ION LECTURES

Bethany Lutheran College Mankats, Minnesota November ]I 2

Robert David Pr)eus, Ph, D, , Th . B,

HOW IS THE LUWE'RAN CHURCH TQ INTERPRET USE THE OED MEW TESTmENTS?

LECTURE I: 3le Divine B%igin and Unity Principles There is ns more pressing and appropriake study for the Lutheran Church today than the assigment you have given me for the lectures during the Festf- val of the Refomation, $973, Throughout her hfs- tory the Church sf the Refomation has been thseat- ened by attacks Prow wPthout and with%w against the pp%neiples of sola (sahation by grace alone) and ppsola Bide (justification by faith alone without the works of ehe.Law), These attacks came from Rae, the enthusiasts, the Reformed and even from Luther- ans. Today the third great principle BE the Luther- an Refomation is under attack, the principle of Sola Scriptura, The principle is artbeulated as fsahlaws in QUP Confessions: s"~epledge sursglves to the prsphetgc and apostdic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain sf Israel, which is the only true norm (die * ' -and Wichtschnur)according eo which all teach- ers and teachings are to be judged." (FC SD, Rule and Norm. 3; Cf. FC Epit., Rule and Norm, 7). These assaults against the Refamation psindple sf Scrip- ture as the only source and nom of Christian theol- ogy are not new, These assaults have been carried on for over two hundred years, since the time of the Enlightenment, And the germs of such rationalism were already found among the Jesuits and Ssciwlans of the Reformation era, But today the threat is use the denial of the authority sf Scrip- hd so to answer the question posed in this s now found in almost all the larger Prstes- essay we must do two things. 1) We must re- sminations, including those that were former- examine our Lutheran hemeneutics and reaffirm its rvative and biblically oriented. total sway amo% us. 2) We must seek to und9r- stand, analyze, and assess what is going on today The attack against biblical authority is today, in biblical studies, and compare all this with the however, less overt than two and three generations evangelical Lutheran interpretation of Scripture, ago, There is less of the brazen rationalistic re- These two things I hope to do in these lectures, jection of miracles and fundamental articles of The results of such studies will reveal a great faith, Today the attack is more subtile, directed gulf between two definite forces at work in the against the interpretatian of Scripture, which is church today; the one a Lutheran, evangelical and the heritage sf Lutheranism, against the exegetical eminently biblical exegesis of Scripgure, and the conclusions of Luther and our Confessions, against sther a sub-Christian, naturalistie, pagan approach the most basic rules of interpretation eomsnby ts Scripture and exegesis, assumed to be correct and wecessary by evangelical and confessional LutHxerans, In short, the entire A, THE LUTMEMN INTERPETATION AND USE OF THE Christian faith is attacked or questfoned by means af a rejection of biblical and Lutheran hermeneu- tics, This is no exaggeration, Today Lutheran practitioners of the so-called historical-critical The? Questiom, '%ow is the Lutheran Church to method of interpreting Scripture Rave by the use of Interpret and Use the Old and New ~e~taments?" their method questioned every article of the Chris- can only be answered by consulting the one norm- tian faith: the historical facts underlying our tive standard for what is Lutheran, the Lutheran redemption (e,g, virgin birth, resurrection) are Confessions, TQe Lutheran Reformation represents said to be unauthentic sr improbable and the facts a clear and definite evangelical hermeneutic or underlying our doctrine are reduced to mere myths, approach to Scripture, Thes is true also of the parables, value judgments, theological conseructs Lutheran Confessions which, like the ecumenical metaphors, or Creeds, see themselves as expositions or at least This is how serious the situation is today, summaries of sacred ~cri~ture.~How often does A few years ago Rev, Kurt Marquart said, during his our Book of Concord claim that what is taught in Reformation Lectures at Bethany Lutheran College, the churches is "based solidly sn the divine ScripT 01 It seems to be appropriate to refer to the present tufes8@(Tappert, p, 31, is "the pure doctrine of total war (in theology) as the Prolegomenistic Con- God's Word" idp. 41, "the unalterable truth troversy, It elamours to be settled by a new For- of the divine kuTQrdH (ibid,- , p, 5) and 'bat CO~-= I I mula of Coneordl The real issue at bottom is, of trary to the Word of God", that it represents "the course, the aughority of Holy Scripture, that which truth of the divine Word'yibfd,), that It is I the RgfomatSon expressed in the battle-cry: 'Sola "agreeable and canfamable first of all to the i Scriptuxat "I mrquart is right I The battle cen- Word of God" (ibid. , p. 8) and "in accordance with 1 . i ters in the authority of Scripture. But even more the pure, infallible and unalterable Word of God" I precisely it centers in hermeneutics, i,e., in our This is the bold claim throughout our i approach and interpretation of Scripture and in historic confessions, that the saving doctrine pre- 1 how this impinges upon biblical authority, sented is bBblicaP, the result of exegesis, I -2- I 1 is bold assumption of the Confessions them- There is no difference between the hemeneutical s is certainly a chief reason for subsequent presuppositi~nsand nsms of Luther and Melanch- therans subscribing the Confessions with utter thsn and the writers of the Formula sf Concord seriousness not merely as historic relics of the who were their students.5 This means that we can past, but as living and contemporary Symbols for meander freely through the Confessions and the every age, and why t ve given their willing writings of Zaather according to a sort sf ana- subscriptions with a f onnula : "because the confessionurn, and find consistent hermeneu- Confessions agree wi sacred Scriptures". tical assmptions and practices, Our task then is merely to note what seem to be the most obvious A Lutheran today, therefore, if he wishes to and important hemeneutisal canons used by the subscribe the Lutheran Confessions in the sense and Confessions and coment an them, spirit of their original intention will need to pay some attention to the exegesis of the Lutheran Sym- Second, biblical interpretation as carried bols and satisfy himself that the Symbols' exposi- out or assumed in the Lutheran Spbsls is a cog- tion sf Scripture is correct. It is, of course, nitive enterprise, eonsiscing of bath exegesis and the doctrinal content of the Smbsls he subscribes, appli-ation, The basic rules for such interpreta- not every exegetical detail sf etpology, grmmar tion fall into two classes: 1) those rules which or choice of proof passages. But he realizes that are comon ts the interpretation of any and all Christian doctrine is, on Lutheran terns the result literature (e,g, gr atfeal and historical analy- sf exegesis, And so he must satisfy himself that sis, clarity, analogy, etc,), and 2) those princi- our Confessions are scriptural if he is to sub- ples derived exegetically from Ssrigture igself, scribe them, but at the same time unique ts Scripture as the Word of God (e.g. the necessity of the spirit's It is just at this point that rather little guidance to the exegetical task, the Christo- study has been done in our Eutheran Confessions: centricity of Scripture, the Law-Gospel motif, few students of our Confessions have dealt with the etc,), It is my conviction that there is and can way in which the Confessions read and apply the be no conflict at all between the first and second ~cri~tures.~It shall be the purpose of this study classes sf principles: there is nothing esoteric first to sumarize the various approaches of the or reductionistic about the second class of prin- Lutheran Confessions to the Scriptures and trace ciples; they are in every case based upon sound some of the hemeneutical principles of the Con- exegesis, For instance, if the article of justi- fessions in practice, thus answering the question, fication is indeed the chief article ( "How Is the Lutheran Church to interpret and use locus) of theology "which is of especial senice the Old and New ~estamewts?'~Thew we shall be able for the clear, correct understanding of the entire to compare these principles of interpretation with Holy Scriptures,,.and alone opens the door to the what is c~mmonlypracticed in biblical theology entire ~ible,"as Melanelathon says (Aperl. IFJ, 2 today. A couple of assumptions Pie behind this Geman), then it occupies this eminent position be- survey of our Confessions, cause Scripture teaches so, What I have Just said am will this study af -9 First I assuming that, with the exception in be proved in the case six of the three Creeds, all the Lutheran Confessions, basic theolsgical principles employed in our Sp- although dealing with the Scriptures in a great bsls, But first a prelgminary comment, variety sf ways, see themselves as biblical and relation and agreement of these passages, The CONFESSIONS finest example of such procedure is ~elanchthon' s discussion of just%fication by faith in Apol. IV. There is no single exegetical approach in our Lutheran Confessions, but a great variety of ap- The Lutheran Confessions therefore make use of proaches to the Scriptures. 1) The Augsburg Con- the Scriptures from a variety of approaches, each fession in its first part presents a brief smma- valid and significant according to its om perspee- tion of exegetically based doctrinal assertions in tive and purpme, thus presenting a Scriptugai thesl- a medal form. This it does with a minimum of ogy which is broad in scope and eminently convincing. biblical citation, and in certain cases inadequate Such exegesis, while eschewing allegorizatfow and according to what we in retrospect might have wished. speefous questfsnings for hidden meanings (Apol, 24; In many of the articles no citation is offered from 35; FC SD, 7; 45, 92; SD 11, 93), is more broadly Scripture, although unquestionably deep and penetrat- based than the more atomistic, strictly analytical ing exegesis underlay Melanchthon's assertions. Simi- app~oachof our day as typified in musk of the use lar is the approach of FC IX to the article of of the so-called histosico-critical me~hod, But Chxistqs descent into hell, as well as muck of the more significant, such exegesis invariably leads to SA. 2) FC SD VII on the Lord's Supper offers brief doctrine ("we believe, teach, an&confessel') and application, but very careful arguments from the context, history This is the very purpose of exegesis, and genre of one basic pericope for the Lutheran partic~larlyas it is employed in Confessions. Again doctrine, and on the basis of such arguments dog- we see the crucial funstion of right exegesis which matic eonclusiows are drawn, 3) In FC SD I1 we are alone can lead to what our Symbols call the coelestis offered the broad induction from the entire sweep of doctrina, die reine all Scripture, Old and New Testaments alike, on the Gottes Wort, die question of fallen man's spiritual powers prior to Marts, or simply conversfon, Were is a splendid example of what came schsiften, p, 3-5), In same cases our Csnfessisns to be the loci method in "dogmaticsf' identify the truth of the Scriptures with the truth which was in those days really a branch of exegesis, of the doctrine dram from the Scriptures (Bekennt- somewhat similar to "biblical theology" today. An- nlssckriften, 4,5), * other example of such an approach is FC SD VI as it Doctrine, dogma, is the af exegesis, This traces the flesh-spirit (Old Adam-New Man) motif in position is clearly assumed and operative throughout the New Testament, 4) FC SD I presents a sort sf our Lutheran Confessions (e,g. FC SD XI, 12) and commentary on the history recorded in Gen. 3 in the Luther as a prineble of exegesis. The principle is light of Rom. 5 and the analogy of Scripture. 5) most apparent as Luther and our Confessisns struggle In the Large Catechism with its specific purpose a with adversaries concerning such crucial issues as different approach is discernible: a homiletical, justification by faith and the Sacrament of the practical application of texts and pericopes to ~ltar. Of course, the polemical historical occa- specific needs of the day. But again there is no sion was the &mediate cause to drive Luther and the doubt thac a profound exegetical understanding of other Reformers into the Scriptures for proof af Scripture as a whole and of the pericopes underlies their pssition, But in their entire the~lsgieal Luthervs doctrinal statements. 6) There are also enterprise which they considered to be simply bibli- examples in our Confessions of intensive grammati- cal exposition cal and historical exegesis sf pertinent passages to doctrine, dealing with a single theme and also of the inter

-6- As a matter of fact there was no dogmatics in is drawn from Scripture by proper exegesis. But sense in those days. Melanchthonvs Loci our Symbols clearly and everywhere seek subscrip- often calPed the first Protestant dog- tion from no one who is not convinced that the doc- the his as product of exegetical lectures trine set forth is drawn from the Scriptures. To The early Lutheran dogmaticians (Chem- accept the doctrinal content of our Confessions is er, Gerhard), so-called, following in the to accept the exegesis and all the exegetical con- rain of the Reformation, did not separate inter- clusions sf our Gsnfessions. Scripture the L retation of from the doctrine of Scriptures. The interpretation of Scripture, Exegesis invariably leads to Confession (Bek- learned from Scripture itself, was a part of biblical ennen and ~ekenntnis),doctrine. This is the bur- den of for doctrine, like Scripture's clarity, perfection, auth- all exegesis a Lutheran, ority and divine origin. I shall now sumarize six principles of Her- This position, thar exegesis yields and must meneutics common to Lutherans and essential to them yield doctrine, although sounding like a trite tru- as they exegete the Scriptures. I shall amit those ism, is most important for us to be aware of today, principles of interpretation which are common to all if we are to understand how we as Lutherans ought to Bitersture (gr atical and historical exegesis, interpret and apply the Scriptures. For the position sensus IiLeralis unus est, etc.) and canfine myself is not a popular one today, or even a viable one for to those principles unique to the interpretation of many theologians. Not only have certain exegetes Scripture as a unique book, of the past depreciated dogmatics because they have IIP. SP;IY HEMENEUTdCAL PRINCIPLES AT WORK XN separated docfrine from exegesis (J. P. Koehler?), EXZESIS but proponents of the historical-critical method of exegesis today have virtually outlawed the very con- A. The Principle of Divine Origin Thus cept of dogma in the sense of pure doctrine. The divine origin of Scripture, its author- exegesis is given a purely historical function and ity and sufficiency for all doctrine taught in the purpgsse, Church is assumed by Luther and throughout our Con- Another aberration common in Lutheran circles fessions as a fundamental principle underlying all today which more obliquely threatens the historic exegesis, but more than that, as a working princi- Lutheran principle concerning the purpose of exe- ple of hermeneutics. We have already seen how to gesis is voiced by those who claim that Lutherans Luther and our Confessions doctrine is true and are not bound by the exegesis or exegetical conclu- divine because it is "drawn from the Word of God" sions of our Confessions, but only to the doctrinal (FC SD Rule and Nom, 3,13; Epit. Rule and Nom. content. This aberration, sometimes defended by a 2). distortion of ~alther's position on Confessional It is the divine origin and authority of all subscription, again completely misunderstands or dis- of Scripture which Lutherans bring to bear on -all torts the relationship between exegesis and doctrine their exegesis. The Holy Spirit is the author of as understood and practiced by the early Lutherans. all of Scripture, and therefore nothing there is of The position that we are bound only to the doctrinal no importance. In debating against Romanists who content, not the exegetical conclusions, of the Con- will not face up to the implications of certain pas- fessions is absurd and utterly un-Lutheran, for it sages which they thought could be argued away Mel- implies that we are bound by the doctrine of our anchthon asks, "DO they suppose that these words I Symbols even if we are unconvinced thar that doctri faith. Let me illustraee how this analogy is he Holy Spirit unawares?" (Apol. IV , operative throughout our Csnfegsisns as they do pol. Preface 9). All of Scripture must exegesis . ied and searched as God's Word, carrying with s authority and truthfulness. Luther says, eaking about the length of the creation days halogical exegesis in the first sense means seem trivial to some, "If you cannot under- thematic exegesis, tracing a theological theme or how it was six days, then do the Holy Spirit article of faith throughout the Scriptures, An ex- he honor that he is more learned than you are, cellent example of such a prosedure is found in FC For you must deal with Scripture in such a way that SD VI where the theology of Rom, 7 on the relation you consider that God Himself is speaking there. of flesh and spirit in the regenerate man to the law And if God says it, it is not for you irresponsibly is discussed, but in the light of massive Old and to bend His Word to where you want it." (~2111, New Testament parallel data. 21) . halogical exegesis, however, is not merely The- entire practice of Luther and our Confes- an analytical sifting sf all the biblical data per- sions as they exegete the Scriptures gives witness taining go a sgecdfic theme or article sf faith, to their total commitment to the divine authority -- 4 - and inerrancy of Scripture. They not only call a) Analogy can actually shed light on unclear Scripture "eternal truth*' and insist as they exe- passages of Scripture by applying gramathafly and gete that "God's Word can neither err nos deceive" historically clear passages dealing with the same subject matter or article of faith, IFC>- - SD Rule and Norm 13; LC IV, 57; V, 76; cf . also or it can add to Preface to the Book of Concord, p. 8). they not only our understanding sf Scripture passages (kpol. TV, presuppose all this for exegesis, but every passage 87-101; Tr. 23; LC I, 641, For instance, Melanch- and pericope of Scripture is read and interpreted in thon ranges all over the entire Scriptures to set just this light as God speaking. The divine author- forth clearly, against all misunderstanding, the ity of Scripture and exegesis are correlatives: they doctrine of justification by faith (Apol, IV), entail each other, Luther too in his Galatians Commentary carries out the same practice as he exegetes Gal. 3:13 and many B, The Unity Principle other passages (See WA 40, I, 432-447). The Lutheran Confessions view and interpret b) Analogical and thematic exegesis can nit- the Scriptures as one Book, the product of one igate what seems to be the force (but is not) of author, the Spirit of God, testifying to one God and biblical assertions and injunctions, For instance, Christ, presenting one unified Gospel and doctrina Gal. 1: 20 and 2 Cor. 1:23 mitigate what seems to coelestis. This is more than a Christian presuppo- be a universal prohibition against swearing in sition. It is a working principle drawn inductively Matt. 5:33-37 (LC I, 65), Again Plelanchthon uses by our Confessions from the Scriptures themselves Acts 5:29 to mitigate in a similar way a universal the The and accepted on authority of scripturee7 implication which the papists had attached to Xatt. unity principle is observed in the Confessions chief- 23:3 (Apol. XXVIII. 21). And he employs the same ly in the persistent use of the so-called principle of analogy (ibid. 20) to modify with Gal. (the agreement of Scripture wi 1:8 ("If any one preaches another Gospel, let him stament sheds light on the Old, an be accursedg\.) a too sbsfngent interpretation sf Old on the New, and the entire Scriptures must be Heb . 13: 17 bey your leaders"). brought to bear on any theme, motif or article of alogical exegesis may produce a total ism (FC IV , V , VI) . The point here is that only ary of a biblical subject. Melanch- when law and sin are taught clearly "according to tance, offers a vast discussion of mar- the Word of God" (i.e. Scripture) will the proper s calling, sex and related subjects, framework, context and preunderstanding for the based upon data drawn indiscriminately from all over teaching of the Gospel be present. Otherwise, to Scripture (Apol. XXIII, 7ff.). Again this is not a quote Melanchthon, Christ is completely buried purely analytical enterprise, for his entire discus- (Apol. IV, 81). Not only a corruption of a Sacra- sion is subjected to the article of the Gospel and ment (which is Gospel) contaminates the Gospel it- 91), developed in the light of it (according to what may self (Ap. XXXIV, but a false teaching regard- be ca%led the Bauptartikel Principle which we shall ing sin or the law may completely destroy the discuss later). The same kind of procedure may be Gospel (Ap. IV, 110, 121, 223; XII, 77). A. mis- observed in Melanchthon's discussion of sacrifice reading of law texts as Gospel or Gospel texts as in Apol. XXIV, 16ff which draws from Old and New law may result in a complete misreading cf Scrip- Testament data, but always from the perspective of ture (Ap. IV, 7, 29ff; 224ff.). Thus we see that the Gospel of Christ as sacrifice. In this entire the articles of faith, although related to each approach we see the seed of what later became sys- other and complementing each other, do not mitigate tematic theology (loci ) in the Lutheran or conflict with each other. A Scripture passage Church: the attempt to the entire sweep of dealing with obedience to authority (Heb. 13:17) Bcripture as it pertained to the articles of faith may indeed be mitigated by another passage concern- and to arrange them and view them from an evangel- ing the priority of preachnng the Gospel (Gal. 1:8), ical perspective, ApolO XXVIII, 20. But this is not the case with the articles of faith which have been drawn, using d) The analogical reading of Scripture re- analogical exegesis, from the Scriptures. For in- sults often in relating the articles of faith (of stance, the doctrine of universal redemption clear- In discussing original Law and Gospel) organically. ly articulated in FC SD, XI, 15 does not amad cannot sin the FC says, "When it is presented clearly from mitigate the doctrine of particular election which and according to the Word of God and is purged of is taught throughout the entire article, although all Pelaglan and Manichaean errors, then (as the logically the two articles cannot be harmonized. Apology declares, I, 44, 46) we are led tosunder- Each article is Gospel and each must be taught with stand better and to magnify more fully Christ's integrity as it is drawn from Scripture and in or- benefits, his precious merits, and the Holy Spir- ganic relation to the other. it's gracious activity. Furthermore, we are extol- ling God's honor properly when we carefully dis- 2. Drawing Inferences in Exegesis Einguish his work and creation in man from the The unity principle in interpreting Scripture devil's work, the corruption of human nature" (FC will of ten lead to in£erences in exegesis. And these SD, The thought here is that all Christian 1. 3). -5 inferences are valid and as binding as biblical C: - theology is a unit, and therefore the articles of statements themselves. For instance, the biblical faith, drawn inductively from Scripture, are or- teaching that Christ is the propitiator who has re- ganically related. Obviously there is no thought conciled us to the Father leads to the conclusion of mitigation at this point: the law does not miti- that we cannot appease God's wrath by setting forth gate the Gospel; sin does not mitigate grace; or our own works. (Apol. IV, 80). Since the forgive- vice versa. Otherwise Law and Gospel would be hope- ness of sins is something promised for Christ's sake, lessly confused as seen in legalism and antinomian

-12- be accepted by faith (ibid. 84. cf. is the goal of the confession making process as well Since the natural right to contract As of biblical exegesis. s the result of God's created order, it Furthermore, the basic qrlestion addressed tc vine right which must always remain (Apol. a text in Lutheran theol.c;:y is always, What does it Acts l5:9 (Apol. IV 284) 9ff.). which say'? What does it mean? Wiar is its intention? s explicitly that hearts are purified by faith (Apoi. IV, 231, 264, 267; XII, 84, 138). used to prove (by inference) that bishops The ques-- tion 1s ~CC,iP%aP: dm ~'I.rea IsraeEtish ~~dfe~f,ceor o right to burden consciences with human tradi- ~aul's original readership ~nder~tandby it or w.ia; Such examples of valid inferences or conclu- was its "meaning" to them? We must understand at sions dram from clear passages of Scripture could this But all is done within point that the entire exegetical enterprise was he- - rnulti~lied indefinitely. quite different for the writers of the Lutheran Con- the unity Ob- I' the circie of organic of Scripture. fessions than for at h%i~kmany exegetes today. viously there are inferences which cannot be drawn This does not inpiy that even in that bygone day the from passages, simply because such infer- Scripture writers ~f the Confessions were not interested in the ences would sun to definite counter articles of contexe of a book or prricope or verse of Scripture, faith or other clear Scripture passages. For in- in the so-caaled Sitz im Leben. It is just that they stance, the necessity of faith for salvation does -- I__ _OB____r_ constructed the Sitz i;n Leben out of necessity (be- not imply that baptism is not objectively valid for __s_-- cause of their linited knowledge) and from prin- one who does not believe (LC IV, 58, 60). It is ex- ciple (because of their understanding of the meaning tremely important that inferences and conclusions and application sf the sola principle) dram from Scripture have the force of doctrine for P the text and context itself. a confessing church which wishes to use the Scrip- fro.: hd :heir belief in the unity principle and in the continuity of tures alone as a source of Christian doctrine. But God's revelation in Scripture culminating in Christ it is equally important that such inferences be drawn (including the New Testament apostolic Word) rom- according to the analogy of Scripture. pelled them to see a nuch wider context and Sitz im LeSen for a given passage or promise, namely-- the en- unity principle which tire history af God's dealing with His people, the entire biblical witness. would ever do violease to the meaning of a given This means that, altiiough the meaning sf a given passage from the Old Testa- text or pericope. The unity of Scripture is not im- ment is already there and is one and constant, the posed upon Scripture but found there. New Testament can indeed shed light on that meaning. The meaning of a passage or section of Scrip- It is very important to understand precisely ture, according to the approach of our Lutheran Con- what is ~eantand implied by Lutherans when they fessions, always inheres in and the text itself, is speak of the unity of Scripture and unity of doc- a constant.8 There is for the Lutheran Symbols no trine which is drawn exegetically from Scripture. possibf lity sf think in terms of "meaning then" They mean, first of all. chat Scripture does not today", or of a tlhistar~of meaning". and "meming teach contradictory theologies, but one Gospel. For then there could never be definibe and pema- The articles of the faith may not agree with each other neat pure doctrine and certainly no "single, uni- according to our logic, but neither do versally accepted, certain and form doc- they contra- comon of dict each that would result in doctrinal trine which all our Evangelical churches sub- other; chaos and inability of the church to confess her faith. scribe. . .'"(FG SB Rule and Norm 10

-14- not believe in the real presence of Christ's body Since the articles of faith, all drawn from and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar. First, he ipture, agree with each other and complement did not think it possible physically, and there- h other, an error in one article of faith will fore thought it wiser eo accept the words of in- ften result in an error in another article and stitution in a tropical or figurative sense. Sec- eve, in thd undermining of ehe entire Christian ond, he held that it was not necessary to believe in faith. For instance, Luther's of the Will 6- the real presence because the Gospel of justifica- was written to show how an en tion, accepted by him and Luther, did not demand it. trine of man will result in heresy concerning the of a false In a well known To Luther this kind exegesis, based upon Gospel of justification itself. underseanding of the unity of Scripture and of doc- statement on this issue Luther says. "In philosophy trine, was an absmbnatian, To him each article a very smll error in the beginning is very serious must be based upon the Scriptures of God and drawn in the end. So also in theology a little error over- from Scripture by sound exegesis. Against Zwingli turns the whale doetrine. . Doctrine is like a and his opponents he says, "I for one cannot adnit mathematical poi.nf. It cannot be divided, that is, that such clear words present a problem. L do not you cannot take away from it or add to it. ask how Christ can be God and man and how His na- Therefore doctrine must be one continual, sound gold- tures could be united. For God is able to act far en ring in which ehere is no break; if even the least beyond our.imagination. To the Word of God one break occurs, the circle is no longer perfect." o * . I do not n Again, still commenting on Gal. 5:9, Luther says, says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical "One article is all articles, and all the articles arguments, as cog, that a large body s~uadas8 fill are one; and if one is laid aside all are lost." a small space. God is above and beyond all mathe- (WA 40, XI, 46ff.)I0 matics, and His words are to be adored and observed Luther is not speaking of any systematic or with awe. God, however, comands: 'yak@, eat; this logical unity here. This is not what the unity of is my body.' I request, therefore, a valid proof Scripture yields in terns of one doctrine. He is -f ram Writ that these words do not mean what speaking rather of an organic unity where each arti- they say. If=------It is clear that Luther will get his doc- cle retains its place and integrity in God's econ- trine of the real presence only from clear passages omy of salvation. Luther believed that there were of Scripture, not from any reduceionistic analogy lacunae, gaps, paradoxes in the doctrine drawn from with other articles of faith. Again in this con- Scripture, and the articles of faith therefore text Luther challenges Zwingli, "I have a clear and should be held in tension with each other. It is powerful text. Do justice to the text. What I Gave false exegesis which would seek to understand or been waiting for all the time is that you prove what explain the mysteries of faSth.. In this sense you ought to prove. "I2 Luther was no reductionist. Every article of faith Luther refused to al&ow any idea of the anal- must from theology, be drawn the cognitive source of ogy of faith which would mitigate or alter the Scripture, and that through responsible and regen- understanding of any article of faith drawn from erate exegesis, Scripture. One must simply be bound by the sense Mowhere does Luther's insistence upon this and meaning of the text upon which the article is issue come out more clearly than in his debate with based. Against the reductionist Zwinglians who in- Zwingli on the Lord's Supper. Zwingli was a Gospel siSted that ohe must -use a teaching and relate an reductionist. There were two reasons why he could interpretation of Scripture to the Gospel before

-16- accept it, Luther replied that only the Frm all the foregoing we see that Lutherans tures can tell you what an article of faith read the Scriptures as owe book, wieh one divine e said (MA 23, 241, "If they @is opponentsj author and one way of salvation and doctrine, a fact sight into the faith, they would know that the which in no way conflicts with the literal sense sf hest, the sole virtue of faith is that faith does any biblical pericspe but is swported by all sf to know why that which is believed in is Scripture, This is not only fundamental to all r why it is necessary. For faith does not exegesis and rfght reading of Scripeure, bur it is wish to set up boundaries for God or call upon Him fundamental for a Confessional Church to carry out to render account a's to why, for what purpose and its mission, Peter Brunner speaks correctly and for what necessary reason He commands a thing. with keen perception on the relation between Luth- Faith would rather be foolish, give God the honor eran exegesis and confession when he says, "But if and believe His Simple Word." Again Luther says the New Testament no longer harmonizes, if In the ib"In like manner our mother Eve also had canonical writings sf the Mew Testament a consen- God's Word that she was not to eat of one single sus is no longer heard regarding the Gospel that is tree. Then the enthusiast false god came to her and to be proclaimed, then a confessional comitment said, 'ay did God give you such a cornand like has Zaxtrne fundamentally impossible, Pa the sme that?' As if he means: 'What is the use of this rraeasuxe that the Ghureh Psses the concrete authority command? Why should that be necessary?' This is a of the Holy Scriptures, she also loses a binding con- clear cut at Zwingli's Gospel reductionism by which sensus in re ard to the content of the Gospel pro- Zwingli protested that the real presence was not clamation, 8815 necessary and divisive because it had no basis in the article of justification. Such reductionism is sheer enthusiasm to Luther because it does not rake the Word seriously, that is, the written text of Scripture as understood through exegesis. To Luther no article of faith must be held FOOTNOTES because it is used or demanded by some other arti- ib Kurt Narquart, essay cle, bu6 only because of itself, because it is Scriptural, that is, drawn from Scripture. He says, delivered at Bethany Lutheran Csllege, 1967, very article of faith is in itself its own prin- This has been the firm conclusion of the most com- ciple and receives no corroboration Eroog by means pegent students of the Lutheran Confessions, Wol- of another prticle of fairh]."l2 If one will not der lutherischen Bek- v accept every article because of itself, because God 1537, Tr, by Gerhard has revealed it clearly in Holy Writ, he despises d Ru~recht,1965, God, according to Luther, and is in danger of re- p, 14ff. Edmund Schlink, ' --of the Lutheran "He jecting every thing God has said in His Glord. Confessions, Tr, by Paul F, Koehneke and Herbert who makes God into a liar in one of His words and J, A, Boumn, Philadelphia: MuhEenbern Press, 1961, blasphemes, saying that it is unimportant if He is siblicil despised and made oug to be a liar, blasphemes God -- s, St, Louis: in His entirety and considers all blasphemy a trif- Cowesrdia Publishing House, 1968, This is also the ling thing." (WA23, 85). conviction of the older comewtarles on the Csnfes- sions, Fm instance, George Mylius insisted that rhority of the Confessions is directly de- This seems to be an underlying thesis of Jaro- ent upon their being scriptural, and it is only slav Pelikan, Luther -the (St, Louis: of this conviction that Lutherans subscribe Concordia Publishing House, 1959), pp. 8ff. 41. 45 See em and identify with their doctrinal conrent. Pelikanl.has a formidable bibliography of research into Lugher% exegetical method. A classic case study of Luther's exegesis for ehe purpose of doctrine in church is faund Hemann Sasse, --This Is- - for the Real Presence B ____Ca__D___^___sq____l_____s___s_E___ --in the Sacrament of& Mtar, (Minneapolis: Augs- burg Publishing Rouse, 1959), p. 215f f .

See Bohlmann, 2.cite, p. 69ff. Gf. Robert Preus, "Guiding Theological Principles, A Lutheran See C. F. W. Walfher, "WL-ly Should Our Pastars, Confessional Approach $a the bctrine of Creation*" in Rock Strata and the Bible Record, ed. Paul Zim- Teachers and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally -- -- ______J____^_O_- to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church?" in Con- meman, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, cardia XVIII, 4 (April, 1947). 1978, pp, 15-16, An exception is Ralph Bohlmann, z.cit. In the Fagerberg says ,8a%e cite., p. 18 : "~erGedanke, die present brief study I shall ateempe not to overl.ap Worte der Bibel konnten grunds$tzlich verschieden ~~hkmandsmany valuable contrfbutions in this area gedeutet werden ~ndin ihrem Sinn variieren, komt 0f research, gar niche auf, . .8 8 5 Main little thorough study has been given Lu- Krister Stendahl ther's hermeneutics, h recent attempt ts trace ' See , "~iblicalTheology, - - Con- temporarf' in The Luther's mediaeval background in exeggsis is Janees P --of the Samuel Preus, From Shadow Promise, Canbridge: Bible. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962. pp. 418-432. Harvard University Press, 1969. By far the most The so-called "descriptive approach" toScripture, thorough study of Luther's exegetical metllads is espoused by Stendahl, speaks in terns of "layers of E. Thestrup Pedersen, Luther Som Skriftfortokler, meaning" in the history and transmission of biblical Ubenhaven: Nyt Ncrdisk Forlag Arnold Busck, 1950. texts and therefore operates with she categories I am assuming that the method of 1,uther was that of "meaning then" and "meaning now". A text like also of Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and other framers of Hab. 2:4 consequently could have a variety of mean- sur Confessions, altheugh Luther was less system- ing in the Old and in the New Testament, Cf. also James Barr, Old and atic, more bombastic at times, and bound to cer- B London: tail1 traditional approaches. But his way of read- SCM Press, 9966. p, B"~~nser~- ing Scriptures was certainly also theirs. See ative" (and P Jberal) each pas- Robert Preus, sf Post-Refomatisn == sage or pericope had one definite meaning (sensus theranism. St. Louis : ~oncordiaPublishing House, literalis--- unus est)'; although capable of different 1990--Val, E and XI, interpretations and later elaboration, is s ily and aprioristically rejected by Stendahl. This concern was voiced also by the later Lu- LECTURE II: The Centrality of Justification by theran teachers. David Hollaz (Examen Faith ticum, Rostoek and Eefpzig, says, "Like the parts of a hman body the dogmas ofthe faith are closely and mu- h interesting example of ~elanchthon'sex@- this reaso tually- - connected with each other. For getical method, using the Unity principle, is seen we-- - are wont to call faith one connected entity in his argmentakion for justification by faith. (m ., No article ought to be taken He argues for 3ustificatfon by faith from the fact from f faith; for if a single link of that Christ is mediator (ApsP. IV, 69). Melanch- the faith is unfastened, the entire perfect chain thon clearly sees himself as doing exegesis at this will be broken. The harmony between the articles point. But it is an oblique way of waking a point of faith ought to be strict and correct, lest one which could have been made by clear passages deal- dogma of faith be made to oppose another, since ing explicitly with justification by faith. Why all should be reliable and certain. Hence nothing does he do this? He is employing a hemeneutical should be allowed that could disturb this har- principle whish we might call the mony ." Principle, Be is subjecting certain biblical data to the scrutiny of the chieE article of the Chris- Sasse, ibid., p. 231 tian faith, the heart of the Gospel, the fact that Christ is mediator and propitiator, l2 Walter Koehler, Das Again Melanshthon says, "~g!conquer through 1529. Leipzig: Me Heinsius Nachfolger Eger h Sie- Christ, How? By faith, when we comfort ourselves by fim trust in the mercy promised because of ~hb-ist," just how does l3 Peter Brunner, "Comitment to the Lutheran Con- H~s&a Melanchthora prove this point? In the same way as mentioned above. "we fession - What Does It Mean Today?" in The prove the minor premise as fol%ows, Since Christ fielder, XXXIII, 3 Dec., 1969, p. 7. is set forth to be the propitiator, through whom the Father is reconciled to us, we cannot appease Cod's wrath by setting forth our $om WOT~S. For it is only by faith that Christ is accepted as medi- ator, By faith alone, therefore, we sbtain the forgiveness of sins when we comfort our hearts with trust in the mercy prmised for ~hrist's sake.'" (Apol.. IV, 79-88), again it is shown in the con- text that Melanchthon regards his procedure as strictly exegetical, for two paragraphs later he follows with passages which explicitly prove his point, The Principle is commsnly em- ployed or alluded to in our Confessions, In Apsle IV 2 (German text) Melanchthon speaks of the doc- trine of justification by faith as "der h'dchste, rnehmste Artikel (praecipuus locus)" which is of It is instructive to note that in Luther's pecial service for the clear, correct understand- discussions of these abuses and false doctrines g of the entire Holy Scriptures, and alone shows specific Scripture passages are not often mar- to unscriptural and nature the way to the unspeakable treasures and right know- shalled show the wrong ledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the en- of such pr~eticesand teachings, but rather an article of faith, dex In ag~ackbng tire Bible. Later in this same discussion the P Hauptartikel is simply said to be Christ the pro- the invseation of the saints Lueher does indeed men- pitiator and mediator. In a highly significant tion chat ir has no precedent in Scripture (which statement in the Smalcald Articles (11, I, Iff*) in itself would not preclude its practice for Lu- Luther speaks of Christ and faith in Him as "der ther), but that is not the prime concern; the bur- erste und ~aupptarfikel". "The first and chief den of Lllther's condemnation is that "it cc~af%icts article is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and with the first, chief article and undermines the Lord, 'was put to death for our trespasses and knowledge of Christ." (SA XI, 11, 25). Melanch- raised again for our justification' (Rom. 4~25). than argues in the sane way when he contends chat He alone is 'the Lamb sf God, whs takes away the sin Roman doctrine of justification by good works of the world' (John l:29). #God has Laid upon him burir- Jhrist and obscures the Gospel (Apol. IV, the iniquities of us all' (Isa. 53:6). Moreover, 70, 81 110, 120, 149, 150; XII, 77). Now it is 'all have sinned,' and 'they are justified by his clear again that Luther is doing exegesis here. grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in He is ranging all over the Scriptures and citing Christ Jesus by his blood' (Rom. 3:23-25)." Luther biblical themes and practices and bringing them to then goes on to say that all this is to be believed bear on the subgeec, but the use of the and apprehended by faith, is his ultimate weapon in the debate, his final exe- Now in every case, whether we speak of justifi- cation by faith or of Christ as He is apprehended by Is Luther here imposing something on Scripture faith, the same is referred to, And it by such a method, something alien or extra-biblical? has the same function, Luther illustrates its func- Does such a practice confl%c$with the historical- tion throughout the Smalcald Articles. This article exegetical method which he obviously uses and de- is to dominate and inform the entire Christian doc- fends as an exegete?14 Not at all. And this can be trine, it is the center of Christian and biblical said for ma reasons, theology to which all the other articles point (Cf. -First, never in our Csnfessisns does this over- the structure of the A6 and Apology where all the riding Christologieal principle violate the intended articles of faith either lead to or from the central meaning of a biblical passage ar pericope. article of Christ and justification), it functions Never do Luther or Melanehtksn or the miters sf the Fssmula theologically in assessing the church's doctrine and of Concord use such a principle to interpret a text practice and hemeneutically in assessing the tically or historically. Never is their pro- church's understading and reading of the sacred a substitute or shortcut for the grammatical Scriptures, Luther uses this article as he goes an to assess various practices in the Roman Church, the is itself sub- us canons of grmmatical ewe- mass, ianarocati~nof saints, chapters and monas- gesia, This is elear from the fact that Che arti- teries, the papacy, etc., but also the article on cle of Christ or justification is ordinarily in- repentance and other articles which the papists al- cluded (AC, Apol., SA, FC) in a series of articles leged to draw from the Scriptures. trines [hos duos locos rting to be drawn from Scripture and to be * 3." What does this statement Christian doctrine. Luther's state- mean? Clearly the statement deals with 11, ) "The Word of God shall estab- the interpretation of Scripture, with a necessary (debet) application (distribui) -of all ~cri~ture- lish articles of faith and no one else, not even an - (universia Thus far Melanst.lthon is speak- angel," applies to the Bauptartikel as well as to ing not of ScripturePs meaning, but of our approach Inv other article of faith. Furthermore, the long- --- to Scripture, The following sentences state what est discussion in the Confessions (Apol. IV) ten- actually obtains in Scripture. "In ters in a defense of the Hauptartikel, justifica- some places it presents the Paw, In others Bt presents the promise tion by faith. And here Melanchthon clearly draws of Christ; this it does either when it prmises that his conclusions from the Scriptures. It is true the Ftlessiah will come and promises forgiveness sf that he expresses his Hauptartikel (Iv, sins, justification, and eiernal life for his sake, 2, German) before he proves it from the Scriptures, or when, in the New Testament, the Christ who came and he employs the principle throughout as he promises forgiveness of sins, justificagfon, and argues how the papists by their insistence on merit eternal life, By 'lawO in this discussion we mean bury Christ, etc. But he does indeed exegete those the eomandwents of the Decalogue, wherever they passages dealing with justification, and he does so appear in the Scriptures, For the present we are to establish the doctrine itself and its centrality saying nothing about the ceremonial and civil laws (Apol. IV, 107, 293-4). He specifically says, "What we have shown thus far, ow the basis of the Scrip- of Moses ." ~oesMelanchehon say here that every verse or perico~ein Sc~i~tureis either law sr 1 Gospel, and that we are ts determine this in every ease if we are to read the Scriptures rightly? Surely not. Isolated verses or pesfeopes simply alone we receive the forgiveness- of sins for Christ's sake, and by faith alone are justified, that is, out cannot be forced to assert either law ar promises strict of unrighteous we are made righteous and regenerated in the sense, Melanchthan knows as well as that men." (ibid. IV, 117. cf. FC SD I, 44). anyone such an exegerical procedure would be an utterly wooden, arbitrary and inseglsfeive read- The hermeneutical use of the prin- ing of ScrigEurse, We does not sav ''Emwis scasi~tura Law- - I ciple is closely connected with the Lutheran should be divided, . ." but '"niaaersa re*1 t Gospel dialectic which is employed hermeneutically that is, Scripture as a whole, Scripture in its en- in the same way (Cf. Apol. IV, 2 with Apol. IV, 5; tire sweep as the hJstary of God's acts and dealings Cf. Apol. IV9 69 with Apol. IV, 70). It is, in with men in kerns of Judgment and promise, He is fact, by observing the distinction between Law and saying that these two doctrines (hi duo loci a --- Gospel that we enhance the chief article concerning '), which are not the only Ewo doctrines, Christ (FC SD, V, I; I, 31, As a matter sf fact, pervade all the Scriptwes and, as he later points the Gospel in the narrow sense is sometimes equated out, are to be clearly distinguished and recognized with the article of Christ and His work (FC SD V, as we find them articulated throughsut Scripture; 20; Epit. V, 5). we mst be alert ts them, hear them for whar they confuse them as In Apol. IV, 5, Melanchthon makes perhaps the say, and never the papists have done IV, The FC V, most substantive statement about the hemeneutieal (ApoP, 9%f,), SD B is even more function of the Law-Gospel dialectic. "All Scrip- explicit in -king the functlon of dividing Law and Gaspel the same as the Haupeartikel ture should be divided into these two chief doc- $ha$ of Prin- ciple: ts enhance the merit of Christ and serve trotabled consciences, This Christseentricity of the Scriptures, the t us get back to Melanchthon's programmatic Old Testament Scriptures, is recognized and empha- tement in Apology IV, 5, concerning the dis- sized by Luther ad the Confessions, Ts Luther, tinction between Law and Gospel as a hermeneutical Christ pemeates the Old Testament Ser2gtmres key for understanding Scripture. A couple more com- through and thrsugh, One misses the message sf the ments must be made about this significant state- Old Testment if one does not find Christ there, men t . BPI the promises of the Old Testament point to First, we note that this statement (CF. also Christ and find their ul~imatefulfPLlment in Him

FC SD V, 23) is a doctrinal statement, not just a rt (WA 57, 193; 211), The angel of the Lord who comes hermeneutical one. Melanchthon is speaking not ts the patriarchs of $he Old Teseauenr and blesses merely sf how all the Scriptures are to be used her- and redeems them is Christ, men one reads sf delivering people Testament meneutically, but of what actually is w Jahweh His 2n the Old out Scripture, Law and Gospel cannot one must think sf Christ, aecsrding ts Luthere hd guished in Scripture unless th already. there, Christ as Savior was ehe object of ehe explicit taught in Scripture, Ew Pact, biblical heme- faith sf Old Testament believers; they were not saved neu~iealprinciple recognized and used by the Lu- by some implicit fai$h in the power or goadness af theran Confessions has the force of doctrine, for God. Commencing on Gen. 3:15 Luther says, "Here it these principles (e.g. the unity principle, the -is writeen Cnotice he does not impose what he is to divine ogigfn principle) are drm exegeticany say upon the text, but draws it from the eexel thae from Scripture, The rejection of these principles Adam was a Christian Bong Before tBlae birth of Christ, is therefare false doctrine, The statement of the Far he had the same faith in Christ that we have, faculty of Concordia Seminary, St, Louis, in their Far in matters of faith, time makes no difference. resent document (P. 3919 Faith is of %he same nature from the beginning to which says ""'Fe wn no rules the end of the world, Therefore he, through his for interpretation and prescribe no method for corn- faith, received the same ghat 1 receive, He did not municating the message of the Scriptures to succes- see Christ with his eyes, neither did we, but he had sive generaions of Christians," is fahe, It is Him in the Hard; so we also have Bim in the Ward. in contradiction to the hermeneutics of historic The only difference is this: at that time it was to Lutheranism and in contradiction to Scripture it- come to pass, now it has come go pass, Accordingly self. And the statement is false doctrine, on aPP the Fathers were justified in he same wanner as Lutheran terms, because biblical hermeneutics, like we are, through the Word and through faith, hd in exegetical conclusions, has the force of doctrine. this faith they also died" (~2IIX, 851, Second, Melanchthon must be taken very seri- Does Luther impose the New Testament upon the ously when he says all-(universa) Scripture ought Old as he finds Christ there? Yes and no, Certain- to be divided into two chief doctrines. This very ly the New Testament has alerted him ts what he is definitely includes the Old Testament, as the con- ts %oak for there and what he will most surely find, text indicates, The Gospel, not a mere formal Gos- ---In this sense Thestrup Pedersen may be correct when pel; but the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ, is he says that Luther time and time again resorts to taught in the Old Testament, Again it is not im- "allegory" as he engages in his Christologieal exe- posed upon the Old Testament by some trickery of gesis.15 But Pedersen already gave ample evidence an overarching hermeneutical prin- of Lutheg eonsisteggtly and insistently using "cam- ciple, but found and taught tament pletely philalogical aeana'>to arrive at his exe- getical conclusions and refusing to exegete an Old saint has been saved in any other way than through Testament text Christologically when the literal faith in the sme Gospel" (Apol. XII, 72-73, Ger- sense refers it to something or someone of that day. man). The temptation ~f Abraham can be understood It might be more accurate to say that Luther does only if we bear In mind that Abraham already knew not use allegory at this point at all, but merely the chief article of our faith (der-- hohe*B~&lkC1 reads the Old Testament Scriptures often in the -.des Glaubens), namely, jus&fficatisn by faith, and light of their New Testament fulfillment, finding thought the eomand to sacrifice his son sf promise there a deeper meaning than one would otherwise find ran counter to that article of faith (FC SD VII, This is a simple if one ignored the New Testament. A 46) application of the hermeneutical principle of anal- hecannot overemphasize the eruciabity of ogy. And a crucial, necessary application of that If it were argued that Luther takes the Lutheran Christalogical exegesis as the foremost principle. & Old Testment texts out of their historical con- exmple of both the unity principle and the text, he might well reply that the New Testament artikel principle of exegesis, Here, more than at fulfillment of the Old Testament-promise is part of any at4iem;- point, Lutheran exegesis stands in total the larger historical context of the Old Testament contradiction &s the exegetical method of modern passages, for the Lord and Author of all Scripture historical-criticism. is also the Lord and Author of all history, D, tu%herrs ReaJist Principle Our Confessions totally agree with ~uther's Thestrup Pedersen says that Luther as he en- ChristofogieaP exegesis of the Old Testment as an gages in Christolasgical exegesis '"sees the matter application of the principle, hd they not wieh &he eyes of a historian but with the eyes give confessional status to this exegetical proce- of a theologian. "16 I suppose we might accept such dure and its c~wclusions, Not only is the Gospel a Judgment, excepc that Luther would nst distinguish of Christ proclaimed in promise in the Old Testa- between the eyes sf a historian and the eyes of a ment, as Melanchthon said in the Apology (Apol. IY, theologian, - as though they might come to different 5-61, "But," to quote Melanchthon again. "the eoncfusisns, For 20 Lueher the mighty acts sf God Fatkers knew the promise concerning Christ, that by which He delivers His people are historical, Gad far Christ's sake wished to remit sins, There- actual, real, Ochemise there could be no tileology fore, since they understood that Christ would be of redemption. The doctrines revealed In Seripeure the price for our sins, they knew that our works and the acts sf God recsunred there have a sea% are not a price for so great a matter. Ascclrdingly, basis, a real referent, OP there could be no theol- they received gratuitous mercy and remission of sins ogy at all to Luther, Tills is a hlermeneuticad prbn- by faith, just as the saints in the New Testament.'' eip%e to Luther, (Apol. IV, 57; Cf. Apol. XII, 55). Again Melanch- thon says, "Of this the idle sophists know little; I not attributing any kind sf phil~ssphical and the blessed proclamation, the Gospel, which pro- realism to LutRer at this point, although Luther claims the forgiveness of sins through the blessed Bike his successors (Valentin Loescher) would surely Seed, that is, Christ, has from the beginning of have repudiated all foms of later Idealism (Berke- the world been the greamst consolation and treasure ley, Kant, Hegel), Nor am 1 bplying that his real- to all pious kings, all prophets, and all believers. ism rendered him insensitive to the very many figur- For they have believed in the same Christ in whom we ative forms and nuances hound in Scripture. He was believe; for from the beginning of the world no a simple realist in the sense of the early Chris-

-30- tians in their antipathy to docetism, Gnosticism tuthervs theological rgalism which precluded and pagan mythologies. the dictates of science, historiography, ghilasophy or reason criticizing or sitting in judgment of %at Lam saying about Luther is that he recog- biblical assertions is shorn clearly in Luther's niaes the realism clearly revealed in Scripture, treatment of Gen. 1-3, which he takes seriously as hd therefore he is a stranger to the Kantian and history and as the real basis for the Christian doc- Ritzschaian distinction between judgments of value trine of providence, anthropology and sin (WA 42, (which were considered to be religious judgments, 15ff.1, The Protevangelium was actudly spoken true judgments) and judgments of history (which historically (Apol. XII, 55 WA 42, 14ffP .), So, were considered to be contingent and relative), too, the discussion of the hrmula of Concord on Luther knows no genre of "symbolical history", he ii Original Sin (FC I) which is nothing more than a does not recognize "the03iogical constructs" which comelatary on the history o% Gene 3 in the light of have no basis in history or fact. A "faith-event", y Paul's exegesis in Rom. 5. ~uther's comments and in the sense of an event created by the church as it those sf our GonfessB~nson these chapters of Holy recalls its past, could only be considered nonsense Writ are not insensitive to anthrop~morphismand and heresy to Luther, other figures of speech in the history, but it is True, $here was not the historic sense or in- regarded as historia (history), as an account, a terest in history in LutherPs day that we observe description of the l%ving God ae%ing; and this his- today - a very possible advantage for Luther and the tory gives rise ts doctrine, Reformers as they sought to find the ~piPit'smean- Nowhere does Luther's realism become more ing in Scripture, But they did believe that history prominent fhan in his debat:e with Zwingli concern- and reality underlay the theology of Scripture, ing the real presence of Christ's body and blood in Election was a real decree of God (FC SC XI), not the Sacrament of the Altar, The batcle at mrburg merely a theological construct. The ~osd'sSupper with Zwingli and later with the Reformed was not and Holy Baptism Were the results sf reax histoarieal merely over the exegesis of a single passage in the damiwical institution and words (LC IV, 6, 36, 53; New Testament and whegher it be taken figuratively V, 41, Our justification before God is a real ver- or not, It was no$ merely over whether the Sacra- dict, not a myth (Apol. IV), The virgin birth, the ment could be related to the center of the Gospel; suffering and death, che miracles, the resurrection ironiealfy Zwingli failed to refate the Sacrament of Christ are histosisal, having real referents in to justification precisely because he would not fact, Any theology of a non-event is unthinkable to aceept the real presence, It was not merely a csn- Luther and our Confessions. The ascension too and tmversy oarex the absolute authority of Scripture the session at the right hand, although not demon- against the encroaekments aP physics, mthematics strable by any historical investigation, are real and logic .I7 To Luther and the Confessions reality, events. The right hand of God is everyhere, as - substance, history, God's acts and comands (Ae Luther insisted, but it is everyhere, The her me^ XVII, 3; XX, 12; XXIII, 5, 8, 18, 24; XXIV, 3, 32) I neutical principle underlying such exegetical real- ! underlie the assertions and commands of Semigtuse, ism is not a philosophical theory, but a0conviction In the Sacrament one cannot remember it OP even based upon Scripture, that God who has caused all er4 celebrate it (AC aIV, 32) unless there is a 5'I 1s- Scripture to be recorded is indeed a living God who gory to remember and to celebrate, 18 I invades history, authors it, and reveals himself ture would be absolute Schwaermerei (SA 111, VIIP, e, he Spirit Principle 4ff.) That the Spirit "opens the intellect and Although there is rather little said concern- the heart ta understand the Seriptmses" means that ing the Holy Spirit as the true interpreter sf Scrip- Me causes us to believe the Word and apply it. ture and of the necessity of His enlightening ehe The Spirit principle in hermeneutics is com- reader and expositor of Scripture, the principle is pletely in harmony with the other principles of a pervasive one throughout our Confessi~ns. This Lutheran hemeneutics which we have already dis- obsewation is brought out by two facts, First, the cussed. The one Spirit, the Author of all Scrip- Spirit sf God is considered to be the primary author ture, works through Law and Gospel upon those who of Scripture, Scripture is clear not only because , read and hear the Word (FC SD V, 11) , sf its ow coherent and consistent nature but be- cause GodPs Holy Spirit has authored it, We hear F , The Escha tologrbcaI Psincip2 e Nelanekthon alluding to this fact when he rails k The eschatslsgical burden of the Lutheran Con- against his opponents: "It is surely amazing that fessions is clear throughout these writings, But our opponents are unmoved by the many passages in there is also eschatological burden ehe Seriggtures that clearly attribsnte Justification an in kripture ad way go faith and specifically deny it zo works,'t Thus an eschatological of reading Scripture, and use far he could have been speaking of any clew and Just as the reading of Scripture which cshe-epena: book, But he goes on, '90 tbey suppose that enunciates this esehatologlcal principle of exegesis these words feBl from the Holy Spirit unawaxes?" is Rome l5:4: "matever was written in former days for our that (Apol. IV, 107-108). The Scriptures are clear and was written instruction, by qteadfast- purposeful soteriologlcally because the Spirit has ness and by encouragement of the Scriptures we might Cementing on this passage the FC SD authored them, have hope." XI, 92 says the following: "~utit is certain that But man is a sinner, blind to spirieual things, any interpretation of the Scriptures which weakens having no "capacity, aptitude, skill, and ability to ox' even removes this comfort and hope is contrary to think awyzhfag $ood or might in spiritual mat- the Holy Spirit's will and intent ( ).'I We &ers, . .'"$FC SD, XIs 121, This is the second have here not a hermeneutical nsm for exegesis, Spirit fact that makes the Principle so important. strictly- speaking,- but rather a norm and principle The gift of the Spirib is necessary tc understand for the of Scripture. Thq Confession spir%tual things, including $he Scriptures which a4goes on to say,- - $'we shall abide by this simple, are themselves char, As tho Spirit must csnverz a direct, and useful exposition ( man with the Word, 80 Me must open the hear& of man nently and well grounded to accept the Scriptures and heed them. "He opens wi%l." hd again- the statement condemns a%B that the intellect and the heart to understand rhe Scrip- is contrary to such "true, simple, and useful expo- tures and to heed the Word, as we read in Luke sltl~ns." 24:45, '-%hen he opened their minds to understand the The eschatological principle is here wedded to scriptures ' " (FC SD. II . 26. See also ibid. . 55) First, This in ne sense means that the Spirit is som- several other principles of interpretation. @ Sort the unity of Scripture is seen in its purpose here of substitute for the normal exegetical tools neces- I set forth which is comfort and hope, Second, the sary to the undepstanding of the meaning, the sensus analogy of Scripture is operative here in that every literalis, of a given text. Any violation of the agreement or correspondence between the ~pirit's exposition of Scripture must be "grounded in ~od's leading and the meaning of the written text of Scrip- revealed will"', Third, the sensus literalis, the one gramatical and historical meaning, far from being overlooked, is actually sought ("We shall 9. -Cit., p. 230 avoid and flee all abstruse and specious questions and disputations.") and seen to be in full accord Ibid p. 229 with the eschatological principle, ., 17 Sasse, p. 239 . 1s there a unique Confessional and Lutheran To Luther, when God relates a history or asserts exegesis and approach to Scripture? Our Confes- something in Scripture, even the genre may sions would, 1 believe, answer "no" 60 such a ques- though tion, There are, however, principles for reading be poetry and the phrases anthropomorphic and figurative at times, We speaks sf reality and must Scripkure, principles dram fPon the Scriptures them- be seriously, if we difficulty selves in every case, which our Lutlaeran Confessisns taken even hme undex- have discerned and employed with a certain unique- standing hm it can be, TR 1, 736: "'Sie (the history ness and consistency, These principles which I of Jonah) ist schir lGgerlich, neque crederem, nisi have attempted to trace are no child's play. They in. s~c~P~shi&eris esset scrip-," WA 40, 1, 283 (on may be easy to discern from Scripture and eQ state, Gal, 3:20): "Paul has his om phrase or kind of but often difficult to employ and apply* Yet they speech which is not like sther mew, but divine and are crucial for the exegetical enterprise and for neavenly, . ,And if Paul had not first used this the evangelical orknkation and activity of &he phrase, and set it forth in plain words, the saints church , themselves would not have dared use it, . ." For an excellent discussion of the twofold meaning sf Scripture's clarity according to Lutheran theol- ogy see blgh Bohlmann, "'Biblical Interpretation in the Conf essiisnsf"in -of Biblical Hermeaeu- -.-'--*ties CTM Occasional Papers, No. 1, 1966, pp, 24-26, FOOTNOTES 2 l4 See Luther, W 5, 456: he first concern of a theologian should be to be well versed in the text sf Scripture, a bonus textanalis, as thq say, He should adhere to this first principle: in saered things there is no arguing or philosophizing; for if one were to work with rational sr probable arguments in this sphere, then I could twist all the articles of faith as easily as Axius, the Sacramentarians, and the habapeists have done, No, in zheslogy we must merely hear and believe and be conv%nced in our heart that God is truthful, wo matter how absurd Ellat which God says in His Word may seem to reason." Cf. kJL XVII19 840, Cf, E, Thestrup Pedersen, Luther -ssm skriftfortolker, Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk For- lag Arnold Busek, 1959. p. 290ff. LECTURE 1x1: The Historical-Critical Method ment, any parable or discourse of Jesus, any action or miracle of our Lord. The over-arching purpose (the ultimate goal) of the method, therefore, is to HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD EXEGESIS B. AND LUTHERAN find the word or event behind the text of Scrip- Can the hemeneutical principles underlying the ture, to assess the historicity or truthfulness of doctrine sf our Lutheran Confessions be harmonized what Scripture asserts, to discover the historical with the modern historical-critical method as it is origin of what Scripture records. ordinarily applied in studying and exegeting Scrip- I believe it is safe to say that whereas for ture? I believe not, One will need to reject what . Luther and the Reformers exegesis was seen essen- is essential to the older historic Lutheran hermeneu- tially as a philological discipline, for modern tics if one is to accept and use in any.consistent historical-critics exegesis is an historical dis- the way historical-critical method today and apply cipline. For Luther and our Confessions biblical it $0 Scripture, But this question can be answered and extra-biblical historical investigation was satisfactorily anly a) whew we know what the histori- undertaken to help determine the meaning of the cal-critical method is in terms of its goals and canonical text, the prophetic and apostolic Word as asswptions and b) when we know if and where the such; for the historical critic an investigation of method conflicts with the Confessional Lutheran her- che meaning of the biblical text is undertaken to meneutics which led to the doctrine of the Gospel and help determine the history which may or may not lie its articles as exhibited in the Lutheran Confes- behind the text; and "history" (historical research) sions. So let me attempt to define the method and in turn may be used to authenticate, verify or then to answer the question at issue, falsify the text.19 As far as I have been able to deternine by It is easy, I believe, for us to see some of examining the works of scores of reputable scholars the assumptions underlying this method of approach- using the historical-critical method today a brief ing Scripture. Assumptions regarding revelation, definition might run as follows, The historical regarding Scripture and regarding history. The method is a way of studying Scripture (or any piece historical-critical method was first conceived and of literature) by using all the criteria of scien- worked out in the seventeen~hand eighteenth cen- tific historical investigation, The method analyzes turies by scholars who either denied the possibility the text of Scripture in terns of language, literary of a divine revelation or at least denied that Scrip- fom, redaction criticism, source criticism, as well ture was such a revelation. These early developers as histo~ical,archeological and other relevant of the method denied also the divine origin and in- data, The purpose of the method is not merely philo- thus logical, or linguistic; nmely, to learn the in- spired nature of Scripture, depriving Scrip- the sense tended meaning of texts and verses in Scripture, ture also of its divine authority in under- Reformers. They furthemare believed The over-arching purpose of the method is historical: stood by the that all history was lived out according to prin- namely, to discover the history and background of ciples of universal correspondence, analogy and uni- the fom and content of any given portion or unit in formity within history; and all historical records Scripture and to trace that history of the given unit including Scripture must be criticized according to through every step af its development untfl it finds such principles. Far reaching changes have taken its way into the text of Scripture as we have it, place in respect to the method over the past two %'hisprocedure, essential to the method, would apply centuries--e.g., form criticism has been invented-- to any pericope or story recorded in the Old Testa- but the same assumptions underly the use of the

', I -39- searching historical data, or a method reading method today by all reputable and consistent prac- of a book. If this is true, then the nature of Scrip- ticianers of it e ture as God's revelation of Himself and His will I need only mention that the results of the cannot be ignored or discounted at any point by any hismical-critical method have at crucial points method, old or new, seeking to deal with Scripture contradicted ehe doctrine of the Lutheran Confes- in terms of its form or content. According to sions, Lutheran exegeees using the method have historic Lutheran theology, as typified in our Con- denied the historicity of all God's activities fessions, Scripture's fom is its revelato~ychar- recounted in Scripture until the time sf Abrakm, acter as God's Word, Scripture's content is God they have denied the authenticity of many sf Himself--He is the one spoken sf everywhere in ~hrist's sermons and discourses, and in some cases Scripture--God, His will, His actions among people, they have dezied His dalty and every miracle per- etce In the nature of the ease one cannot use the formed by Him. All this as the result of employing same method for reading, understanding and applying historical-critical research. Regin Prenter, a Scripture that one uses for understanding any other relatively consemative Lutheran, xho uses the merely human book which. recounts merely human events method, but inconsistently, says quite frankly ,20 and ideas, This, I believe, is a principle of the "That it is the Creator Himself 'A.o is prfsent in Lutheran Reformers as they read and seek to under- ~esus'humanity has always Leen an impossible idea stand Scripture in contrast to their method of read- to historical criticfsm, Therefore historical ing Caesar's Gallic Wars or the so-called Donation criticism necessarily collides with everything in -of Constantine. To illustrate how this principle . the tradition concerning Jesus which ascribes ts would work today one might say the following: an Him such divine majesty.*' historisal-critical method is probably quite ade- This statement af Prenter9s, a practitioner of quate and proper for understanding and analyzing the method, is significant in that it suggests that Caesar's Gallic Wars. The historian will ime- one cansistent%y using the historical-critical method diately recognize, according to his principles of cannot come to the same conclusions concerning the universal correspondence and analogy within history, that Caesar is a responsible and serious witness to articles of our Christfan faith as did our Lutheran Confessions. Why is this? Not only because of the events and a goad histmian in terms of his day, different assumptions regarding revelation, Scrip- The critic will therefare accept kesar's statement ture and histmy, that Iais army built an elaborate and complicated Not only because the method has But the critic different goals from those of the Reformers as they bridge and crossed the River Whine, win recognize Caesarss limitations as he eoments engaged in exegesis. Ultimately the reason for modern historical-critical research coning to dif- on the flora and fauna of Britain and CaesarPs ferent eonciusions from our Confessions concerning tendenz as he speaks of his great victories over doetrine rests in the fact that historical-critical the barbarians. But Scripture, though written by method~logyhas a different idea of what it is deal- inspired men and reflecting their style of writing, ing with as it goes about its task. thought forms, csnvietions, cultural milieu, etc., is not a human book or record like Caesar's Gallic Let me try to make this point clear. Any Wars, The Spirit of God is the author of Scrip- method of doing anything is determined by the subject ture, and the Spirit does not have any tendenz with which the method deals. That is always the which may be corrected according to any theory con- case, whether we think of a method of managing a cor- cerning cominuity and analogy within history. Fur- poration, a method of cutting meat, a method of re- thermore--and this is Prenterss point, as it is

-40- there ~uther'sand the Confessions'--unlike Caesar's discovery that were good grounds for finding Gallic -Wars oslhich deals with the activities of in St. Mark a chief authority for the gospel of St. Caesar, a man, the Scriptures witness to the mighty Matthew and St. Luke gave birth to the hope that in - - might acts of God, acts which transcend space, time, sec- St. ark's Gospel above all we hope to dis- Lightfoot is only ondary causes, historical analogy and everything cover that Jesus of History." was dog- else within our created order, The reader of Scrip- repeating in terms of synoptic studies what ture, as he confronts the content of Scripture, God matically asserted one hundred years before him by that Himself and His mighty acts, can only accept the Christoph Ernsf ~uthardt~2when he insisted witness of the Spirit who testified through the the exegesis and criticism of his day had demolished writings of prophets and apostles to these revela- the doctrine of inspiration and no reputable scholar tions sf ~od'sjudgment and grace, could any longer hold to the Reformation doctrine. This confidence is still echoed by conservative Having seew now what the historical-crftfeal Lutherans today who use the historical method and method is in terms of its goals, presuppositions defend it as necessary and scientific. Regin Pren- and consequences, we must ask whether it is compati- ter, who must use the method inconsistently inas- ble with the biblical and evangelical hermeneutics much as he believes in the Virgin Bbrth, the Deity of the Lutheran Church and whether it may be used by sf Christ and the Resurresgion dsgmas which ehe a Lutheran exegete, That there can be ns reconcili- method does not yield, claims,23 "The advent of ation between the historic Lutheran evangelical msdern natural science and historical research method of reading Scripture and the historfcah- showed (my emphasis) that the Bible is not inerrant critical method, the h8stopisal critics today would in the sense of the doctrine sf verb1 inspiration. be the first to point out. They wodd of course The historfco-critical methad and later the recognize that Luther or Bengel could be used today history of religious methods of research with benefit and acknowledge this fact, just as investigated even the biblical writings and those of us who identify with evangelical exegesis showed (emphasis mine) that they originated in the wauld find benefit in the studies of a Bultmann or same manner as other source documents of religions." a Uesemann today. But the two approaches are utter- This is a highly significant statement, made as it ly incompatible, The hisgorical-critical method can- is by a conservative dogmatician, Significant, flicts with evangelical hemeneutics at every single first, because it concisely typifies the position of point we have discussed in these lectures. Let me -all critical s@hslars outside the Missouri Synod in now try to illustrate this fact in order to show the thePr attitude toward the Bible. 1 say outside the gravity of the situation today and the cleavage that Missouri Synod because in Missouri there is among obtains begween two radically opposite hermeneutics. many a curious schizophrenia which asserts the divine origin of Scripture while at the same time 1, THE PRXNCXPLE OF DXVXNE QRXGIN insisting that all the so-called techniques associ- R. H. Lightfoot, conservative practitioner of ated with the historical-critied method must be knowledge outside Mis- the historical method, has saidS2l "So long as the employed.24 No one to my view of inspiration prevailed, the four Gospels could souri has ever confessed the verbal inspiration and only be regarded as of equal value, historically and inerrancy of Scripture and at fhe same time used othewisd. It chanced, however, that just as the historical-cr$ticaf method, PrentgrPs state- their belief began to crumble, the discovery was ment is highly significant in the second place be- made that one among the four gospels was quite defi- cause, even though he uses the method with modifi- nitely on a superior historical level. . . and the cations and inconsistently, he is forced to break mental to histarical criticism goday, The various with she Refomation principle af sola nineteenth and twentieth century reduc~ionisms resort to a kind of revelarlo or solurn and sola (Harnack's Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of principle, a radical kind of reductionism. man; Troeltsch's purely scientific philosophy of is the norm of doctrine, histcry; Bultmann's, Kaesemann's, Tillich's Exis-, not Scripture; the historical-critical method can rentialism) sought some kind of unity in religion, find errors and correct Scripture, but never the but only because they cauld not find any unity in m Scripture. Today this rejection of any hemore point ought to be made before leaving which caw be used hemeneutically is this matrere Ts affim the divine origin (verbal, fundamental to historical criticism. Thus we find plenary inspiration, inerrancy) of Scripcure is to entire books being written to point our the dis- affirm the divine origin sf the doctrine (theology) unity of Scripture. John Charlot in the book en- revealed in Scripture, Those in Missouri circles titled Hew Testament seeks co $how that who use the historical-critical method while affirm- there is no way $0 f nd of uniky in the New ing or giving lip service to the divine origin sf Testament. The New Testament misunderstands the Scripture are incapable of using the divine origin Old, he says. The evangelists misunderstood and principle herirnreneutica1Py as %'ley do exegesis, A distorted the message of Jesus. Even the Pauline elassic example of this is found in a study of "The corpus has no unity. harlot's bcok is valuable in Biblical View of Sexual Polarity" by Dr. Ralph that he brings evidence of massive support for his ~ehrke.Z5 Gehrke affirms the verbal inspiration of position from historical critics, conservatives Scripture and insists it must be taken seriously. 26 and liberals alike. Even Paanenberg contends,28 But as he traces the theme of sexual polarity in "The assertion of a doctrinal unity of the biblical Scripture his exegetical conclusions are always that witnesses has been made impossible by the work of what Scripture says on the relation between men and critical historical research," Again Pasanenberg women is shply ancient Israel" tthlnking on the says,29 "As historical investigation of Scripture subject or Paul's theology, no$ God% Word or srdi- progressed, the biblieistic harmonizing procedure nanee, This is in csmplete contrast to Melanch- of interpretation cantrolled by the analogy of chon's discussion of the subject in Apology XXIII, faith became increasingly questionable, and its distance from the literal sense of Scripture, which 11. THE UNITY PR%NCIP&E (THE HAUPTARTIREL according to it was suppcsed to be normative, he- PRXNCIPLE, THE SPIRIT PRXNCIPEE) came eves clearer, Histsrisal research shaxsi~ed (emphasis mine) that the ccntradictionless doc- The historical-critical method arose sn%y aft- trinal unity which had been presupposed was not in scholars had eonvineed themselves that they could fact present in the New Testamenf writings." Again find no underlying unity in the Scripture, no unity he says, "The New Testamenf witnesses not only eon- in terms of Scripture's single divine Author, no tradict themselves on details, such as the accounts unity in terms af doctrine, Law and Gospel, csvenant, of the day of Jesus' death, but in addition they sr Cbristsb~gy, did they find errors in Not anly exhibit considerable diffexenees and even contra- Scripture as it touched upon matters pertaining to in csncepti~ns history and nature, but they thought dictions the theological that occa- they found dif- imprint on an entire hook and fering and contradictory theologies in Scripture. sionally leave their cannot be removed from its individual fsmulatkows. And their methodology was calctaaated to explain dl These contradictions cannot be understood as e~mple- this usually in terms of the development of thought mentary parts of an organic unity." A11 in all, a and doctrine traced historically. All this is funda- ical science applied to Scripture (like any other total repudiation of the Refomation hemeneutical book) can yield only tentative conclusions. What of tke unity of Scripture--and agafn or doctrine recorded in Scripture has not asserted wkth emplete confidence, if not arro- event been ganee quesrioned as a result of the historical- . critical method? The dominical institution of 1% fs clear that historical criticism with its Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar are ques- denial of the Lutheran principle of the unity sf tioned on historical grounds. This can only result Scripture carranot arrive at any unified dogma, at in a questioning of the very sacrament itself as a any exegeeical csnclusbons in the sense of pure doe- means of salvation. The historicity (reality) of trine, Everything becomes an open question, The the Fall is denied by the critics, and thus the transfiguration and the resurrection may be confused reality of original sin is questioned. Gen. 3 and accounts of the sme idea, Ss also with the ascen- Rome 5 as they refer to Adam and the Fall are only sion into heaven and the session at the right hand didactic stories shewing us what we are like today. of Godp, The Virgin Birth may be no more than a The appearances of the risen.Chrfst*are found to be didahatic story, a midrash or ttaeaalsgical construct, hopelessly confused, and Paul is said to be ignorant The empty kamb may cot be a part sf the doctrine of of the empty tomb which was a later legend anyhow. the resurrection, Everything becomes hypstihtetical, And so Ehe resurrection igself is questioned as dubious, nothing more than a didactic story. And it is de- hain, it is clear that with its denial of the nied as a real event. This is precisely the posi- unity of Scripture that the criticism of the his- tion of Ernst Kaesemann as he seeks to prove on torical-critical method is not criticism in the historical-critical grounds that none of the mir- gurdy neutral sense, as has been frequently as- acles of Christ really occurred, and he begins with serted by its practitioners, For in the with Resurrection ef our Lord, His conckusisn is that there is no real, ontological, PaistsricaB, historical method may question on historical 31 grounds the origin and therefore meaning of any objective basis for the Christian Gospel at all. assertion or event recorded in Scripture, Thus the Awd this eonclarrsidsn is inevitable for the consistent meaning of any text (Gen. 3:15 or John 3:16) may be practitioner of the historical-critical method. placed in question. And ultimately all in Scripture Omnia dubitanda mnt: all things must be is rdativized ortmade hypsthetical, also the mean- doubted, mis fundmental Cartesian assum~tisn, ing of those pericspes which have led to our credal this scepticism which refuses to begin with the statements. 30 We have shown that fundamental to given of a real, historical divine revelation, under- %heevangelical Refomation h.emeneutics was $he lies bath the nation sf history and of criticism as fact that exegesis beads to doctrine, This is funda- we abseme the historical-critical method ae work mentally impossible for the historical-critical today. This method of doubt was not applied to his- approach to Scripture. tory and biblical studies in Descartesqay, but a century later it was--with a vengeance. ~escartes' dZ$. THE PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL REALISM method was joined by Leibnitz' principle (follow- Asistotle) me chronic inability of the historical-critical ing that truths of history (existence) method to reach definite exegetical csnclusions hav- were only contingent. The result was that at just ing the force of doctrine affects inevitably the the time when historiography was being developed as understandfng sf %he nature af the Christian revela- a science, history itself and historical events were tion. History is contingent, relative, according to in principle thought to be only contingent and there- historical-critical methodology. ThereEore histor- fore relative, This meant that when the so-called historical methsd was applied ts Scripture as a stake. And therefore the evangelical Lutheran must historically condftioned collection sf writings reject the historical-critical method as the great not only the historical but the doctrinal content heresy of our day, a heresy which has affected of Scripture was relativized. It meant that Christian doctrine at its Gospel center and at Christianity no longer has a "privileged pssi- every point. tbra". '"GhrPistianity f$sellf becomes part sf the immense Angerplay of historical forces, a mere The Roman poet Ovid coined a phrase, otsta: resist the beginnings, resist something wrong movement in the flux of historical events and inter- s__P____I relationships, Like all other history, i& is to be at the very outset. It is the great tragedy of the considered a development at a certain gime, in a last two and a half centuries that Lutheranism was certain place mong ce%tain people, part of the unable to do this in respect to the historical- devastating general cultural history of %he world. There are critical method. The program of Richard no unique events, no occurrences of absolute and Simon, Johann Semler and aL1 the other inventors of revelatory significance. The hisesry of Israel is historical criticism was not, with a few exceptions, part and parcel af the general history of the Mid- adequately attacked at its roots by the Confes- dle Ea-r;C, the history of the ckrurch part of the sional Lutherans of that day, particularly not in history of the Roman Empire--r.-.thing less, nothing Europe. In America we fared better until recentxi. more, In sum: everything is part of one oves- But since World War II most of Lutheran exegesis has uncritically fallen prey to the method. all historical continurn. '$3; Again the inevitable result of historical science with its prejudices Today those of us who wish to retain the Gos- and philosophic presuppositions as it is applied pel and our evangelical Lutheran identity have one to the Scriptures, clear course of action open to us. We must resrudy There is no way out of the sceptical --eul de and reaffirm our evangelical Lutheran hermeneutics. sac into which the historical-critical method We must reaffirm the true Reformation principle of sola And we must on doctrinal grounds leads. No way ou~,if we wish to rei$aiw the his- p and on the basis of a biblical and Christian idea toric Christian faich. Of course, one may seek to reinterpret or red;ce Christianity to a religion of of history reject as such the historical-critical ideas or truths which are not based upon historic method of investigation in the Scriptures, facts or reality (Megel, Strauss, Troeltsch, Kit- schl. Harnack, Idealism, Classical Liberalism). Or one may retreat into subjectivity (Kirkegaard, Tillich, Bultmann, Kaesemann and the post-Bult- mannians), or Schwaemerei (E. Brunner, K. ~arth). But in both cases one has departed from historic FOOTNOTES Christianity which is based upon the reality of a living God acting in real history. l9 See Sverre Aalen, "The Revelation of Christ and And there is no way, no possible way, to rec- Scienelf ic Researcl~"in (Dec, oncile the modern historical-critical method with 1970), p. 210: "A close at the so- the evangelical hemeneutics of Lutheranism. 9he called 'historical-critied8 rreseareh in the forn in two different approaches to the Word of God clash which we know it today, where it concerns the mose at every point, and the results of the two ap- important motifs of the contents, is a child of the proaches are ultimately two different religions. modern time and has drawn its motifs from che spiriz Nothing less than the Christian Gospel itself is at of the modern time. Its agreement with humanism or even with the existentialism of our tine is obvious 23 Creation -and and perhaps denied by na one, That the decisive motifs with which this theology labors, cannot be 24 See Faithful --to Our p. 41: "~asically relevant to the material, reveals itself among- other all the techniques associated with 'historical- things also this, that the principle elemens is in critical' mefhodology, such as source analysis,- -form not sought in the words sf the text, but as was history, and redaction history, are legitimated by stated above, behind the words, even at rimes in --.--I__- ~l_ll_l.--__Xls__-___ rhe--- - fact that God chose go use as His written Ward direct ccntradictio-3 To the text ." kait:~is op- human documents written by human beings in human posed to the historical-critical method, but the language." The adoptionist position underlying judgment is made by Pannenberg (Basic Ques- same ------this statement about Scripture (as though God made --tions in . London: SCM Press, k973,2,196) existent human documents His Word) is probably the who the favors method: "What is needed is preeise- result of hurried and sloppy thought on the part of ly the historical quest, moving behind the kerygma the faculty. mat is perhaps more significant is in its various forms, into the public ministry, . " - that the declamation is an absurd non $each, and resurrection of Jes~shimself in crder From the fact that God condescends to reveal Himself in that way to obtain in the Chris$-even$ itself in no way implies that we can use the most radical standard means to various a by of which judge the methods of exegeting Scripture, methods which deny witnesses to it, even those actrraib withiaa the in principle that Scripture is God's Word. P:ew Testarrrnt." Cf. 197 and passim. rarrnexibrrg frankly disagrees wit-h Llre ~eiormztion "unitv arin- d a 25 Ralph Gehske, "The Biblical View of Sexual Polar- sentioned ciple" above (Ibid., 134). I think one ity," CTM, XLI, 4 (April 1970), p: 195-205. can see that to Pannenbesg and mo2ern historical meaning asri ticf sm the f r,tex~dild of the canonical 26 Ralph Gehrke, "Genesis Three in the Light of Key text is only a means often to get t~ the histori- Hermeneutical Considerations", CTM, ( cal wcrd the fact or behind text, and the authority Aug. 1965, pp. 534-560. One of Gehrke's conclu- of the text ~xhis rela~ivized: cot zhe text, as sions in this essay which uses the historical- bcL the ~JISLC~T;5ehir~1~fthe text Lecs~es authorita- critical method is that the genre of Gen. 3 is did- tive far doctrine. actic story which leaves the historicity of Adam 29 and Eve and their Fall an open question. This in -,:reation and Rede ------_s______l Pkribadelpi~ia: Fortress contradiction to the evangelical hermeneutics ili our p. Press, i.957, $33, Confessions which teach a real historical Adam and

&A Eve and Fall, History and Interpretation "- tne d"cspc3s9 pp. 12. 10, 27 John Charlot, New Testament (New York BB bL E, D. Button & Cs., 1990), --der -- Dogmatik (Leipzig, 18661, p. 237. For further evlJrnce of this position of the high- 28 Basie Questions & (landon : SCM Press, er crxtics in the nineteenth century see Robert 19701, g. 194. Preus, "~altherznd the ~criptures". CTM, XXXII, 11 pp. 29 (~ov.IRhl), 669-691. This article will abun- p. 193. Cf. also ibid., p. 7: "For our dantly show that ids; tber was waging the same battle ., historical consciousness, the 'esgeneial content' for the Lurheran 21ermeneutic as we are doiig today of Scripture which Luther had in mind, viz., the who oppose the historical-critical method. person and history of Jesus is no longer to be IRE ACTOR' S REMARKS found in the texts of Scripture themselves, but behind them," Pres. Carl J. Lawrenz Wisconsin Lu%h. Seminary 30 See, for instance, Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Mequon, Wisconsin Faith, Tr, by James W. Lietch (Philadelphia:-- Fortress Press, 1963), p. 43: "It leads only to How is the Lutheran Church to interpret and obscuring the nature of the problem when the use the Old and New Testaments? I have listened critical-historical method is held to be a purely with much joy to the sound and pertinent answers formal scientific technique entirely free from pre- which Dr. Preus has given to this timely question suppositions, whose application to the historical in the lectures given at this Bethany Refomation obj@cts in the theological realm provokes no con- Lecture Series program. They are ~cripture's own flicts and does no hurt to the d~gmaticstructure." answers to this question. Ur. Preus has clearly pointed out that the hemeneutical principles which Ernst Kaesemann, Essays 9 New Testament Themes confessional Lutherans have espoused and used in (Naperville, 111.: A. R. Allenson, 1964) p. 48ff. reading and interpreting the Old and New Testaments

JL in with Isaac C, Rottenberg, Redemption and Historical harmony the Lutheran Confessions are taught -- by Scripture itself. Hence, they are more than mere Reality (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964). Lutheran hemeneutical principles. They have the p. 40. Rottenberg is summarizing the theodogy of The denial and rejec- Troeltsch at this point and his entire discussion force of bib$ical doctrine, tion of these principles of hermeneutics are there- is most revealing of the devastation wrought by With all this the historical-critical method as consistently fore nothing less than false doctrine. I agree most heartily and emphatically. applied by Troeltsch and others, The essayist has also shown that the historical- critical method of interpretation, consistently carried through, does reject and deny each and every one of the vital hemeneutical principles of evan- gelical Lutheran exeeetical procedure. By the his- torical-mitical method the Scripares are bound as effectively today as they were by the theory of a fourfold sense of Scripture and papal censorship, which characterized biblical interpretation in the pre-Reformation period. What we have, therefore, in the evangelical grammatical-historical and the his- torical-critical approaches are two irreconcilably contradictory positions, one biblical, the other unbibPical. Those whs raise the historical-critical method to a eonfessianal position, a position for which they demand recognition, for which they in- tend to make propaganda, and which they endeavor in every way to entrench in the church, must therefore be regarded as pehsistent errorists. To all of what Dr. Preus has ably set forth in The essayist himself makes some statements in answer to the question which he was asked to treat one of the closing paragraphs of his lectures by in his lectures I have therefore nothing to add ex- which one is again strongly reminded of the inter- cept a hearty thank you for the presentation. What- locking nature of the crucial issues of the author- ever I might add would merely be an additional un- ity of Scripture on the one hand, and of the scrip- folding of what he did say; it would merely mean tural principles of church fellowship on the other saying in another way, in my own way, what he has hand; of the fact that a sound position in one can- said very effectively and very adequately in his not be maintained without maintaining such a posi- way in the t%me allotted to him, tion also in the other with equal firmness and There is, however, something that I do feel resoluteness, least of all under the all-pervading to add as a reactor to these lectures. impact of a false ecumenism. ~t does not fall directly under the material called ~llingattention to Ovid's phrase, for by the question which Dr. Preus was asked to obsta: resist the beginnings, Dr. Preus treat; and he is therefore also not faulted for is the great tragedy of the last two and a half cen- failing to touch upon it. It is, however, something that Lutheranism was unable to do this in that is strongly suggested by the problem of the two respect to the historical-critical method." Must irreconcilable positions regarding the authority of we not say that this tragedy as far as continental Scripture which he has forcefully brought to our Lutheranism is concerned was brought about by the attention. It was also immediately raised, at least very fact that even those who did take a firm stand in my mind, by the opening statement of the essay- against a rationalistic hermeneutic and against the ist's lectures, where he says: "There is no more historical-critical method, and who raised their pressing and appropriate study for the Lutheran voices in eloquent and able testimony in behalf of Church today than the assignment you have given me an evangelical, historical-gra tfcal hemeneutic, for the lectures during the Festival of the Refor- nevertheless failed to take an equally resolute mation 1973." I would like to state that I might position in carrying through the scriptural prin- have worded the opening statement in a slightly dif- ciples of church fellowship. ferent manner, namely, The assignment which you have given me for the lectures during the Festival Again the essayist says: "In America we fared of the Reformation 1973 pertains to one of two better until recently, but since World War II most crucial interlocking issues which deserve the most of Lutheran exegesis has uncritically fallen prey thorough study and earnest attention on the part of to the method." The reference of "faring better in the Lutheran Church of today. Meant are the inter- . America until recently" would seem to apply above locking issues of a sound position on the authority all to a "better faring" in former Synodical Con- of the Holy Scriptures and on the scriptural prin- ference Lutheranism. Was this not due to the fact that from the very beginning the founding fathers ciples and practice of church fellowship. These are the most crucial issues of the day. It should of the Synodical Conference did not lose sight of be evident that neither position can be upheld for the close interlocking relation between soundly any length of time without upholding the other. A scriptural positions both on the authority of the weakening in either position will eventually lead Holy Scriptures and on the scriptural practice of In founding of Synodi- to a weakening in the other likewise. Both issues church fellowship? the the are undermined by the false ecumenism that is cal Conference our fathers were concerned about a deteriorating and undermining Christianity in our federation of Lutheran synods which would be united day. in the matter of recognizing the Holy Ssriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God in all mat- every word of Scripture remains a certain matter, ters. At the same time they saw clearly that this it will become increasingly difficult to determine federation would not be able to maintain such a what a sound Christian confession of faittl really sound position on the authority of Scripture for embraces. In a scriptural practice of church any length of time if it would be willing to engage fellowship Christians are first of all bidden to help in joint worship and church work with church bodies one another to overcome their weaknesses. Yet un- with a broken position regarding the authority of less every word of Scripture remains certain, it the Holy Scriptures, church bodies teaching or per- wikf become an increasingly difficult matter to mitting scriptural error of any kind. As long as determine whether anyone is strong or weak in any the Synodical Conference maintained a firm position point of his faith. But you cannot apply the on both of these interlocking issues it fared well, scriptural injunction to bear with the weak unless you have a scriptural criterion determining who is We agree with the essayist that since World War 11 most of Lutheran exegesis even in America has weak and who is strong in the matter of concern. In scriptural fellowship ancritically fallen prey to the historlcab-critical a practice of church we are to avoid the persistent errorists. Yet unless method. Yet is this not again due to the fact that the interlocking nature of the poqitions on the Holy every word of Scripture remains certain and defi- it becomes increasingly difficult to Scripture and on church felloriship gradually failed nite, deter- doctrine what error is, who to receive full attention? The deterioration worked mine what sound is, and itself out in both directions, not only in Synodical is an errorist, and who faithfully adheres to God's Word, conference Lutheran circles, but in countless other Christian churches, As the derePiaratisn on the doezrine sf Scrip- In many formerly confessional Christian churches ture proceeds, even the most basic doctrines of the doctrine of the Holy-Scriptures,that which Scripture are wholly undermined, namely, the truths Scripture asserts concerning itself, has gradually of man's sin and guilt, of God's wrath and punish- been undemined more and more. ment, of Christ's unique person according to His The deterioration of His vicarious azone- has been due to rationalistic antisupernaturalistic, hman and divine natures, and evdubdonistic forces and influences of one kind ment, of the Holy Spirit's gift of faith, of for- giveness life. Yet when or another, also as they have manifested themselves of sins, and of eternal these truths are Lost the very line between what in negative biblical criticism, in the historical- is what the critical method, and in resultant liberal theology, sf the church and is no longer sf and later on in neo-orthodoxy and existential theol- church is erased, and one can no longer speak mean- ingfully about church fellowship at all. Pfust we ogy. As a result a corresponding deterioration-of church fellowship practices in these same church not say that it has come to this with many indi- viduals in the World CouneiE of Churches? bodies has manifested itself. These practices invariably became more and more lax and free, For In Synodical Conference circles we have prob- as more and more in the Holy S'criptures becomes ably been more conscious of the deterioration that uncertain within a church body for its leaders and ser in in the opposite direction, namely, the grad- members, the very concepts with which church fellow- ual and inevitable deterioration that the doctrine ship must function break down. The Lord bids us to of Holy Scripture experienced within confessional practice fellowshop with others on the basis of a church bodies as they gave way to a unionistic trend sound Christian confession of faith. Yet unless and to a weakening concerning the scriptural prin- ciples of church fellowship. We repeatedly asked those who profess to adhere fimly to the verbal inspiration and the full inerrancy of the Holy culminates in the doctrine of Justification by scriptures as God's eternal Word: How can your faith in the merits of Christ without the deeds of leaders join in.forms of worship and church work the Law. This Article, derived from ScPipture it- with members and leaders of other Lutheran church self, gives us the right perspective, as it were, bodies who openly deny the verbal inspiration and to vfew all the other teachings of the Scriptures the full inerrancy sf the Holy Scriptures, who ad- (Lecture 11, par. 4-8). After having set up the vacate the historical-critical method, who espouse positive side of how the Lutheran church eseab- evolution, and who deny the factual nature of the lishes its body of doctrine, Lecture III analyzes cleation accomt? Mow can your leaders, profes- the so-called Historical-Critical Method and demon- sors and synodical officials, join in forms of strates what havoc it wreaks when It intrudes into worship and church work with other Lutheran leaders the theology of the Lutheran church (Lecture 1x1, who ~penlyadvocate neo-orthodox theology, who call par. 9-17]. One can easily see that in these Lec- zhe fall sf Mam and Eve into sin and the resur- tuPes we are dom to the fundamental problem of rection of our Savior into question as historical -how one may know what is God's will toward man. happenings? Fsr how can your headers then hope to This is called a problem in Epistemology. So, a discipline men in your om mids$ if they begin to reactor shouldn" taste time nit-picking about the h~ldto these same errors and promote them? slight difference of opinion regarding an inci- dental phrase or a footnote, etc., but he should We believe that: contemporary chureh history rather detenmine how he can focus all tkis material gives abundant evidence that tinese fears were war- on the points on which we should concentrate so that ranted e we don't get side-tracked on minor issues. There is These considerations have therefore induced a Great Debate raging now, but sometimes we can't me to offer ehe rnaetez of the interlocking nature see the forest for the trees. -of the issues of Scripture and church feBlawship As my chief reaction, I would like to pin-point after hearing this sound lecture series on a truly what 1 deem to be the &ear%of the difference be- Lutheran pasftion in interpreting the Holy Scrip- tween the Confessional Lutheran principles sf Bib- tures and on the opp~sitionthat it faces today in lical interpretation and the late-Lutheran or neo- the chureh. orthodox Wheran prindples of those whs use the Historical-Critical Hethod as it is normally prac- Prof. B, W. Teigen ticed. Betla any kuth . Semimary Mankato, Minnesota The essayist (Lecture 11, par. 17,18) states that Luther and the Confessional writers recognize These three lectures are a thorough-going the Realism clearly revealed in Scripture and that study of Lutheran principles of interpretation. they would have repudiated Kantian Idealism (par. Lecture I deals with how the Lutheran Confessions 19). This is indeed true, and certainly they would trea% the divine Scripture, namely, they study them have repudiated the later Naturalism and Positivism to learn God's will toward man, because they are the of the 19th and 20th Centuries, Te refresh our infallible revelation sf God to maw; in the words memories, Kant did not deny the possibility that sf the essayist: "~octrfne,dsgma, is the sf Reality might be more than the physical world, but exegesis" (Lect. I, par. 13). Lecture II treats his skepticism denied the possibility of our hav- more specifically 0% how the revealed will of Gad ing or acquiring any direct knowledge about the realities of God and His divine will to man, The Naturalists and Positivists of a later date went (my emphasis--quoted by Werner K much farther, They said that there is no Reality Testament: The History of the Investigation of its except that which is empirically verifiable, but Problems, 1972, p, 304). that fitea%%tghas ts do only with the world of sense; Now it is indeed true that some have denied the natural world is the whole of Reality md there- this obvious fact, trying to find a comgromise be- fore there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, tween the two positions; notably, Karl Barth who I value, control, or significance. said: "T'he Historical-Critical Method of Biblical Now the Biblical understanding of Reality in- research has its rightful place: It is concerned cludes not only the world of sense (nature), but with the preparation of the intelligence-- and this also super-nature; God Himself and His will are can never be superfluous. But, were I driven to real. mis understanding of Reality includes the choose between it and the venerable doctrine of conviction that God not only can but also did re- Inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the veal His will to man and that supremely in His latter, which has a broader, deeper, more impsrtant Scripture; God has broken into His world of crea- justification. The doctrine of Inspiration is con- tion and made Himself and His will know to man, cerned with the labor of apprehending, without which This is just as real as anything else you might call no technical equipment, however complete, is of any "'real" in this world, use whatever," But then Barth adds (possibly rather wistfully): "Fortunately I am not compelled to As the essayist has repeatedly emphasized, choose between the two" (Quoted by ~Gmmel,p. 364). Lutheran principles of interpretation accept this point of view. It is a fundamental priwcipleo But certainly Wrede, Bultmann, and others of the Historical-Critical school demonstrate that But the Historical-Critical Plethod of today you have to choose between the two because of the does not accept this but rather: abhors It as a work- basic assumptions of each method. This is one of ing principle, Now this is true whether the method the points the essayist has been emphasizing, and is based on Idealistic or Naturalistic principles, he has demonstrated that the St, Louis faculty ~ultmann's declaration that the modern conception Majority Opinion (Lecture XI, par. 11; Lecture III, of human nature is that of a self-subsistent unity par. 9) has unsuccessfully tried to avoid the dilem- immune from interference of supernatural powers the ma by not setting forth the presuppositions which Q -and p* 7) is the fundamental prin- Confessional Lutheranism has derived from the Scrip- ciple the modern Historical-Critical Nethod of tures (Faithful to Galling, 39-40). This (also Criticism) today. Our pp. FQ~ is the agonizing problem also for such men as Regin So, when the Historical-Critical interpreter Prenter, as the essayist kas pointed out. says that we must look at %he Bible merely as a sol- It should be clear that in t%yingeko follow lection of historical Aoswaents, included in that Karl Bareh and the Faculty Mjoritg position here, thought is that these writings can't be given by one is trying to ride horses at the same time, a divine inspiration, two feat difficult under the most favorable circaam- Seventy-five years ago (1897) Willim Wrede put stances, but impossible if the horses are galloping it this way: "Scholarship has recognized the old off in opposite directions, doctrine of as logf- inspiratisn, . . unkenabPe. For I would suggest that you examine and re-examine cal thinking, the essayist's material from this point of view, B I believe that he has demonstrated the incornpati- bility of %he two points of vieaa which kave been topic impossibly broad with tile word "use". The mder discussion* All of this has serious impli- implication of the three lectures by Prof, Preus cations, first of all for one's awn persmal study is, however, that we use the Scriptural doctrine to af Scripture. It is Cod who speaks to me through know God's will to man, Its authority lies in the His inspired Word* mere is alsa a serious imp%f- fact that it is God-given, hd certainly we use eation for one" sconfessional position, Historic the Scriptures in that way, But as Lutherans, we Lutheranism has a confessional principle which was also recognize thar we use the Word because it is repeated and adopted at New Orleans: "The opinions a powerful word, It brings us to new life in of the erring party cannot be tolerated in the Christ. It is a dynamic, effective means of con- church of ~od,'"%is principle is either taken verting men, regeneraging, justifying, and saving seriously or it is not, hd this is the agony of them, Prof, Preus has set forth this truth admir- confessing ,. ably in his book, Lutheranism (Vsl, I, pp, 362-3781, But unfortunately Let me mention some other points the essayist there wasn't time here during these two days to go has raised tha& well merit our study and thought. into that aspect of how the Lkatheran church uses the The speaks the great variety of ap- essayist of Word. One of the chief ideas of the Refomation was proaches of the Lutheran Confessiaas ts the Scrip- that the Holy Spirit works only through the Word of tures (Lecture 1, par, 1131, %he neatter of the inter- the Gospel, Absolution, Baptism, and the ~ord'sSup- pretation of individual in the passages Confessions per, but He works effectively, and thar this is the was Briefly discussed, with one or two exrarnples being only way in whkh the distressed sinner receives taken Nothing be up, spectacular could developed consolation (Ape mIV, 70; SA, III, 111, 8; 111, BV- from these %:WQ ar three passages examined, But the VIIP), And so we use the Word for that reason also astounding is that thing after 450 years, the revslu- in the many ways in which the Gospel "offers con- tionary exegesis sf the reformers stands up pretty solation and fsrgivenesr;", This topic is so vast, well, For in the explication the exaple, of doc- htsnlost practical indeed in these days sf Enthu- trine of Justifisation, Kiteel's Theological Dictisn- siasm run wild, shat it could well be a topic for ary finds that the New Testament teaches foren- the another series sf lectures, sic$ hpglting character sf Justification: '"wti- fieation in the forensic sense is included in the 'righteousness of GodB, The believer is righteous and given a new character in the sight of the God. '@ pP 44; ef, p, 59)* And The Scripture should be so well read that the read- essayist calls our attention to the fact that Br* ing becomes an iwterpretatbn of the passage,.,. 1% Hermann Sasse has made a elassic study of ~u~her's is worth going to shureh just ts hear same minPsters exegesis of the Biblical statements on the ~ord's read the Scriptures, H, eat Supper (See Notes 6 and 17); and of course this exe- - gesis stands today, alth~ughwe may not always grasp the full implications of Luther's exegesis and may not want to admit it, In conclusion, I should note that we on the Cornittee wha selccted the topic wanted to focus on what we really th~ughtwas the real problem con- fronting us, but in ss doing we probably made the