says: demption from the power of the devil. It According to Semler, it is not the moral is, however, typical that Semler does not fearfulness of pietism but the conscious­ claim that his interpretation is the only ness of sin which is the mark of the Chris­ interpretation but will also let the in­ tian life. This understanding is so im­ terpretation which he himself rejects portant because . . . it departs from the stand as a Christian understanding.88 optimistic understanding of man that pre­ One is not surprised therefore that Sem- vailed in the Enlightenment. Semler does ler sometimes speaks very much like a Lu­ not share in the prevalent confidence in theran in matters of soteriology and at the goodness of human natute. Rather he other times in ways which appear to a Lu­ insists against the natutalists that they theran to be a denial of the Biblical and misunderstand the Christian consciousness Lutheran doctrine of the redemption in of sin when they believe that they must Christ Jesus. fight against this with rational argu­ While Semler at times seems to want ments.87 to hold fast to the Lutheran distinction According to Hornig, Semler wanted to between Law and Gospel, Hirsch, who hold fast to the doctrine of justification as cannot be accused of being particularly Lutheran or orthodox, accuses him of 85 Ibid., p. 54. knocking a hole into the old evangelical, 86 Hornig, p. 133. 87 Ibid., p. 31. 88 Ibid., p. 105. 76 HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD dogmatical doctrine of Law and Gospel Christ has redeemed us not only from the through his denial of the active obedience curse and the dominion of the Law but of Christ. Because Luther had taught that also from its precepts and demands. Sem­ not everything in the law of Moses con­ ler sees this latter understanding threat­ ened by the traditional division of the cerns Christians but only that which is in Law into three kinds of laws: moral laws, harmony with the natural law, Hirsch says: civil laws, and ceremonial laws. He says [Semler). immediately draws this con­ that this division is not Scriptural. When clusion from the insight of Luther: The it is maintained that Jesus Christ has theologumenon, as though Jesus Christ redeemed us only from the "Levitical and had freed us from the Law of Moses by ceremonial law," this must be viewed as His obedience, is to be given up. It is an an inadmissible limiting of Paul's state­ inadmissible generalization, which is true ment. For Paul teaches an unlimited free­ only for Jews who are converted to Chris­ dom from the Law which Jesus has ac­ tianiry. complished through His death on the Semler judges that by this a hole has cross.90 been made in the old evangelical dogmati­ It is evident that Semler here occupies cal doctrine of Law and Gospel,89 the position of the so-called antinomians. Here we must return to Semler's doc­ This is freely recognized by Hornig. Hor­ trine of Scripture. We have seen that he nig tells us that it was Semler's opinion distinguished between Scripture and the that Luther and Melanchthon had origi­ Word of God. When he was asked nally proclaimed total freedom from the what is the Word of God in Scripture, Law but that in the antinomian contro­ Semler answered: "Law and Gospel is the versies they had been misled and had in Word of God." With his doctrine of ac­ part given up their position. Semler's anti­ commodation this permitted him to reject nomianism is characterized by Hornig as many things in Scripture as not being the follows: Word of God. How Semler used the distinction be­ In the life of Christians the deciding thing, according to Semler, tween Law and Gospel we may learn from is that the thinking of the Christians agrees with the following statement in Hornig: the spirit of Christ. The good works of Semler stresses the distinction between the new obedience are distinguished from Law and Gospel more strongly than do the work,S demanded in the Law not so the later Orthodox dogmaticians. He in­ much with respect to their content as with terprets the Gospel as the total conquest respect to their motive. Christian dis­ and abolition of the Law. Through the cipleship, according to Semler, consists in work of redemption of Jesus Christ, taking on the mind of Christ. But if the through His death on the cross and His life of Christians is lived with this mind resurrection, we have been redeemed from then the Christian no longer needs th~ the dominion and the curse of the law. instruction of an ethics based in Law With this statement, as Semler under­ (einer gesetzlichen Ethik) .91 stands it, the New Testament proclamation of freedom from the Law has not yet been Hornig recognizes that with this posi- described in all its implications. For Jesus 90 Hornig, pp. 95 f. 89 Hirsch, p. 64. 91 Ibid., p. 142. HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD 77 tion Semler accepted the position qf Jo­ Schmittner sees Semler advancing step hann Agricola in opposition to Luther.o2 by step toward a creedless· Christianity. Semler did not consider Agricola in He says: principle an antinomian but merely an While Semler's earlier work still sees opponent of the opinion that the Law dogma as being essentially related to the of Moses had any kind of abiding power Gospel, it appears in his later works al­ over a Christian.o3 most only under a pragmatistic-sociologi­ We are therefore not surprised that cal aspect, as an external agreement which Semler criticized the teaching of the Lu­ is to facilitate the social coexistence of Christians and the instruction· and divine theran Confessions concerning the third worship but does not really belong to the use of the Law. He called this teaching essence of Christianity.. Semler does not eine sehr entbehrliche Lehrart. recognize .the confessional character of In this rather long section on the influ­ dogma, the confession of faith contained ence of Semler's historical-critical method in it, the necessary "intolerance of revela­ on his understanding of Christian doctrine tion itself," from which alone dogma dare .. we must devote some attention to his receive its authority.06 .. understanding of eschatology, which we From all this it is evident that while will recognize as the understanding of this Semler thought of himself as the foe of subject that is found in much modern the­ rationalism, who would defend Christian ology. Semler considered the Biblical state­ truth against the attacks of the vulgar ra­ ments concerning the end of the world tionalists, he himself gave. up one article as a of faith after the other and himself played conscious accommodation of the apostles into the hands of the rationalists. Above to the traditional concepts of late Jewish all things Semler denied the divine inspira­ Apocalyptic; he relativizes them as such tion of Scripture as a whole and brought and separates them from the real content in a concept of inspiration that differs not of New Testament proclamation.94 only from the exaggerated concept of Or­ Hornig returns to the subject of Semler's thodoxy but also from the. claims of Holy understanding of eschatology toward the Scripture itself. end of his book. He asks whether, while Our church is today faced with the his­ rejecting what he considered a mythologi­ torical and literary criticism whose propo­ cal garb in the Biblical teachings of escha­ nent Semler was in his day. As our church tology, Semler retained any belief in an faces this criticism it must ask itself in all eschatology that figures with a future end earnestness what will happen if we accept of the world. He finds that this is not and use this theory as it has come to us so and says: historically, not only to our concept of the It is evident that Semler totally abandoned Scripture itself, but to all Christian doc­ the futuristic eschatology which looks to trine, to the articles of faith to· which we the end of the world and of history.95 subscribe in the Lutheran Confessions, and 92 Ibid., p. 143. to the ecumenical creeds themselves. 93 Ibid. Springfield, ill. 94 Ibid., p. 144. 95 Ibid., p. 231. 96 Schmittner, pp. 64 f. Lutheran Hermeneutics and Hermeneutics Today

JOHN WARWICK MONTGOMERY

"1 e probleme de l'hermeneutique est, of a theological discipline, and above all, L depuis plusieurs annees, a cote de the task of preaching and teaching in the celui du 'Jesus historique,' Ie probleme Ie church and to the world." 3 plus souvent traite au sein de la theologie Laeuchli is not exaggerating: the very protestante." So wrote Jesuit theologian possibility of the theological enterprise Rene· Marle as he observed the Protestant and the continuance of evangelical procla­ scene in 1963.1 The last two years have mation depend squarely upon the church's marked an even greater intensification of response to current hermeneutic issues. interest in the hermeneutic question, as is Because hermeneutics is no longer seen as well evidenced by the appearance this year an isolated and rather prosaic subbranch of of an American counterpart to Gerhard exegetical theology but as the focal point of Ebeling's Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und all the theological disciplines - as the key Kirche, the first volume of which is titled to the overall relation of Word and faith,4 The Bultmann School of Biblicallnterpre­ the church that takes a misstep here may tation: New Directions? 2 The latest issue well find itself fatally committed to heresy of Dialog is appropriately devoted to "Bib­ or to irrelevance. Thus it behooves us in lical Interpretation," and there we find all seriousness to examine the approaches Samuel Laeuchli of the Garrett Theological to the hermeneutic task being advocated Seminary noting the crucial nature of the today and to compare them with Scripture present hermeneutic quest: "After even and with the hermeneutical heritage of a superficial study of the questions in­ the Reformation. volved, one comes rather soon to one's The present essay endeavors to provide senses, realizing that in this pertinent such a comparison, with special reference debate a great deal is at stake - the mean­ ing of scriptural language, the possibility 3 Samuel Laeuchli, "Issues in the Quest of a Hermeneutic," Dialog, IV (Autumn 1965), 1 Rene MarIe, Le Probleme theolog;que de 250. l' hermeneutique: Les grands axes de la re­ cherche contemporaine (Paris: Editions de 4 See especially Gerhard Ebeling's pro­ l'Orante, 1963), p.7. grammatic essay, "The Significance of the Criti­ cal Historical Method for Church and Theology 2 James M. Robinson, et aI., The Bultmann in Protestantism," which appeared in Zeitschrift School of Biblical Interpretation: New Direc­ fur Theologie und Kirche, XLVII (1950), tions? Vol. I of Journal for Theology and the 11 ff., when the journal was reestablished under Church (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965). Ebeling's editorship; the same essay may be consulted in Ebeling's Wort und Glaube John Warwick Montgomery is professor of (Tiibingen: ]. C. B. Mohr, 1960), pp. 12 ff., and church history at Trinity Evangelical Divin­ in its English translation, Word and Faith ity School, Deerfield, Ill. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), pp. 27 ff. 78 HERMENEUTICS TODAY 79 to the Lutheran hermeneutic. It· is this logical approaches both in Europe and in essayist's conviction that far too little of America .would seem to mUitate against present hermeneutic discussion takes into any unified hermeneutic theme. Bultmann's account the church's past wrestlings with successor at Marburg, Werner Georg interpretive problems. How readily we Kiimmel, sees no less than five distinct forget Bernard of Chartres' sage words: orientations in European New Testament "Nous sommes comme des nains assis sur scholarship, not counting "orthodox" Bar­ les epaules de geauts. Nous voyons donc thians and Bultmannians: 6 (1) conserva­ plus de choses que les Anciens, et de plus tives (e. g., Karl Heinrich Rengstorf of lointaines, mais ce n' est ni par l' acuite de Miinster) , (2) H eilsgeschichte scholars notre vue, ni par la hauteur de notre taille, (e. g., Kiimmel himself), (3) the post­ c'est seulement qu'ils nous portent et nous Bultmannian group (including Ernst haussent de leur hauteur gigantesque." 5 Fuchs, Gerhard Ebeling, Hans Conzel­ The insights of the Reformation, above all, mann, Ernst Kiisemann, and Giinther must not be neglected in our contemporary Bornkamm, as well as the more individu­ hermeneutic quest, for that epoch wrestled alistic Heinrich Ott), (4) the Pannenberg most tenaciously and heroically with the school, led by the young Mainz theologian core problems of Biblical interpretation W olfhardt Pannenberg, and (5) indepen­ and application. dents, whose views defy group categoriza­ Our first task will be to obtain a clear tion (e. g., Ethelbert Stauffer, Helmut picture of the mid-20th-century hermeneu­ Thielicke, and Oscar Cullmann). And if tic stance in Protestantism. Next we shall these several groupings were not suffi­ observe the manner in which the contem­ ciently intimidating, we can remind our­ porary hermeneutic movement understands selves that they leave out contemporary Luther's approach to Scripture; and this in American theological thought entirely! Yet turn will lead to a reexamination of the I do believe that a single hermeneutic Lutheran hermeneutic. Finally we shall orientation can be traced in current the­ take a hard doctrinal and epistemological ology. To find it we must set forth the look at the current hermeneutic orienta­ hermeneutic thrust of individual European tion and pose the unavoidable question of and American theologians and then ob­ confessional limits as regards the employ­ serve the common thread binding them ment of interpretive methodology. together. Our survey, though necessarily cursory, will endeavor to render faithfully THE LEITMOTIV OF CONTEMPORARY the hermeneutic perspective of the views HERMENEUTICS discussed; references to primary and sec­ ondary literature will offer avenues for •Is it possible to arrive at any single further study to those wishing it. characterization of Protestant hermeneutics today? The bewildering variety of theo- 6 Kummel presented this typology in dis­ cussion with Carl F. H. Henry; see the lat­ 5 Quoted in Etienne Gilson, L'Esprit de la ter's "European Theology Today," Faith and philosophie medievale, 2d ed. (Paris: Librairie Thought: Journal .of. the Victoria Institute, Philosophique ]. Vrin, 1944), p.402. XCIV (Spring 1965), 9-91, especially p.12. 80 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

.. ". Rudolf Bultmann one cannot interpret history validly from some distant, disengaged vantage point. We begin' with Rudolf Bultmann, ... We can now see in what terms Bult­ whose preoccupation with hermeneutics mann is willing to speak of the Bible as has probably been the single most impor­ authoritative: the Bible is authoritative tant factor" in .bringing about the over­ only in so far as it communicates the claim whelming current interest in the subject. (Anspruch) of God on me and thus Bultmann set:s forth his hermeneutical leads me to radical obedience in faith. position most clearly in his essay, "Is Exe­ It is authoritative in so far as it calls into gesis Without Presuppositions Possible?" 7 question my previous self-understanding His answer: Though exegesis must not and leads me to a new self-understanding presuppose . its results, it can never dis­ - from seeing myself as one who must pense with the method of historical-critical and perhaps can. make his own way to seeing myself as a sinner before God who research (including the nonmiraculous by God's now occurring act of grace has view of the universe that sees "the whole been given new life with an openness to· historical process as a closed unity") or the future.9 with an existential "life relation" between Karl Barth Scriptural text and the interpreter himself; Barth roundly condemns Bultmann's thus all Biblical interpretation involves a necessary circularity (the so-called "her­ claim that before interpreting Scripture one has to "put on the armor" of Heideg­ meneutical circle" embracing text and exe­ gete) , and .no exegesis can properly be ger's existential philosophy. Implicitly in his Church DogmaticJ and explicitly in his regarded as "objective." 8 Rudolph Bultmann: Bin VerJuch ihn zu The valid}tY of Bultmann's hermeneutics verJtehen,1° Barth sets himself against such depends on whether or not he is right a hermeneutic - which for him is nothing when he says that to speak of God is less than a return to the Old Liberalism. simultaneously to speak of oneself. That is, hermeneutics - when its object is to Barth rejects the Bultmannian notion of understand the meaning of Christian faith a normative VorventCindniJ brought to in the Bible - deals with history, and Scripture from the outside; the interpreter, says Barth, must allow the Bible to act as 7 Rudolf Bultmann, "1st voraussetzungslose a "catalyst" on his powers of comprehen­ Exegese miiglich?" Theologische Zeitschrift, XIII (1957), 409-17; English translation in sion, thereby modifying and refining the Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, ed. Schubert M. Ogden (New 9 Jackson Forstman, "Bultmann's Conception York: Meridian Living Age Books, 1960), and Use of Scripture," Interpretation, XVII pp.289-96. (1963), 459-61. The same point is made in greater detail and with even more force in 8 Cf. on Bultmann's circularity principle Armin Henry Limper, "Hermeneutics and chap. i ("Qu'est-ce que l' 'objectivite'?") of Eschatology: Rudolf Bultmann's Interpretation Andre Malet, Mythos et logos: La pensee de of John, Chapters 13-17" (unpublished Ph.D. Rudolf Bultmann, Lettre-preface de R. Bult­ dissertation, The Divinity School, University of mann (Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1962), Chicago, 1960), and John Warwick Mont­ pp.5-19. gomery, "The Fourth Gospel Yesterday and To­ 10 Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann: Ein V 81'­ day," Concordia Theological Monthly, XXXIV such ibn zu verstehen (Zollikon-Ziirich: Evan­ (April 1963), 203-205. gelischer Verlag, 1952). HERMENEUTICS TODAY 81 preconceptions he brings to the reading of Since truth is conceived as .personal en­ Scripture.u counter with the Christ of Scripture and Yet, as the Italian scholar Riverso has not as the propositional affirmations of the cogently shown, Barth never succeeded in Bible, the Biblical writers "can beat fault completely ridding his own theology of in every word, and have been at fault in existential-dialectic elements.12 Thus he every word, and yet according to the same is as willing as Bultmann to admit that scriptural witness, being justified and sanc­ neutral investigation of Historie will never tified by grace alone, they have still spoken yield a resurrected Christ (for Barth the the Word of God in their fallible and "objectivity" of the heilsgeschichtliche Res­ erring human word."15 Not unlike Bult­ urrection is discovered only in the faith mann, Barth asserts: "The Bible is God's relation).13 Barth's position, we are told, Word so far as God lets it be His Word, "disposes of many difficulties arising from so far as God speaks through. it." 16 Well the intellectualist bedevilment of the con­ recognizing the ecumenical implications of cept of faith, and sets it clearly in the con­ this view for dialog with Roman Catholi­ text of existential encounter and response. cism, Robert McAfee Brown declares that ... Although the New Testament message Barth "delivers us from what can be a very is often formulated 'Jesus is the Christ,' the perverse notion of sola Scriptura that Object of faith is not doctrinal proposi­ would assert that we go to the Bible and tions about Jesus, but the divine presence to the Bible alone, as though in the process or objectivity encountered in Him." 14 we could really bypass tradition. He de­ livers us from a kind of Biblicism that is 11 See the excellent comparative treatment content to rest simply with a parroting of of Bultmann and Barth on the problem of hermeneutical Vorverstandnis by Jesuit L. the vindication, 'the Bible says:" 17 And Malevez, "Exegesebiblique et philosophie," the eminent Jesuit theologian Gustave Notwelle Revue Theologique, LXXVIII (Nov.­ Weigel perceptively notes that for Barth Dec. 1956), 897-914, 1027-42; English translation as Appendix II to Malevez, The Scripture is the word of God, not in the Christian Message and Myth: The Theology 0/ sense that its propositions are spoken by Rudolf Bultmann (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1958), pp.168-212. Theology (New York: Collier Books, 1962), 12 Emmanuele Riverso, La teologia esisten­ pp.145-46. zialistica di Karl Barth: Analisi, interpretazione 15 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edin­ e discussione del sistema (Napoli, 1955). Bouil­ burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936--), I, Part 2, 529 lard agrees, though for various reasons he is not to 30. happy with the flat characterization of Barth as Ibid., I, Pt. I, 123. For an excellent dis­ an "existentialist"": "Certes, cette theologie [de 16 cussion of this and related passages in Barth's Barth] offre des aspects existentialistes (au sens Church Dogmatics see Robert D. Preus, "The tres large de ce mot): son auteur lui-meme en Word of God in the Theology of Karl Barth," convient [D. III, 4. viii; Bultmann, p. 38]" - Concordia Theological Monthly, XXXI (Feb. Henri Bouillard, Karl Barth, III (Paris: Aubier, 1960), 105-15. 1957),298-99. 17 Robert McAfee Brown, "Scripture and 13 See John Warwick Montgomery, "Karl Tradition in the Theology of Karl Barth," in Barth and Contemporary- Theology of History," Leonard J. Swidler, ed., Scripture and Ecumen­ The Cresset, XXVII (Nov. 1963),8-14. ism: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Jewish 14 James Brown, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965), Buber and Barth: Subject and Object in Modern p.42. 82 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

God, but in the sense that the vision of trolled theological speculation "a cause de the men who wrote the words points effi­ la richesse de sa pensee," and in order to caciously to the transcendent Lord God. avoid this danger of allowing the existen­ Barth does not give an exegesis of the tial situation or theological tradition to en­ Scriptures, but gives the existentialist gulf the clear teaching of Scripture, Cull­ meaning of the Biblical narratives.IS mann now opts for objective philological In Barth's approach to Biblical interpre­ treatment of the text throughout all exe­ tation, then, the "hermeneutical circle" of getical operations.19 text and interpreter remains unbroken in P ost-Bultmannians spite of his opposition to Bultmann, and it is only through the existential dynamic The most influential movement in Eu­ of the hermeneutic situation that a fallible ropean theology today is variously called book becomes God's Word and revelatory. "post-Bultmannianism" and "the New Her­ Only when we see this fully can we appre­ meneutic." Bultmann's satisfaction with ciate Oscar Cullmann's recent about-face: the mere "thatness" of the historical Jesus - his refusal any longer to support the Barth­ - his unwillingness to pursue the histori­ ian hermeneutic that would give philologi­ cal question beyond the perspective of the cal and historical exegesis merely a prelim­ early church's interpretation of Jesus-has inary role to theological interpretation impelled a number of his students to en­ proper. Cullmann observes that Barth is gage in a hermeneutic quest for a more especially exposed to the danger of uncon- meaningful conjunction of the Jesus of history with the Christ of the early church. 18 Gustave Weigel, A Survey of Protestant Wide differences exist among the post­ Theology in Our Day (Westminster, Md.: New­ man Press, 1954), p.33. Weigel's remarks on Bultmannians ( e. g., between Fuchs and p.30 are also to the point here: "Barth espe­ Ott), but they are united in their endeavor cially is interested in a return to the reformers, to connect faith and history hermeneuti­ not to the content of their teaching, but merely to their starting point. Against the liberals, cally. Though they have departed from Barth and Brunner go back to the Bible as the their master in many respects, they all Word of God, and they free the theological maintain the centrality of Bultmann's "her­ enterprise from the chains of philological method in order to achieve the true meaning of the meneutical circle" and his conviction that Scriptures, which philology cannot detect. an objective identification of the Biblical Against the Orthodox, the Neo-Orthodox reject text with God's Word is a manifestation any Biblicism whereby verbal inspiration or lit­ eral inerrancy condemn the theologian to make of unfaith. Thus Ernst Kasemann writes: affirmations that have nothing to do with God. Seemingly, therefore, the Neo-Orthodox are a 19 Oscar Cullmann, "La necessite et la fonc­ Center theology, but a closer examination of tion de l'exegese philologique et historique de la their thought has led many critics to believe that Bible," in Jean Boisset, et al., Le Probleme bibli­ they are basically liberals in a strange guise. In que dans Ie Protestantisme (Paris: Presses Uni­ America Neo-Orthodoxy in the Barthian man­ versitaires de France, 1955), pp. 131-47. Cull­ ner is not popular, though his work is sufficiently mann here disavows the Barthian position on known. The paradoxical character of such "theological exegesis" that he advocated in "Les thought is bewildering because the constant link­ problemes poses par la methode exegetique de ing of 'Yes' and 'No,' with no possibility of 1'ecole de Karl Barth," Revue d'Histoire et de bringing them into some kind of unified synthe­ Philosophie Religieuses, VIII (Jan.-Feb. sis, leaves the student dizzy." 1928),70-83. HERMENEUTICS TODAY 83

In New Testament language we are driven "although Ebeling devotes chapters to most to test the spirits even within Scripture of the traditional doctrines, he would not itself. We cannot simply accept a dogma refer to these as the objects of faith. Faith or a system of doctrine but are placed in is not to be bifurcated into the believer a situation vis-a-vis Scripture which is, and his beliefs on the analogy of the scien­ at the same time and inseparably, both tist and his objects of study, that is, the responsibility and freedom. Only to such an attitude can the Word of God reveal subject-object pattern of scientific episte­ itself in Scripture; and that Word, as mology is not applicable for faith." 24 biblical criticism makes plain, has no Marie offers in much the same terms a existence in the realm of the objective - fuller analysis of Ebeling's conscious break that is, outside our act of decision.2o with the hermeneutic of orthodox Prot­ Gerhard Ebeling is doubtless the most estantism: influential spirit of the New Hermeneu­ For him, the fundamental error of Protes­ tic. For him systematic theology has an tant orthodoxy (and doubtless, in his its subject matter "the word event itself, view, the error of all orthodoxy) has been to consider the Word of God indepen­ in which the reality of man comes true," dently of its actualization in preaching - and by "word event" is meant "the event to make it in some wayan object instead of interpretation"; 21 theology, then, has its of seeing a movement there. That is why, source in the hermeneutic circle embracing moreover, orthodoxy could not recognize Biblical text and existentially grounded in­ the peculiarly theological importance of terpreter.22 In reviewing Ebeling's Das hermeneutics. For hermeneutics is pre­ Wesen des christlichen Glaubens,23 James cisely that which permits the Word of M. Robinson uses the term "neo-liberalism" God to be truly Word, in other words to to describe his position and notes that attain its meaning, by conjoining with the one to whom it is addressed. . . . The 20 Ernst Kasemann, Exegetische Versuche [Protestant} perspective was transformed und Besinnungen, I (2d ed.; Giittingen: Van­ from the day when hermeneutics was no denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960), 232-33; Eng­ longer regarded as the simple applica­ lish translation in Kasemann's Essays on New tion of rules external to the reality con­ Testament Themes, in Studies in Biblical The­ ology, No. 41 (London: SCM Press, 1964), cerned, but as the way of disclosing that p.58. reality from the inside. According to 21 Gerhard Ebeling, T heologie und Ver­ Ebeling, the role of Heidegger and of kiindigungj Ein Gesprach mit Rudolf Bultmann, Bultmann has been determinative in this in Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theolo­ regard. For both - and Ebeling reso­ gie, I (Tiibingen: ]. B. Mohr, 1962), 14 c. lutely follows in their wake - hermeneu­ to 15. Cf. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr., eds., The New Hermeneutic, in New tics expresses a relationship to reality, Frontiers in Theology, II (New York: Harper allowing that reality to express itself, In­ & Row, 1964), passim. deed, to realize its meaning.25 22 Ebeling discusses the hermeneutical circle in his Wort und Glaube, p.337. In Ernst Fuchs the "dynamic" (vs. or- 28 Gerhard Ebeling, Das Wesen des christ­ 24 James M. Robinson, "Neo-Liberalism," lichen Glaubens (Tiibingen: J. c. B. Mohr, Interpretation, XV (Oct. 1961),488. 1959); trans. R. G. Smith, The Nature of Faith, (London: Collins, 1961). 25 Made, pp. 88-89. 84 HERMENEUTICS TODAY thodox propositional) concept of the Word "much obscurity, a multitude of viewpoints seems to attain its zenith. By a hermeneu­ more rapidly touched on than given depth tical principle Fuchs means the situation treatment, and a most abstract terminology, in which one places something to see what the original force of which has escaped it really is, thereby allowing it to display us." 28 its meaning; so, for example, to find out Heinrich Ott, Karl Barth's .successor at what a cat is, put it in front of a mouse.26 Basel, rejects "the so-called 'subject-object Scripture, then, cannot be interpreted ob­ schema' and the view that all thinking and jectively; it must be placed into dynamic, language to a very great extent necessarily existential relation with its theological have an objectifying character"; 29 he goes interpreter. Instead of being objectified, so far as to assert that "the objective mode the Word actively objectifies everything of knowledge is entirely inappropriate to else while forever remaining subject. historical reality because there are no such "Freedom for the Word" is manifested not things as objectively verifiable facts, and, in reliance on objective history or on a secondly, that all true knowledge of history .. propositionally inerrant text but in a stak­ is finally knowledge by encounter and con­ ing of everything on the Word of love.27 frontation." 30 Ott's attempt to repristinate Fuchs's hypostatizing of language is but Heidegger theologically will be evident a logical outcome of the post-Bultmannian from these existential (and. virtually solip­ rejection of the subject-object distinction, sistic) assertions that intentionally elimi­ but it gives to his writings such an air of nate the possibility of an objective Biblical mystical unreality that he is much less fre­ hermeneutic. 31 quently quoted than his confrere Ebeling. MarIe devotes but three sentences to him 28 Marle, p. 139. (in the last footnote of his book); for 29 Heinrich Ott, "Was ist systematische The­ those surprised at his neglect of Fuchs­ ologie?" Zeitsehrift fih Theolog;e und Kirehe, LVIII, Beiheft 2 (Sept. 1961), p.32; English especially for those students of Fuchs who translation in James M. Robinson and John B. would see in him the most profound theo­ Cobb, Jr., eds., The Later Heideggel' and The­ logian of the New Hermeneutic-MarIe ology, in New Frontiers in Theology I (New must confess that he has found in Fuchs York: Harper & Row, 1963),93. 30 Heinrich Ott, Die Frage naeh dem h;s­ torisehen Jesus und die Ontologie der Gesehiehte 26 Ernst Fuchs, Hermeneutik (Bad Cannstatt: (Ziirich: EVZ-Verlag, 1960); English transla­ R. Miillerschon, 1954), pp. 103-18. tion in Carl E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville, 27 See Fuchs, "Was wird in der Exegese in­ eds., The Historical Jesus and the Kerygma/;e terpretiert?" in his Z1I1' Frage naeh dem histori­ Christ (New York: Abingdon, 1964), p.148. sehen Jesus, in Gesammelte Aufsatze, No.2 Readers of the present essay may be interested (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1960), pp.286 if.; to learn that an orthodox Reformation counter­ trans. Andrew Scobie, Studies of the Historical weight to the Braaten-Harrisville. symposium is Jesus, in Studies in Biblical Theology, No. 42 forthcoming under the tide, Jesus of Nazareth: (London: SCM Press, 19(4), pp. 84 if. A semi­ Savior and Lord. Carl F. H. Henry is the editor, popular work directly reflecting Fuchs's her­ and this essayist provides the concluding chapter, "Toward a Christian Philosophy of History." meneutic approach is Heinz Zahrnt, Es begann mit Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart: Kreuz-Ver­ 31 For a valuable insight into Ott's most re­ lag, 1960); trans. J. S. Bowden, The Historical cent thinking, see Robert W. Funk's report of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 19(3). the Second Drew University .Consultation on HERMENEUTICS TODAY 85

The practical exegetical consequences of of the Pharisees and Sadducees he puts the post-Bultmannian hermeneutic can be the O)(AOL [Luke 3: 7].33 seen in the work of Hans Conzelmann Gunther Bornkamm's Jesus of Nazareth 34 and Giinther Bornkamm. Conzelmann re­ leaves one in little doubt as to the effect gards the New Testament writers as free of the New Hermeneutic on Biblical the­ reshapers of the Jesus tradition; thus Luke's ology. In a penetrating review of this own existential stance produces a "subordi­ book, Otto Piper of Princeton writes: nationist" portrait of Jesus, and Luke The English translation has been hailed "deliberately takes the 'today' [Lk.4:21} by some American scholars as "the best which is expressed in this passage [Mk. presentation of Jesus that we have" and 2: 19} as belonging to the past, and builds as an "event in the intellectual history of up the picture of Jesus' whole career on our time." May this reviewer be forgiven the basis of this historical interpretation."32 for dissenting from the views of his Discrepancies and historical-geographical esteemed colleagues. . . . blunders are rife in Luke's Gospel, for This new position . . . does not differ Conzelmann does not hold to any kind of in principle from Bultmann's. Though faith is not necessarily to be understood propositional inspiration. A single example in existentialist terms, nonetheless the will suffice: theologian has already arrived at the The locality of the Baptist becomes re­ knowledge of the religious truth before markably vague. Luke can associate him he opened his New Testament, and conse­ neither with Judea nor with Galilee, for quently everything in the Gospels that is these are both areas of Jesus' activity. Yet not fit to illustrate this truth is a priori on the other hand there has to be some doomed to be rejected.35 connection, so the Baptist is placed on the border. It is obvious that Luke has no Paul J. Achtemeier, in evaluating the exact knowledge of the area, and this is post-Bultmannian "New Quest," finds the why he can make such a straightforward whole movement riddled with unexamined symbolical use of localities. and perilous a prioris; it is in fact a revival He creates a further discrepancy by in­ of the ancient heresy of Docetism. troducing a motif of his own: in place We have, in short, the anomalous fact that the new quest of the historical Jesus Hermeneutics (April 9-11, 1964), in which is being carried on by a group of men Ott participated; the report was published under the tide "Colloquium on Hermeneutics," Theol· who would have to regard any valid his- ogy Today, XXI (Oct. 1964), 287-306. Funk succinctly summarizes Ott's position as follows: 33 Ibid., p. 20. "Ott continues to attempt to mediate between 34 Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene Barth and Bultmann, as he did in his early and Fraser McLuskey (New York: Harper & works. He has increasingly taken his cues from Row, 1960). the later Heidegger in endeavoring to work out a theological program which transcends the sub­ 35 Otto A. Piper, "A Unitary God with Jesus ject-object dichotomy and is thus nonobjectifying as His First Theologian," Interpretation, XV in character." (P.289) (Oct. 1961), 473-74. For further evidences of Bornkamm's aprioristic exegesis, see Born­ 32 Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint kamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Luke, trans. Geoffrey Buswell (London: Faber Interpretation in Matthew, trans. Percy Scott and Faber, 1960), pp. 170-71. (London: SCM Press, 1963). 86 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

torica:l fact about Jesus of Nazareth as theological situation in our own country. threatening the purity of the Christian Is the same nonpropositional, nonobjective faith. That the renewed search is carried view of Biblical interpretation in evidence on within a perspective that contains such here? The answer is very definitely, "Yes." a strange contradiction would seem to Examples could be multiplied; we shall indicate that the movement, as now con­ restrict ourselves only to the more promi­ ceived, can hardly reach conclusive re­ nent. As early as Joseph Sittler en­ sultS.36 1948 deavored to reorient Lutherans from a ver­ This antipathy to objective data among the bal, "static" approach to the Bible, to a post-Bultmannians is quite understandable "dynamic," "instrumental" understanding in the light of our preceding discussion: of God's Word. these theologians are simply working out All verbal forms, all means of communi" the logical implications of the hermeneuti­ cation through speech, prove too weak for cal circle - the "dynamic interaction" of this massive bestowal [of Revelation}. ... text and interpreter - that appears in vary­ We must ask after the Word of God in' ing degrees in virtually all of contemporary the same way faith asks after Jesus Christ. theology. That is to say, that the Word of God American Lutheranism becomes Word of God for us .... To assert the inerrancy of the text of scrip­ Leaving the European scene,37 we hasten ture is to elevate to a normative position on to America, particularly to the Lutheran an arbitrary theological construction.3s

36 Paul J. Achtemeier, "Is the New Quest Martin Heinecken has consistently ap- Docetic?" Theolog'Y Toda'Y, XIX (Oct. 1962), proached the problem of Biblical interpre­ 364. tation from the standpoint of Kierke­ 37 It will be noted that we have not discussed gaard's existentialism. In The Moment Be­ the hermeneutics of those European theologians fore God, Heinecken's most influential whom Kiimmel considers conservative or inde­ pendent (see above, the text at note 6). If more space were at our disposal, we could show that (cf. Keister Stendahl's comments in the text at even the most orthodox of these theologians balk note 52 below). Pannenberg and Thielicke, at an unqualified, objective identification of the though their theologies are a healthy corrective historical Scripture with God's Word. For to the current existential-dialectic mainstream, Kummel and the Heilsgeschichte school, as for draw the line at inerrant Biblical authority. the positions we have discussed above, divine And Cullmann, whose theology is perhaps the revelation "exists only in response" (quoted in most attractive of all, while categorically refus­ Carl F. H. Henry, Faith and Thought: Journal ing to view the resurrection of Christ (or any 0/ the Victoria Institute, XCIV, 34) and must link in the temporal sequence of salvation his­ not be viewed propositionally. Rengstorf and tory) as mythical, nonetheless regards the Fall the "conservatives" seem to use the Holy Spirit and the ultimate Eschaton as Biblical myths as a kind of deus ex machina to bolster an (see, on Cullmann, Jean Frisque, Oscar Cull­ epistemologically weak hermeneutic (see Karl mann: Une theologie de l'histoire du salus Heinrich Rengstorf, Die Au/erstehung Jesu, 4th [Tournai, (Belgique:) Casterman, 1960J, and ed. [Witten/Ruhr: Luther-Verlag, 1960}, p. the critical remarks in Gustaf Wingren, Creation 109). Stauffer properly recognizes the necessity and Law, trans. Ross Mackenzie [Edinburgh: of an objective treatment of the Gospel records Oliver and Boyd, 1961}, passim). (see Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, trans. Richard and Clara Winston [New York: 3S Joseph Sittler, The Doctrine 0/ the Word Knopf, 1960J) but handles most of the theo­ (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948), pp. logical concepts of the Bible as mythical motifs 62-63, 68 (Sittler's italics). HERMENEUTICS TODAY 87 book, truth is identified with paradoxical considers hopelessly outmoded the convic­ subjectivity, faith is understood as blind tion of Protestant orthodoxy that Scripture "encounter with the unknown," and the is "a collection of revealed propositions objective historical accuracy of the Biblical unfolding the truth about God, the world, text is considered totally irrelevant to and man" and that "because the Holy Christian commitment. Spirit was the real author of Scripture, It is thus impossible to find an objectively every proposition in it was guaranteed in­ certain basis for the revelation of God in fallible and inerrant, not only in spiritual, Christ. Again, Kierkegaard's prophetic but in secular matters." 40 For Quanbeck, insight is apparent in the controversies Biblical exegesis requires the hermeneutic waged over the inspiration, inerrancy, and assumption that "since human language is infallibility of the Bible. Fundamentalists, always relative, being conditioned by its who staked everything on a repudiation of historical development and usage, there can higher criticism, have definitely lost the be no absolute expression of the truth even battle. As far as any merely historical facts can be established with a degree of in the language of theology. Truth is made certainty, the composite character of many known in Jesus Christ, who is God' s Word, of the books of the Bible is established. his address to mankind. Christ is the only Yet the witness of faith is not thereby absolute." 41 affected. . . . A very radical critic of the The very recent introduction of the Bible may really be a "believer" if he post-Bultmannian New Hermeneutic into makes the proper distinctions and does the American theological scene is doing not try to bolster with irrelevant argu­ much to reinforce and deepen the theologi­ ment that which must be "believed" in cal stance represented by such older Lu­ a transformation of existence.39 theran theologians as Sittler, Heinecken, That the "dynamic" (as opposed to and Quanbeck. The focal center of the "propositional") view of Scripture is now "young Turks" is Dialog, the Lutheran quite well established in Lutheran theologi­ theological journal begun in 1962 under cal circles in the United States is evident the editorship of Carl E. Braaten of the from the 1963 symposium volume, Theol­ Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago. ogy in the Life of the Church, to which 14 Two other members of the editorial staff members of the Conference of Lutheran whose frequent contributions set the tone Professors of Theology contributed essays. of the journal are Roy A. Harrisville of In the chapter dealing with "The Bible," Luther Seminary and Robert W. Jenson Warren Quanbeck of Luther Seminary of Luther College. Significantly, Braaten wrote his doctoral dissertation on Martin 39 Martin ]. Heinecken, The Moment Be/ore God (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1956), Kahler (1835-1912), who "with appar­ p.262. In his Foreword the author writes: "It ently equal justification can be viewed as has been asserted that this book is not so much a forerunner of either Karl Barth or Ru- about Kierkegaard as it is an expression of my own views. This is cheerfully admitted" (p. 40 Theology in the Life 0/ the Church, ed. vii). "Cheerfully" is hardly le mot juste, how­ ever, since the vital objectifying elements in Robert W. Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Kierkegaard are totally neglected in Heinecken's Press, 1963), p. 23. interpretation of him. 41 Ibid., p.25. 88 HERMENEUTICS TODAY dolf Bultmann" 42 and whose "influence The first alternative can be set aside by a cuts across such varied theologies as those reductio ad absurdum.45 of Tillich, Barth, Brunner, and Bult­ Harrisville, who has flatly stated in a mann." 43 In a Foreword to Braaten's par­ Dialog article, "we admit to the discrepan­ tial translation of Kahler's Der sogenannte cies and the brdken connections in Scrip­ historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, ture," 46 is the co-editor with Braaten of biblische Christus, Paul Tillich makes the two volumes that endeavor through trans­ revealing assertion: "I do believe that one lations of current German theological ar­ emphasis in Kahler's answer is decisive for ticles to introduce American theologians to our present situation, namely, the necessity post-Bultmannian trends. In the second of to make the certainty of faith independent these anthologies,47 Harrisville himself of the unavoidable incertitudes of historical writes a paper in which he, like his Euro­ research." 44 Braaten agrees, and stresses pean counterparts, rejects the subject-object the fact that Kahler rejected the objective distinction in hermeneutics and history and approach to Biblical interpretation charac­ classes attempts to operate with an objec-·· teristic of Protestant orthodoxy: tive text as throwbacks to the liberal "life Kahler felt that the orthodox definition of Jesus" era.48 Jenson, a critic of the pres­ of faith involving the sequence of notitia, ent essayist for his belief in plenary in­ assensus, and fiducia led to an intellec­ spiration,49 likewise blurs the hermeneutic tualistic regimentation of the ordo salutis. task by interlacing Biblical text with "dog­ Volitional assent to intellectual informa­ matic tradition" and with "the live ques­ tion about God and Christ was made a tions of our present existence"; thus, for prerequisite of saving faith. This infor­ him, "even the profoundest reading and mation was to be found in the Bible and was secured by the doctrine of verbal 45 Ibid., pp.17-18, 3l. inspiration. This attempt of Protestant Orthodoxy to provide a threshold of objec­ 46 Roy A. Harrisville, "A Theology of Redis­ covery," Dialog, II (Summer 1963), 190. Har­ tivity over which a person must pass to risville's book, His Hidden Grace: An Essay on enter the household of faith was particu­ Biblical Criticism (New York: Abingdon, larly offensive to Kahler. . .. [For him} 1965), is an attempt to make the higher criti­ cism of Scripmre palatable if not attractive to the Bible is nothing less than the Word clergymen schooled in classical Lutheran theol­ of God to those who believe in Christ. ogy . . . . With Kahler's christo logical view of 47 Cited in note 30 above. The first is Carl biblical authority it was possible to arbi­ E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville, Kerygma and trate the painfully fruitless discussion History: A Symposium on the Theology of about whether everything in the Bible Rudolf Bultmann (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962) . or only parts of it are the Word of God. 48 Harrisville, "Representative American Lives of Jesus," The Historical Jesus and the 42 Martin Kahler, The So-called Historical Kerygmatic Christ, pp. 172-96. Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, trans. and ed. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress 49 Robert W. Jenson, "Barth Weak on Press, 1964), p.2. Scripture?" Dialog, I (Autumn 1962),57-58; this is a comment on my report, "Barth in Chi­ 43 Ibid., p.33. cago: Kerygmatic Strength and Epistemological 44 Ibid., p. xii. Weakness," Dialog, I (Aummn 1962),56-57. HERMENEUTICS TODAY 89 understanding of the Bible will not in it­ cussed, do not tell us precisely what that self give us a message to proclaim," and relationship is. "at the moment when we must speak, On Dec. 30, 1957, at the annual meeting Scripture provides no guarantee that we of the Society of Biblical Literature, a sym­ will speak rightly." 50 posium was held on "Problems in Biblical And now, what of the question with Hermeneutics." Two papers at that sym­ which this section began? How can the posium, both presented by advocates of the numerous positions here described be re­ new approach in Biblical study, set forth lated to one another? We might point out in bold strokes the core connections among the clear historical connections; for exam­ the views we have been treating. Let us ple, Heinz Kimmerle has shown that Wil­ hear first from Lutheran Krister Stendahl helm Dilthey, on whom Martin Heidegger of Harvard: and Bultmann based their existentialisms, Recent studies by Kasemann, Dahl, derived his hermeneutic from the later Bornkamm, Stauffer, and others have re­ Friedrich Schleiermacher 51_ thus a chain opened the question about the historical is forged from the subjective psychologism Jesus and tried to indicate the necessity of Schleiermacher (from which Ritschlian of overcoming our defeatism at this point. modernism grew) to the post-Bultmannian This has great significance for historical New Hermeneutic. And we have already studies but for the problem of interpre­ tation in terms of hermeneutics it seems noted the dependence of Barth as well as to remain a fact that by and large we have Bultmann on Martin Kahler, whose dis­ to approach Jesus in the traditions about tinction between Geschichte and Historie him, not the traditions about him in the places Biblical theology in a nonobjective light of factual historical information .... frame of reference. But such historical This state of affairs has a tendency to connections, though they evidence a rela­ cut two ways: It has led to the strange tionship among the positions we have dis- situation where modern biblical studies deal with the traditional theological con­ 50 Jenson, "An Hermeneutical Apology for cepts of incarnation, miracles, redemption, Systematics," Dialog, IV (Autumn 1965), 269, 274. Jenson has specialized in Barth; see his justification, election, and all the rest in Alpha and Omega: A Study in the Theology 0/ a language which causes some old liberals Karl Barth (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1963). to shiver and leads the listeners to many 51 Cf. James M. Robinson, "Hermeneutic modern preachers to believe that the Since Barth," in his The New Hermeneutic, liberal era of doubt and disbelief is pp.70-71. Kimmerle is a student of the Dil­ they critic Hans-Georg Gadamer, who, though finally overcome once and for all. Yet the he is trying to give an "ontological turn" to preacher as well as the scholar knows - hermeneutics by concentrating on linguistic or should know - that he is expounding understanding rather than existential psychology, traditions, the faith of the Church in nevertheless (like Dilthey) takes the hermeneu­ tical circle for granted, asserting that "historic Christ, while people might think that he tradition can only be understood by recalling is telling them the simple facts about the basic continuing concretizing taking place Jesus of Nazareth. In the long run it in the continuation of things." ( Wahrheit und must become clear that the situation which Methode: Grundzuge einer philosophischen Her­ meneutik [Tiibingen: J. c. B. Mohr, 1960], has allowed this kind of double talk and p.355) has made it possible to capitalize on the 90 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

distance between "sender" and "receiver," rather than faith's testimony to revelation. is actually based on an insight into the The paradox between revelation and bibli­ nature of the biblical material which is cal history was wiped out in like manner. more radical in its positivism than that Orthodoxy not only said God revealed of the liberals.52 himself in history, but also that there was Thus modern Biblical hermeneutics has a bit of history which was revelation. To be sure, this bit of history was set apart, shifted its concern from Scripture as a rec­ not subject to the laws of history in gen­ ord of objective fact to Scripture as a com­ eral, and so, in a sense, irrelevant for it. pendium of traditions reflecting the faith But, chronologically and materially, reve­ stance of the writers. It has in consequence lation was history. The Nile turned into become possible to use traditional Biblical­ real blood; and every first-born son in theological terminology without commit­ Egypt really died. This mayor may not ting oneself to the. veracity of the events be so; but for' orthodoxy the meaning of or interpretations involved; and this ad­ revelation depended on it. There was no mitted "double talk" is actually more radi­ gap between fact and faith. Fact demanded cal than the old liberalism.53 faith and the dependence of faith on f~ct is not paradoxical, but absolute. The in­ Another speaker at the SBL symposium, tegrity and factual accuracy of the Bible J. Coert Rylaarsdam of the University of is the guarantee for the history on which Chicago Divinity School, has rendered faith rests. contemporary theology, liberal and con­ servative, an immense service by spelling The most distinctive feature of the cur­ out explicitly the radical and unbridgeable rent theological emphasis is its dynamic chasm separating the hermeneutics of Ref­ view of revelation. This is not only true ormation orthodoxy from the hermeneutics of its neo-orthodox wing; it is equally of 20th-century Protestantism. The follow­ true of the successors of liberalism; or, for ing paragraphs cannot receive too close that matter, in such Jewish theologians as attention: Buber and Heschel. Revelation is not a For orthodoxy the forms and processes static form with a stable content, subject of revelation were summed up in the con­ to descriptive analysis; it is a dynamic tents of the Bible, and in the form of action, existentially apprehended, the events it reported. The Bible was called source of faith and inspired response. "the objective Word of God," or "the Revelation, per se, is not subject to anal­ Word of God written." It was revelation, ysis. Deeply aware of the conditionedness of all forms, material and intellectual, 52 Krister Stendahl, "Implications of Form­ contemporary theology shies away from Criticism and Tradition-Criticism for Biblical Interpretation," Journal 0/ Biblical Literature, equating any of them with revelation. LXXVII (March 1958), 34-36. Relativism, long with us, plays a more 53 A good example of this nonfactual, "dra­ radical role than ever before. Forms may matic-mythical" treatment of traditional Biblical be the media of revelation; they are an concepts is provided by the Norwegian Lutheran inevitable outcome of it. They can serve New Testament scholar Ragnar Leivestad in his as a cue to its meaning; but, as such, forms Christ the Conqueror,- Ideas 0/ Conflict and Vic­ tory in the New Testament (London: SPCK, are never revelation. To use the technical 1954). term, there is a paradoxical relationship HERMENEUTICS TODAY 91

between the action ·of God, which is reve­ a fallible witness to revelation, cannot be lation, and all objective structures and qualitatively distinguished from its inter­ processes that are patient of descriptive preters, past or present, and to understand analysis. 54 it we must recognize the relativistic dialec­ Here we have not only a clear and pre­ tic that connects us as interpreters with cise statement of the classical Protestant the text we endeavor to interpret.' hermeneutic stance but also a lucid descrip­ tion of the ideological thread uniting con­ LUTHER'S HERMENEUTIC IN FICTION temporary hermeneutical positions from AND IN FACT Barth to the post-Bultmannians. For ortho­ Having obtained a detailed picture of doxy the Bible in its entirety is God's the contemporary Protestant hermeneutic objective revelation, and both the events scene, we can now benefit from a historical and the interpretations comprising it are analysis of Reformation Lutheranism's in­ veracious; faith accepts and is grounded in terpretive approach to Holy Writ. Our the propositional validity of the Scriptural particular concern is to discover whether text, and all sound exegesis of the Bible the confessional roots of Lutheranism en­ must proceed from this presuppositional courage, permit, or reject the existential­ base. For contemporary hermeneutics, how­ dialectic hermeneutics of present-day Prot­ ever, the text of Scripture cannot be under­ estant (not excluding Lutheran) thought. stood as objective, historically veracious Since a theological wedge is frequently revelation separated from the exegete (the driven today between Luther and the rep­ subject-object distinction); an existential­ resentatives of classical Lutheran ortho­ dialectical relation between text and inter­ doxy,55 emphasis will be placed here on preter (the hermeneutical circle) has to Luther himself. This is not to say that we be assumed; and since God's revelation can agree with the stereotyped criticisms of never be equated with the Scriptural text, the much maligned orthodox theologians; hermeneutical affirmations will necessarily indeed, criticism of them is but the first have a paradoxical quality, and relativism step toward criticism of Luther and of the will "play a more radical role than ever Confessions, for as C. S. Lewis well noted before." In brief, for orthodox Protestant­ in reference to the 19th-century Tiibingen­ ism the Bible has stood as an unblemished school attack on Paul as a perverter of historical revelation, objectively distin­ Jesus' teachings: guishable from its interpreters, who in In the earlier history of every rebellion order to understand it must allow it to there is a stage at which you do not yet interpret itself apart from the existential attack the King in person. You say, "The orientations reflected in church tradition King is all right. It is his Ministers who or in the mind-set of the exegete; but for 20th-century hermeneutics the Bible, as 55 See ]aroslav Pelikan, From Luther to Kierkegaard (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Pub­ 54 ]. Coert Rylaarsdam, "The Problem of lishing House, 1950), passim, and the present Faith and History in Biblical Interpretation," essayist's editorial Introduction to Chytraeus on Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVII (March Sacrifice (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia' Publishing 1958),27-29. House, 1962). 92 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

are wrong. They misrepresent him and But Luther did not equate Scripture with corrupt all his plans - which, I'm sure, the divine event.58 are good plans if only the Ministers would Luther's Christological approach to the let them take effect." And the first victory Bible is supposed to have freed him from consists in. beheading a few Ministers: static, plenary inspiration and given him only at a later stage do you go on and an existentially dynamic hermeneutic; thus behead the King himself. 56 Quanbeck interprets Luther's view: But considerations of space prohibit our The apprehension of the Bible in static dealing here with the hermeneutics of or mechanical terms is necessarily inade­ classical orthodoxy. Presumably, in any quate. The reader must approach it as case, it will be granted that if Luther mani­ a dynamic and personal message in which fests a thoroughgoing "orthodox" herme­ he is himself existentially involved in neutic, his orthodoxist followers are de­ order to experience its purpose and serving of no more condemnation than power.... he is. Luther's view of the authority of Scripe ture differs greatly from that of the At present, however, the advocates of Middle Ages. For the Occamist theo­ the modern hermeneutical stance have no logian, Scripture is authoritative because interest in criticizing Luther; quite the every word in it has been inspired by the opposite, for they claim that he is a fore­ Holy Spirit. This is true of the Lutheran runner of the very interpretive approach scholastics also, with the significant dif­ they are supporting. So for many years it ference that, standing on Luther's shoul­ has been fashionable to associate Luther ders, they rejected the four-fold interpre­ with Kierkegaard, the theological father of tation and insisted on the historical sense existentialism.57 Along the same line, Sitt­ of Scripture. Luther stands apart from ler unfavorably compares the hermeneutic both groups. Scripture is his authority because it reveals Jesus Christ, because in of Protf!stant orthodoxy with "Luther's it God speaks His Word of judgment dialectical understanding of the Word" : and grace. 59 The post-Reformation theologians did not (Note here that the proportion is created: understand the Scriptures in this way. Medieval exegesis is to Luther's exegesis They failed sufficiently to ponder the fact

that the Bible, when it speaks of revela­ 58 Sittler, pp.34-35. Sittler relies here on tion, points beyond itself to an event to Philip S. Watson, Let God Be God (London: which it bears witness, but which is not Epworth Press, 1947), a secondary source of generally high quality, which, however, leaves the Bible itself. Luther's theological con­ something to be desired in its treatment of cern was directed toward this event, this Luther's doctrine of the Word. A more recent divine self-disclosure, to which the Bible work presenting essentially the same interpreta­ is a singular and incomparable witness. tion of Luther's Biblical hermeneutic is Willem Jan Kooiman, Luther and the Bible, trans. John Schmidt (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 56 C. S. Lewis' Introduction to J. B. Phil­ 1961) . lips, Letters to Young Churches (New York: Macmillan, 1948), p. x. 59 Warren A. Quanbeck, "Luther's Early Exegesis," in Roland H. Bainton, et aI., Luther 57 See, for example, Heinecken, The Mo­ Today in Martin Luther Lectures, I (Decorah, ment Before God, passim. Iowa: Luther College Press, 1957), pp. 92, 99. HERMENEUTICS TODAY 93 as the propositional, plenary inspiration (we are told) Bultmannseesthe inade­ of Lutheran orthodoxy is to an existential quacy of man's "intellectual" efforts to hermeneutic. We shall see very shortly "justify himself" by way of a proposition­ how the terms of this proportion must be ally inerrant Scripture.62 exactly reversed!) This same general eval­ The post-Bultmannian advocates of the uation of Luther is shared by a recent New Hermeneutic have been especially student of his Galatians commentary who vocal in claiming Luther as their spiritual claims that, in contrast tb Calvin, Luther's father. The following comment by Kase­ "interpretations tend to be subjective, di­ mann is typical: rected toward the individual, existential Neither miracle nor the canon nor the life of the believer"; accordingly Luther's Jesus of history is able to give security to hermeneutic principles can "lead to an ex­ our faith. For our faith there can be no treme - to a subjectivism (as in Schleier­ objectivity in this sense. That is the find­ macher or Bultmann) which stresses the ing which New Testament scholarship has religious feeling or the existential (per­ made plain in its own fashion. But this sonal) dimensions of subjective faith over finding is only the obverse of that ac­ against the object of faith, thus losing knowledgment which Luther's exposition of the third article of the Creed ex­ what Prenter calls Luther's 'realism'." 60 presses.63 For most of contemporary Biblical scholarship, however, as Rylaarsdam has Ebeling has made Luther one of his spe­ made clear, stress on "the existential (per­ cialties; his Habilitationsschrift in fact sonal) dimensions of subjective faith over dealt with the Reformer's, hermeneutics.64 against the object of faith" is anything but We are therefore justified in including a an "extreme." Thus no time has been lost rather long quotation from Ebeling - a in endeavoring to bring Luther into the quotation which shows with crystal clarity very midst of the Bultmannian and post­ how Luther has been drawn into the orbit Bultmannian hermeneutic camp. Bult­ of the nonpropositional, existential, circu­ mann's interpreters have consistently lar, "word-event" hermeneutic: claimed that in him "one sees in unmis­ The fundamental probleJll for him is not takable outlines the shadow of Luther," 61 a verbal description, of God but the ex- for just as Luther saw the inadequacy of 62 Andre Malet concludes his detailed treat­ man's moral efforts toward salvation, so ment of Bultmann with this analogy (pp. 394-96). 60 Thomas D. Parker, "The Interpretation of Scripture. I. A Comparison of Calvin and 63 Kiisemann, Exegetische Versui;;he und Luther on Galatians," Interpretation, XVII Besinnungen, I, 236. (Jan. 1963), 68, 75. Interestingly enough, 64 Evangelische Evangeli4nauslegung. Unter­ Sittler, in his Doctrine 0/ the Word, takes a suchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik (1942). Cf. diametrically opposite tack by claiming that his article, "Die Anfiinge vOn Luthers Her­ Calvin as well as Luther maintained Sittler's meneutik," Zeitschri/t /#r Theologie und dialectic-existential view of the Word Kirche, XLVIII (1951), 172.230., Ebeling is (pp. 27-32). responsible for the article on Luther's theology 61 So argues 'Robert Scharlemann in in the third edition of me Religion in "Shadow on the, Tomb," ,Dialog, I, (Spring Geschichte und Gegenwart, IV (Tiibingen: J. c. 1962),22-29. B. Mohr, 1960), 495~519.· 94 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

po sure of man's existence before God; that Says Ebeling at an earlier point in the is to say, the proclamation of God's judg­ article from which the above extended ment, ,over man. With this we are not passage was quoted: "We can by no means brought into the horizon of. metaphors. short-circuit the hermeneutics of the Ref­ The linguistic use of metaphors has now ormation and pass it off as a mere pre­ quite' il~other t~sk with reference to the cursor of modern historico-critical her­ subject-matter of theology, namely, to meneutics."6s To which we respond with bring man into the real situation, where the subject-matter itself occurs. . . . This a hearty "Amen"! Therefore let us by understanding of language is not defined analysis of primary sources determine what from the point of view of signification but in fact Luther's attitude was toward the from the viewpoint of the word-event interpretation of the Biblical text. Is he which must be accounted for and which, properly to be aligned with the contempo­ in turn, enables such accountability. The rary dialectical-existential approach, or hermeneutical result is, therefore, that the does he view the Scripture in another way? very word as such is of hermeneutical The issue here is emphatically not importance and is able to illumine, to whether Luther's own existential experi­ bring about clarity, and to give life. The hermeneutical task can only consist of the ences (his realization of justification by fact that we devote ourselves to the service grace through faith, his Anfechtungen, of the word-event in such a way that the etc.) played a role in his Biblical exegesis. word becomes truly word, and that it Certainly they did - as they do for all occurs as pure word in the fullness of readers of God's Word. The question is its power. Luther's thesis on the Bible rather whether Luther considered his ex­ as sui ipsius interpres must be understood periences to conjoin with the Scriptural along this line.65 text in a dialectic manner so that, in the For Ebeling's Luther, then, the hermeneu­ terms of the contemporary hermeneutical tical focus does not lie in "verbal descrip­ circle, each could legitimately work upon • tion" or in "signification," nor is the Scrip­ the other, and "God's Word could truly ture objectively Word; rather, in order for become God's Word." Granted that psy- the Word to become "truly" Word, we must "devote ourselves to the service of theran theologian of classical orthodoxy, Johann Gerhard. In Thomas Aquinas and John Ger­ the word-event." Marle expresses amaze­ hard (New Haven: Yale University Press, ment at how Ebeling has been able to give 1964) Scharlemann characterizes Gerhard's doc­ Luther "une etonnante actualite"; 66 quite trine of Creation as "the dialectic of obedience" and his doctrine of Redemption as "the dialectic so: in the above passage Luther is prac­ of the court." As Ebeling's Luther comes to tically indistinguishable from his contem­ sound like Ebeling, so Scharlemann's Gerhard porary interpreter.67 speaks the language of Scharlemann. Contrast Edmund Smits, "The Lutheran Theologians of the 17th Century and the Fathers of the Ancient 65 Gerhard Ebeling, "The New Hermeneutics Church," The Symposium on Seventeenth Cen­ and the Early Luther," Theology Today, XXI tury Lutheranism: Selected Papers, I (St. Louis, (April 1964), 45--46. Mo.: The Symposium on Seventeenth Century 66 Marie p. 80. Lutheranism, 1962), 1-31. 67 Robert Scharlemann has recendy per­ 68 Ebeling, "The New Hermeneutics and formed a parallel operation on the great Lu- the Early Luther," p. 35. HERMENEUTICS TODAY 95 chological or sociological conditions often clean-cut alternatives: recanting his posi­ led the sensitive Luther to an interest in tion, which patently ran counter to the certain passages of Holy Writ; granted de facto (shall we say existential?) church even that on occasion his existential stance teaching of his day, or suffer the ban of colored the Scripture he was endeavoring the Holy Roman Empire. Not an easy to understand. But in principle did he con­ choice. A coward would have recanted; sider such "word-event" situations to be a hybris-motivated man would have set self-validating, or did he believe that Scrip­ the power of his personal existential ex­ ture properly stood over his existential perience over against the tradition of the life as an objectively inerrant revelation, church. Luther was neither; his refusal proclaiming factual truth to him in judg­ to compromise truth showed that he was ment and in grace? no coward, and the total subjection of his Further, the issue of Luther vis-a.-vis existential decision to the Word of Scrip­ contemporary hermeneutics does not turn ture evidenced his humility. Listen to his on his employment of Christological exe­ confession: gesis or of the justification principle or of Unless I am convinced by the testimonies the basic Law-Gospel distinction. That of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason Luther uses these interpretive approaches (for I believe in neither the Pope nor to Scripture (and sometimes even over­ councils alone, since it has been established uses them!) no one acquainted with the that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scrip­ Reformer's exegetical writings will deny. tures that I have adduced, and my con­ But this does not commit Luther to a dia­ science has been taken captive by the Word lectic, experiential hermeneutic. It would of God; and I am neither able nor willing do so only if Luther saw these principles as to recant, since it is neither safe nor right legitimately arising out of existential ex­ to act against conscience. God help me. perience. Does he? Or does he believe that Amen.69 they arise solely from the objective, per­ This earth-shaking testimony has become spicuous text of an infallible Scripture? so familiar to us that we neglect to see One could attempt to answer these key what precisely it says. If no other state­ questions by catenae of Luther quotations, ment from Luther were available, his con­ derived from the overwhelming riches of fession at Worms would be sufficient to the Weimar Ausgabe. But in order to establish his hermeneutical stance in con­ avoid the damning epithet of "proof­ tradistinction to the current dialectic move­ texter" and in order to see the issues in the ment. For Luther says: (1) My conscience historical context of Luther's life, we shall - my existential life - has been taken observe how he employed Scripture in the captive by the Word (here clearly iden- three major theological controversies of his career: his battle with Roman Catho­ 69 D. Martin Luthers Werke, 7, (Weimar: lic ecclesiocentrism, with Erasmian hu­ Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1897), 836--38; manism, and with Zwinglian sacramen­ hereafter cited as W A. See Gordon Rupp's excellent treatment of this incident: Luther's tarianism. Progress to the Diet 0/ Worms, 2d ed (New At Worms Luther was presented with York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), pp. 96 ff. HERMENEUTICS TODAY tified with the Holy Scriptures); thus Lu­ Why? Because the Romanism Luther so ther, even at the most formidable %aLQ6~ vehemently opposed consciously permitted of his life, refused to succumb to the temp­ a dialectic interrelation. between Scripture tation of placing personal experience on and existential situation, thereby allowing the same level as God's Word or of giv­ the latter to influence the interpretation of ing it any . kind of dialectic relation with the former. Beryl Smalley, the foremost Scripture (thereby allowing it to become specialist on medieval Biblical scholarship, a legitimate basis for his theological has made clear how, during its formative stand) . ( 2) The testimonies of the Holy period, medieval exegesis allowed "present Scriptures are sure ~ unlike Pope and needs" to swallow up the objective mes­ councils who err and contradict themselves; sage of Scripture: thus for Luther the objectively inerrant, The Latin Fathers, followed by the as­ noncontradictory character of Scripture was sistants of Charlemagne, made Bible study taken for granted, in diametric contrast to serve their present needs. They retained the objectively fallible judgments of the both the literal sense and textual criti­ church. (3) Evident reason is legitimately cism, but only as a basis for the spiritual to be employed in reaching theological interpretation. First and foremost the Scriptures were a means to holiness. Lectio truth; thus Luther was no subjectivistic ir· divina formed one side of the ascetic trio rationalist who in existential fashion con­ angle: reading, prayer, contemplation. siders an objective, propositionally per­ Equally vital was its role in upholding the spicuous Bible to be an offense to faith.70 faith. The long line of commentators who Indeed, in Luther's biblical opposition developed the spiritual senses were not to the Roman Catholicism of his day, we only contemplatives but men of action. can see exactly the opposite proportion to They built up the Church, defending her that suggested by Quanbeck.71 doctrines against pagans, Jews and here· Instead of Medieval exegesis Orthodox hermeneutics Luther's exegesis Contemporary hermeneutics we have Medieval exegesis Contemporary hermeneutics Luther's exegesis Orthodox hermeneutics tics. They rallied her to the defense of 70 The ghost of this perennial stereotype of the Christian State under Charlemagne. "Luther the existential irrationalist" has been They supported the Gregorian reform well laid by two recent publications: Robert H. Fischer, "A Reasonable Luther," in Reformation against the secular power. They set forth Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton, the duties of clergy and laity. ed. Franklin H. Littell (Richmond, Va.: John They subordinated scholarship mean­ Knox Press, 1962), pp.30-45, 255-56; and B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Reason: A Study in while to mysticism and to propaganda. the Theology of Luther (Oxford: Clarendon It was natural in troubled times, when Press, 1962). chroniclers were beginning their para­ 71 See above,the text quotation correspond­ graphs not 'Eo tempore . . .', but 'Ea ing to note 59. tempestate ... .' The decline of biblical HERMENEUTICS TODAY 97

scholarship is less surpnSlOg than its en­ which he allowed "ecclesiastical tradition" durance. The wonder is that even in a to outweigh the authority of the Scriptural minor degree it survived, as a thread, if a message: slender thread, in the skein that ran from St. Thomas had a giant mind, to which the Alexandrians to the Victorines.72 there have been few equals, but his own As "early medieval and many twelfth-cen­ immense intellectual powers laid him open tury commentators had digressed 'anagogi­ to great temptations. His prior under­ cally,''' and as the 13th century displayed standing of human experience, of the a "growing interest in things present," so intellect and the soul, his masterful inter­ Smalley predicts that in the exegesis of the pretation of Aristotelian physics, meta­ physics, and psychology proved too strong later Middle Ages "secular interests and and rigid a mould into which to pour the naturalism will increase." 73 In this predic­ Christian faith. It is philosophy that tends tion Smalley is quite correct. Torrance to be the master, while theology tends to has recently shown that Thomas Aquinas, lose its unique nature as a science in its whose theological exegesis so deeply col­ own right in spite of the claims advanced ored the thought patterns of the later medi­ for it. In so far as the contents of the­ eval church, accepted the "hermeneutical ology surpass the powers of scientific in­ circle" 74 and was unaware of the degree to vestigation they are to be accepted as revealed truth but in the end the authority 72 Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in of ecclesiastical tradition outweighs in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952), practice the authority of sacred scripture p.358. so that interpretation of revealed truth is 73 Ibid., pp.372-73. On the wide influence schematized to the mind of the church.75 of the "fourfold" scheme of Biblical interpreta­ tion on medieval exegesis see Harry Caplan, The schematization "of revealed truth to "The Four Senses of Scriptural Interpretation the mind of the church" becomes more and and the Mediaeval Theory of Preaching," Spec­ ulum, IV (1929),282-90. more characteristic of Roman Biblical her­ meneutics as the medieval period draws to 74 For primary evidence, see Summa Theol., 2.2, q.8, a.l, ad 2; and see T. F. Torrance, a close, and it reaches a high degree of "Scientific Hermeneutics According to St. refinement in such Counter-Reformation Thomas Aquinas," The Journal of Theological Studies, XIII (Oct. 1962), 287-88. Unhap­ interpreters of the Bible as Sixtus of pily, Torrance does not see that when church Siena.76 And it was precisely this existen­ tradition submerges the Biblical text in Thomas' tial accommodation of objective Scriptural hermeneutic, this is due not to "deficiencies" in his application of the hermeneutical circle but teaching to "the mind of the church" that to the very nature of the circle itself, wherein text and interpreter are placed in dialectical trans. and ed. John Warwick Montgomery [St. relation to each other. A valuable contrast with Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962}); Thomas' exegesis is provided by the objectively see T. E. Pollard, "The Exegesis of Scripture textual approach of Athanasius, who was so and the Arian Controversy," Bulletin of the highly regarded both by Luther (see Gustaf John Rylands Library, XLI (1958-1959), Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of 414-29. the Three Main Types of the Atonement, trans. 75 Torrance, p. 289. A. G. Hebert [London: SPCK, 1931}) and 76 John Warwick Montgomery, "Sixtus of by the theologians of classical Lutheran ortho­ Siena and Roman Catholic Biblical Scholarship doxy (see David Chytraeus, On Sacrifice: A in the Reformation Period," Archiv fur Reform­ Reformation Treatise in Biblical Theology, ationsgeschichte, L1Vj2 (1963), 214-34. 98 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

Luther opposed atWorms and throughout must, be drawn from the Biblical revela­ his career. For him, unlike both medieval tion, and that the literal meaning of the Roman and contemporary Protestant her­ Scriptural text must be' accepted unless the meneutics,'77 the objective message of God's Biblical context itself (not any external written Word must stand forever over the influence) forces ametaphorical interpre­ corporate and the individual conscience­ tation. Listen to the following typical pas­ judging them, not in any sense being sages from De servo arbitrio, which ex­ judged by them. pressly spell out the distance separating Likewise in dealing with the Renaissance Luther from the nonpropositional, existen­ humanists of his day Luther stood firm: tially oriented hermeneutics of contempo­ Scripture speaks as clearly against the abil­ rary Protestantism: ity of the human will in salvation as it If you [Erasmus} are referring to essen­ does against any form of traditional work­ tial truths - why, what more irreligious righteousness. Luther's opposition to Eras­ assertion could a man possibly make than mus was squarely based on his convictions that he wants to be free to assert precisely nothing about such things? The Christian that whenever Scripture speaks it speaks will rather say this: "So little do I like with absolute authority and clarity, that sceptical principles, that, so far as the propositional assertions of truth can, and weakness of my flesh permits, not merely shall I make it my invariable rule stead­ 77 Present-day Roman Catholic scholars, it is worth noting, are exceedingly pleased to see the fastly to adhere to the sacred text in all that Protestant move toward dialectic Scriptural in­ it teaches, and to assert that teaching, but terpretation, for such a move opens up the pos­ I also want to be as positive as I can about sibility that Protestants, in accepting as legiti­ those non-essentials which Scripture does mate the dynamic force of church tradition in interpreting the Bible, will once again listen to not determine; for uncertainty is the most the voice of Rome. Readers may be interested in miserable thing in the world." . . . What comparing with the earlier-cited contemporary is this new-fangled religion of yours, this Lutheran approaches to Scripture, "New Shape," novel sort of humility, that, by your own Roman Catholic Eduard Schillebeeckx's paper, example, you would take from us power "Exegesis, Dogmatics and the Development of Dogma," which begins: "The religion of revela­ to judge men's decisions and make us defer tion is essentially a dialogue, a meeting between uncritically to human authority? Where man and the living God," and which sees does God's written Word tell us to do Christian doctrine as dynamically drawn by that? 78 the church from the Scriptural sensus plenior, not as "formally theological deductions from The notion that in Scripture some things New Testament data" (Dogmatic vs Biblical are recondite and all is not plain was Theology, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler [London: spread by the godless Sophists ( whom Burns & Oates, 1964}, pp. 115-45). Cf. also Lutheran Wilhelm H. Wuellner's unpublished now you echo, Erasmus) - who have doctoral dissertation, "The Word of God and never yet cited a single item to prove their the Church of Christ: The Ecumenical Implica­ crazy view; nor can they. And Satan has tions of Biblical Hermeneutics" (University of used these unsubstantial spectres to scare Chicago Divinity School, 1958); and for a different evaluation John Warwick Montgomery, men off reading the sacred text, and to "Evangelical Unity in the Light of Contemporary destroy all. sense of its value, so as to en- Orthodox Eastern - Roman Catholic - Protes­ tant Ecumenicity," The Springfielder, XXX 78 Martin Luther, De servo arbitrio, W A, (Autumn 1965), 8-30. 18, 604-605. HERMENEUTICS TODAY 99

sure that his own brand of poisonous hermeneutics. For Luther is so convinced philosophy reigns supreme in the church. of the verbal soundness and objective per­ I certainly grant that many passages in the spicuity of the original text of the Bible Scriptures are obscure and hard to eluci­ that he is willing to center his whole date, but that is due, not to the exalted defense of his Lord's Supper doctrine on nature of their subject, but to our own the five words TOUTO E(mV TO aiDfla flO'll. linguistic and grammatical ignorance. . . . Who will maintain that the town fountain His book, That These Words of Christ, does not stand in the light because the "This Is My Body," etc., Still Stand Firm people down some alley cannot see it, Against the Fanatics, begins with a pene­ while everyone in the square can see it? 79 trating historical survey of the devil's suc­ Let this be our conviction: that no "impli­ cesses in destroying the clear testimony of cation" or "figure" may be allowed to exist the church through corrupting the inter­ in any passage of Scripture unless such be pretation of the Bible. In the Middle Ages, required by some obvious feature of the Satan "had some of his followers in the words and the absurdity of their plain Christians' schools, and through them he sense, as offending against an article of stealthily sneaked and crept into the holy faith. Everywhere we should stick to just Scriptures" ; then Scripture became "like the simple, natural meaning of the words, as yielded by the rules of grammar and a broken net and no one would be re­ the habits of speech that God has created strained by it, but everyone made a hole among men; for if anyone may devise "im­ in it wherever it pleased him to poke his plications" and "figures" in Scripture at snout, and followed his own opinions, in­ his own pleasure, what will all Scripture terpreting and twisting Scripture any way be but a reed shaken with the wind, and he pleased." 81 And now, says Luther, even a sort of chameleon? There would then with the restoration of the Gospel and the be no article of faith about which anything Scriptures, the Schwarmer perverts God's could be settled and proved for certain, Word by refusing to stand under the lit­ without your being able to raise objec­ eral force of its eucharistic message; again tions by means of some "figure." All and again Luther comes back to this same "figures" should rather be avoided, as being the quickest poison, when Scripture argument-the words of Scripture must itself does not absolutely require them.so be taken as simple and literal truth: The objective, propositional reliability Here let the judge between us be not alone Christians but also heathen, Turks, Tartars, and clarity of the Biblical text was also Jews, idolaters, and the whole world: Luther's fundamental hermeneutic assump­ whose responsibility is it to prove his tion in his battles with the sacramentarians text? Should it be the Luther who asserts over the Real Presence of Christ's body and that Moses says, "In the beginning the blood. Here - on what has always been one of the key points of Lutheran doctrine 81 Martin Luther, "That These Words of - the lines are most decisively drawn be­ Christ, 'This Is My Body,' etc., Still Stand Firm tween Luther and the modern Protestant Against the Fanatics," in Word and Sacrament III, ed. Robert H. Fischer, Vol. XXXVII in Luther's Works, American Edition, ed. Jaroslav 79 Ibid., 606. Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: so Ibid., 700-701. Fortress Press, 1961), pp. 13-14. 100 HERMENEUTICS TODAY

cuckoo ate the hedge sparrow," or the inerrant Word, and its clear propositional person who asserts that Moses says, "In teachings stood in judgment over all other the beginning God created the heavens and writings. Thus one does not have to look the earth"? I hope the decision would be far in luther to discover such unqualified that Luther ought to prove his text, since assertions as the following: in no language does "God" mean the same as "cuckoo." Well, away creeps Lu­ I have learned to ascribe the honor of in­ ther to the cross, grieved that he cannot fallibility only to those books that are prove that "God" means "cuckoo." For accepted as canonical. I am profoundly anyone who ventures to interpret words convinced that none of these writers has in the Scriptures any other way than what erred. All other writers, however they they say, is under obligation to prove this may have distinguished themselves in holi­ contention out of the text of the very same ness or in doctrine, I read in this way: passage or by an article of faith. But who I evaluate what they say, not on the basis will enable the fanatics to prove that that they themselves believe that a thing "body" is the equivalent of "sign of the is true, but only insofar as they are able body," and "is" the equivalent of "repre­ to convince me by the authority of the 84 sents"? No one has brought them to this canonical books or by clear reason. point up to now.82 The Holy Scriptures are assuredly clearer, luther's encounters with tradition-ori­ easier of interpretation, and more certain than any other writings, for all teachers ented Romanists, rationalistically inclined prove their statements by them, as by humanists, and spiritualistic Protestants clearer and more stable writings, and wish leave no doubt as to his standard of reli­ their own treatises to be established and gious authority, the degree to which he explained by them. But no one can ever subjected himself to it, or his approach prove a dark saying by one that is still to its interpretation. For luther the canoni­ darker. Therefore, necessity compels us cal 83 Scriprure was in its entirety God's to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our ver­ 82 Ibid., p.32. "His [Luther'sJ exegesis dict and judgment upon them; for Scrip­ sought to derive the teachings of the Scriptures ture alone is the true overlord and master from the particular statements of the Scriptures rather than from the a prior;' principles of a of all writings and doctrines on earth. theological system. Not even to his own theo­ logical speculation, therefore, would Luther James and some other Scripture portions consciously accord the status of an a priori stemmed from his (fallacious) criterion of principle that would dictate his exegesis, even canonicity, not from any weakness in his doctrine though it cannot be denied that in his exe­ of inspiration. getical practice he sometimes operated with such 84 "Defense Against the Ill-tempered Judg­ a priori principles. Hence he was unwilling to ment of Eck," W A, 2, 618 .. This passage and have his doctrine of the ubiquity of the body many others like it demonstrate, as I have of Christ, which was compounded of exegetical argued elsewhere, that unless we make the and speculative elements, lay down the terms clumsy blunder of equating "verbal inspiration" for his exegesis of 'This is My Body'" (Jaroslav with traditional Romanist mechanical inspiration Pelikan, Luther the Expositor, companion vol­ (the "dictation theory"), "it is difficult to feel ume to Luther's Works, American Edition [St. . . . that Luther, if he lived today, would not Louis, Mo. : Concordia Publishing House, in fact consider 'verbal inspiration' the biblical 1959J, p.141). view most congenial to his own" (review of 83 It should be unnecessary to mention that Luther and the Bible by Willem Jan Kooiman, Luther's early rejection of the General Epistle of Christianity Today, VI [Feb. 16, 1962J, 498). HERMENEUTICS TODAY 101

If not, what are the Scriptures good for? as Luther derived his Christological theme Lets us reject them and be satisfied with ("the whole Scripture is about Christ alone the books of men and human teachers.85 everywhere" ) 88 from Scripture itself, so And here we arrive - in language no the Lutheran Confessions ground their jus­ less than in substantive content - to the tification principle in a verbally perspicu­ confessional statements of Lutheranism, ous and totally authoritative Scripture: where we read: It is surely amazing that our opponents ... wie D.Luther ... diesen Unterschied are unmoved by the many passages in the ausdriicklich gesetzt hat, dass alleine Gottes Scriptures that clearly attribute justifica­ Wort die einige Richtschnur und Regel tion to faith and specifically deny it to aller Lehre sein und bleiben salle, welchem works. Do they suppose that this is re­ keines Menschen Schriften gleich geachtet, peated so often for no reason? Do they sondern demselben alles unterworfen wer­ suppose that these words fell from the den solI. Holy Spirit unawares?89 Hoc discrimen ( inter divina et humana Never do the Confessions view the central scripta) perspicue posuit, salas videlicet sacras litteras pro unica regula et norma standing: "II est bien vrai que, parmi les omnium dogmatum agnoscendas, iisque spiritualistes, Sebastien Franck professait que la Parole agit ohne Mittel, sans instrument, et nullius omnino hominis scripta adae­ que Schwenckfeld soutenait une doctrine semb­ quanda, sed potius omnia subiicienda lable dans son traite Vom Lauf des W ortes esse.86 Gottes (1527). Mais la pointe de l'article etait autant contre Ie catholicisme, avec sa con­ The Lutheran Confessions, then, in har­ ception d'un Saint-Esprit (incarne dans l'Eglise) mony with and in dependence on Luther inclependant du texte de la Parole" (Histoire himself, categorically refuse to allow "dia­ Generale du Protestantisme, I [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1961J, 158). lectic relations" between Scripture lind any human teacher or writing whatever; the 88 Luther, Vorlesung uberden Romerbrief, 1515-16, ed. ]. Ficker (4th ed.; Leipzig, Bible judges man's total existential life­ 1930), p.240. Philip S. Watson in lectures it is not intertwined with it in "hermeneu­ on "The Theology of Sola Scriptura}} (Chicago tical circle" or "word-event." 87 Moreover, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Summer 1961) defended Luther's Christological reading of the Old Testament by noting that an entire play 85 "An Argument in Defense of All the can properly be read in terms of its ,final act; Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Con­ this is quite true, but it should be stressed that demned in the Roman Bull," W A, 7, 308 if. Luther could legitimately do this (while many In the preceding paragraph of this work Luther modern theologians cannot) because he was asserts his belief that the Scriptures "never yet fully convinced that the entire Bible is the have erred" and quotes Augustine as holding work of a single "Playwright," whose perspic­ the same conviction. Two excellent treatments uous composition warrants such interpretation. of Luther's Scriptural position that reinforce For a typical attempt by a contemporary medi­ the case we have been presenting are Lewis W. ating theologian to maintain a Christological Spitz, Sr., "Luther's Sola Scriptura,}} Concordia view of the Bible, see Nels F. S. Ferre, "Notes Theological Monthly, XXXI (Dec. 1960) by a Theologian on Biblical Hermeneutics," 740-45; and Douglas Carter, "Luther As Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVIII Exegete," Concordia Theological Monthly, (1959), 105-14, and Howard M. Teeple's XXXII (Sept. 1961), 517-25. devastating critique: "Notes on Theologians' 86 FC SD, Summary Formulation, 9. Approach to the Bible," Journal of Biblical 87 Emile Leonard properly interprets Art. V Literature, LXXIX (1960),164-66. of the Augsburg Confession with this under- 89 Ap. IV 107 f. 102 HERMENEUTICS TODAY doctrine of justification as arising inde­ strove to maintain the objective purity of pendently of Scripture or from an existen­ the Biblical message over against all adul­ tial "life relation" with Scripture - nor do terations of God's Word with human opin­ they ever (in accord with a reprehensible ions. Existential-dialectic approaches to modern practice) employ the doctrine as Scripture invariably produce ~uch adlJtera­ a means of devaluating the literal truth of tions, for by interlocking text and inter­ some portions of Scripture. To the con­ preter into a "word-event" relationship trary, they recognize full well that apart uncontroIled by the subject-object distinc­ from the perspicuously inscripturated tion, they permit - if they do not actually "words of the Holy Spirit" the fundamen­ encourage - the absorption of the Scrip­ tal Christian truth of justification could not tural teaching into the existential-cultural be sustained at all. situation of the interpreter. Instead of God's Word re-creating man in God's im­ A PERPLEX IN PERSPECTIVE age, man re-creates God' s Word in his own The hermeneutic of Luther and of the image. Lutheran Confessions stands, then, in ir­ Commenting on the Second Drew Uni­ reconcilable opposition to the existential­ versity Consultation on Hermeneutics, dialectic hermeneutic of contemporary which so weIl reflects today's perplex in Protestant theology. To make of Luther Biblical interpretation, Robert Funk per­ a forerunner of BuItmann - or of Ebeling, ceptively wrote: Fuchs, or Ott - is almost ludicrous. As Neo-orthodoxy taught that God is never I have written elsewhere of the Luther­ object but always subject, with the result BuItmann analogy: that third generation neo-orthodox theo­ The parallel is, of course, fallacious and logians have been forced to wrestle with "constructed" (d. the old saw: What does the non-phenomenal character of God. an elephant and a tube of toothpaste have They are unwilling to settle for God as in common? Answer: Neither one can noumenon (perhaps as a legacy of theolo­ ride a bicycle). Whereas Luther turned gies of history, and perhaps as the result from moral guilt to confidence in the of a radical empiricism), which means objective facts of Christ's death for his that for them God does not "appear" sin and resurrection for his justification, at all. ... Bultmann turns from his intellectual It is possible on this circumspective doubts to subjective anthropological sal­ view to see why the question of non­ vation - a direct about-face from the ob­ objectifying speaking and thinking in jective Gospel Luther proclaimed.9o theology is a crucial problem, and yet why The contemporary hermeneutic is, as we it refuses to come into focus: it touches have seen, a repristination of the very upon a root question, viz., can or how can one speak meaningfully of God, but it approach to the Bible Luther opposed is also difficult to address in an ordered throughout his career. Luther constantly and logical way because it is not apparent what "logic" is appropriate to the ques­ 90 John Warwick Montgomery, The Shape 0/ the Past in: An Introduction to Philosophical tion.91 Historiography (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Edwards, 1963), pp. 159-60. 91 Funk, pp. 303-304. HERMENEUTICS TODAY 103

Here the chasm between Luther and the the decline of medieval hermeneutics "was 20th-century hermeneutic yawns the natural in troubled times." Certainly we widest, for Luther was never in doubt as today begin our chronicles with Ea tem­ to the "logic" appropriate to divine-human pestate, and the chaos of hot and cold wars communication: It was and would always has unsettled us to the point where sub­ remain the logic of the Scriptural address. jective relativism - the bias against the For Luther and for confessional Lutheran­ objective absolutes-has come to domi­ ism, over against the finitum non capax nate even the field of theology, where there infiniti tradition common both to idealistic is least justification for it.93 philosophy and to classical Calvinism, God Ironically, nontheological disciplines is indeed capable of "appearing" in the have in recent years been far more success­ human situation and of making His will ful than theology in recovering ground lost known to man in univocal language. When to "nonobjectivistic" thinking. In spite of the contemporary hermeneutic reaches the the popular view that Einsteinian physics nadir of "non-objectifying speaking and and Heisenberg's Indeterminacy Principle thinking in theology," it simply betrays its have obliterated the subject-object distinc­ refusal to accept what for Luther was axio­ tion in favor of an "existential dynamism" matic to all theology: God is able to speak in science, "Bohr has emphasized the fact absolute, objective truth to man in man's that the observer and his instruments must language, and the Bible is that inerrant be presupposed in any investigation, so that discourse. Luther's Christological principle the instruments are not part of the phe­ in Biblical hermeneutics has implications nomenon described but are used." 94 In few modern Lutherans wish to face; for philosophy, the existential tide that has just as Luther refused to limit the Incarna­ conditioned so much of the twentieth cen­ tion or the Real Presence through rational tury theology is receding under the impact speculation about what God could or could of powerful analytical and linguistic not do, so he would have had no patience criticism which has shown that dialectic­ with our endeavors to limit revelation to existential aflirmations, owing to their God's "acts" (as distinguished from His subjective non-testability, are technically Scriptural words), to the "doctrinal" con­ meaningless.95 How remarkably like a tent of Scripture (over against its "non­ 93 See John Warwick Montgomery, "As­ theological" material), or to the "spiritual" cension Perspective," The Cresset, XXIV (May in the Bible. The God of Luther and of 1961), 17-19. confessional Lutheranism has never been 94 Victor F. Lenzen, Procedures of Empirical tongue-tied. Science, Vol. I, No.5 in International Encyclo­ pedia of Unified Science (Chicago: University The 20th-century hermeneutic perplex of Chicago Press, 1938), p.28. in theology is a reflection of the general 95 John Warwick Montgomery, "Inspiration cultural confusion of the epoch. Smalley, and Inerrancy: A New Departure," Evangelical T heolo gical Society Bulletin, VIII ( Spring it will be remembered,92 commented that 1965), 45-75, applies the insights of ana­ lytical philosophy to the question of Biblical 92 See above, the text quotation correspond­ authority; noninerrancy inspiration claims for ing to note 72. the Bible (particularly those by contemporary 104 HERMENEUTICS TODAY modern philosophical-linguistic analyst is thinking in literary criticism. Frederick C. Luther when he says that he should send Crews of the English Department at the the nonpropositional Erasmus off to An­ University of California (Berkeley), in ticyra - a health resort for the mentally ill The Pooh Perplex, has "analyzed" A. A. - since Erasmus necessarily asserts that Milne's perennial children's classic, Winnie he finds no satisfaction in assertions! 96 the Pooh,98 through assuming the guise of In the historical field also, the presup­ "several academicians of varying critical positions of existentialism are being seri­ persuasions." 99 Here we have a series of ously questioned. The Dilthey tradition of hilarious examples of what invariably hap­ sub jective historiography (which has so pens when interpreters create an "existen­ profoundly colored Biblical scholarship tially dynamic" relation between themselves from Barth and Bultmann to the post­ and their text. "Harvey C. Window," au­ Bultmannians) is incapable of sustaining thor of a casebook significantly titled, What the criticisms directed at it by analytically Happened at Bethlehem, writes on the trained philosophers of history. So, for ex­ "paradoxical" in Pooh; for him "all great, ample, J. W. N. Watkins, reflecting the literature is more complex than the naive new drive toward objectivity in historical reader can suspect," the literal meaning is study, has little patience with the idea that to give way to "multivalent symbolism," "to understand Ghengis Khan the historian and when the events of the book do not must be someone very like Ghengis Khan" fit his paradoxical categories, they are rein­ and points out that historical truth is de­ terpreted until they do so. "P. R. Honey­ termined not by the historian's subjective comb," a poetical contributor to the "little "temperament and mentality" but by his magazines" who engages in "intensely per­ inductive examination of factually objec­ sonal criticism," brings his existential tive evidence.97 stance to bear on the text: "In wondering A recent literary tour de force has par­ what I shall set down next in these nota­ ticularly well evidenced the growing self­ tions, I am reminded of Heisenberg'S Un­ awareness by belletristic scholars of the certainty Principle. The only thing that is ghastly results of existential "life relation" certain is that I am uncertain what to set down next, and in this I typify the whole Lutherans both outside and inside The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) are there seen to be modern age and the collision of elementary philosophically nonsensical and theologically at particles in particular, a fact I find pecu­ variance with the Biblical epistemology. liarly comforting." "Myron Masterson," 96 W A 18, 603-605. a distinguished "angry young man" for the 97 ]. W. N. Watkins, "Philosophy of His­ past 20 years, writes on "Poisoned Para- tory: Publications in English," in La Philosophie au milieu du vingtieme siecle, ed. Raymond Klibansky, 4 vols., 2d ed. (Firenze, 1961-62), 98 In a theological paper such as this it seems III, 159, 174. On the implications of analytical only right to cite the eminent Latin translation historiography for theology of history, see my of Pooh: Winnie ille Pu, trans. Alexander concluding chapter, "Toward a Christian Phi­ Lenard (Novi Eboraci: Sumptibus Duttonis, losophy of History," in Carl F. H. Henry's 1960). forthcoming symposium, Jesus of Nazareth: Sav­ 99 Frederick C. Crews, The Pooh Perplex ior and Lord. (New York: Dutton Paperbacks, 1965). HERMENEUTICS TODAY 105

dise: The Underside of Pooh," employing endeavors, he is convinced, place us "on as his guides Karl Marx, St. John of the the threshold of the Golden Age of Cross, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sacco and Van­ POOH! "100 zetti, Sigmund Freud, and C. G. Jung; he The fervent desire to avoid just such rejects those finicky "experts" who have a "golden age of Pooh" has led more and said that "there exist differences of opinion more literary critics to stop running in among these thinkers," for, after all, "each hermeneutical circles (the Doppeldeutig­ of them has helped to shape my literary keit is intentional) and to seek objective and moral consciousness." "Woodbine canons of interpretation. The result can Meadowlark," a perpetual graduate student be seen in such a superlative study as Elder romantically overwhelmed by the Angst of Olson's "Hamlet and the Hermeneutics of existence, paints a poohological picture in Drama," 101 where, over against all existen­ exact conformity with his world view: tial blendings of text and interpreter, Olson The most perfect emblem of ignorance is defines a perfect interpretation as "one contained in the 'Woozle" scene, which which is absolutely commensurate in its gives us Pooh and Piglet (ethereal, pure­ basic, inferential, and evaluative proposi­ hearted Piglet, the real hero of the book) tions with the data, the implications, and wandering helplessly in circles, following the values contained within the work." their own darling little tracks and miscon­ Theologians should carefully ponder Ol­ ceiving their goal ever more thoroughly son's essay, for, just as he notes that the as they proceed. Is this not the very essence only alternative to this objective approach of modern man, aching with existential is "an endless succession of free improvisa­ nausee and losing himself more deeply in tions on Shakespearean themes," so modern despair as his longing for certainty waxes? theology has offered ample evidence that "Simon Lacerous," editor of the feared the dialectic hermeneutic yields but a paral­ quarterly, Thumbscrew, describes Pooh as lel series of unrestrained improvisations on "Another Book to Cross Off Your List" God's Word. and terminates his acid analysis by com­ Even in the theological field (where an pletely losing the subject-object distinction oddly conservative temperament seems to between the book and himself; indeed, to encourage the persistence of liberal folly use Fuchs' terminology (but hardly in a long after it has been rejected in other manner to please Fuchs), the poohological areas of knowledge!) there is evidence word has "objectified" its interpreter: "The that hermeneutics is awaking from an en­ more I think about it, the more convinced chanted sleep of half a century. Thus, as I become that Christopher Robin not only we have seen earlier,102 Cullmann has dis- hates everything I stand for, he hates me 100 The book also provides samples of Marx­ personally." Finally, "Smedley Force," a ist and psychoanalytic interpretations of Pooh spokesman for "responsible criticism," com­ and some fascinating literary analyses based on pletely submerges the text by his interest specialized hermeneutic principles. 101 Elder Olson, "Hamlet and the Her­ in literary antecedents, conjectural emen­ meneutics of Drama," Modern Philology, LXI dations, and the "discovery" of errors (Feb. 1964),225-37. and inconsistencies in the book. Such 102 Note 19 above and corresponding text. 106 HERMENEUTICS TODAY engaged himself from Barth's "theological From philosophical theology severe cntl­ exegesis." More significant yet is James cisms are beginning to be voiced against Barr's demonstration that the dialectic "rev­ the epistemological sloppiness of existen­ elation through history" approach of the tially immediate truth claims and against Neo-Orthodox "Biblical theology move­ the strangely illogical argument, so fre­ ment" has colored with theological a priori quently heard today, that to expect any even such an ostensibly reliable work as kind of objective grounding for Christian Kittel's Worterbuch. Albrecht Oepke, who affirmations is to exhibit unfaith.106 in the W orterbuch claims that "revelation In short, the hermeneutic of Luther and is not the communication of rational of the Lutheran Confessions can hardly be knowledge," 103 is taken by Barr as "a very regarded as obscurantist today. In its in­ bad example" of the absorption of philol­ sistence that "sensus literalis sive historicus ogy by modern theological presupposition­ ... solus tota est fidei et theologiae Chris­ 104 alism. In his inaugural address at Prince­ tianae substantia," 107 it stands with the ton in December 1962 Barr drew the lines most advanced and clearheaded of contem­ even sharper: porary scholarship. God can speak specific verbal messages, But a far more powerful reason than when he wills, to the men of his choice. scholarship per se impels us to hold on But for this, if we follow the way in which the Old Testament represents the inci­ to the Lutheran hermeneutic. We have dents, there would have been no call of seen that the central doctrines of the Lu­ Abraham, no Exodus, no prophecy. Direct theran faith, such as justification and the communication from God to man has fully Real Presence, were derived from Scrip­ as much claim to be called the core of ture through the application of this her­ the tradition as has revelation through meneutic. To the extent that we move events in history. If we persist in saying away from the literal sense and plain that this direct, specific communication meaning of Scripture, to that very extent must be subsumed under revelation we undermine the salvatory doctrines through events in history and taken as Scripture proclaims and our church has so subsidiary interpretation of the latter, courageously preached. Desertion of the I shall say that we are abandoning the Bible's own representation of the mat­ Lutheran hermeneutic by the introduction ter.105 the Old Testament and in Modern Theology," Interpretation, XVII (April 1963), 201-202. 103 Albrecht Oepke, "uJtO%aAUJtT