The Interpretation of Scripture

The interpretation of God’s Word is given a special theological name, HERMENEUTICS [from the Greek verb 'hermeneuo' - 'to interpret, expound, explain’]. It is a discipline [an area of study] which we cannot possibly do justice too here. It is, also, a discipline that is responsible for the wide range of conflicting doctrinal opinions among Christian denominations.

This is my presentation on the subject of hermeneutics. It reflects the historic understanding of the Lutheran Church, particularly from the time of the Reformation and to about 150 years subsequently. I did not find the superficial LTJ paper entitled 'Hermeneutics and the Ordination of Women' especially helpful. I will [periodically] refer to it, but by its own admission its application is very limited. The paper is, I believe, more an explanation [a defence?] of the current position of the CTICR, rather than a paper that will really inform the people of the LCA and advance the debate on the possible ordination of women. The author of the paper is at least honest, saying, " THE ARGUMENTS REFLECT THE OPINIONS AND POSITIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LCA’S COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND INTER-CHURCH RELATIONS [CTICR] RATHER THAN THOSE OF THE CHURCH MORE BROADLY." [LTJ Vol 39 May 2005 Pg. 5] I had expected more! I had expected some clear, well thought out guidance for the whole church [especially for the laity] from the CTICR. If the LTJ paper is the best that can be done on this vital topic then I am concerned!

Anyhow, to continue, in Medieval times it was held, as far as interpretation was concerned, that scripture could have four senses [and all at the same time] - LITERAL, MORAL, ALLEGORICAL [that is, a symbolic or figurative meaning] and ANAGOGICAL [that is, a spiritual or mystical meaning]. By contrast the Lutheran Reformation insisted that every passage of scripture has but one sense. " FUNDAMENTALLY THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS AN ANALYTICAL ACTIVITY…ACCORDING TO GERHARD THE PUBLIC INTERPRETATION OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHURCH EMBRACES TWO PARTS: INTERPRETATION OR EXPLANATION, OF THE TEXT; AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION. THE INTERPRETATION IN TURN EMBRACES AN INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUE AND GENUINE SENSE, AND A PLAIN AND CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THIS SENSE. ONLY THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE IS VALID FOR ESTABLISHING DOCTRINE AND TEACHING IN THE CHURCH...THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE IS THE MEANING OR TENOR, THAT THE WORDS DIRECTLY AND OBVIOUSLY CONVEY." [From: 'The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism' R. Preus]

A good example of such a literal interpretation are Jesus 'words of institution' [Matthew 26.26-28; Mark 14.28; Luke 22.19-20] – see FOC SD Art VII 600.45. However, clearly the scriptures do not always speak literally – they sometimes use figurative terms. John 6.48-58 refers to 'a spiritual eating' [that is, by faith] – see 604.61. The 'Right Hand of God' is not a literal place – see 621.28. Again, the 'Rock' on which Jesus said he would build his Church [Matthew 16.18] is not a literal rock – see 334.25.

Ever since the Reformation, for the purposes of interpretation Lutherans view the scriptures as a unit. This unity is described in terms of the MESSAGE [throughout scripture either Law or Gospel are set out], the CONTENT [both the OT and NT teach justification by grace through faith], the FUNCTION [the scriptures are intended to make us wise to salvation] and the AUTHORSHIP [which is divine].

The bible must be read and interpreted as a literary document. We believe that we hear and understand what God is saying and doing in his Word through careful exegesis [that is, the setting forth from or presentation out of the inspired text]. We do this to determine and establish the intended sense. This involves careful textual study, strict attention to the rules of Hebrew or Greek grammar, the study of particular word meanings and related usage [whenever appropriate], and consideration of both the closer and wider context of a passage. Our aim is always to derive the meaning of the text from the text itself.

Grammar is of the utmost importance. In Matthew 16.15; 18.18 and John 20.23 we argue the word 'you' shows that the keys were given to all the apostles and that all the apostles were sent out as equals [334.23]. Equally the literary context and historical setting must be taken into account. Luke 7.47 is interpreted on the basis of its context, especially v 50 [143.152]. 1 Peter 4.8 is explained both on the basis of its closer context and its wider context 1 Peter 2.4-6 [156.238-239]. 1 Timothy 5.8-9/14 help us to understand verses 1 Timothy 5.11-12 [288.64-67].

Lutherans maintain that the 'letters & grammar' of scripture must be taken seriously and not selectively. We must not ignore relevant information or omit it. We must not twist or distort the scriptures to suit our own, false, non-scriptural opinions [this is called eisegesis - 'that is, reading or adding something into the text']. We must guard against careless, slovenly, illogical, dishonest exegesis [by adding or omitting words, by permitting bad grammar or ignoring the rules of grammar]. There must be no violence done to the text.

" THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS A GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT [1 CORINTHIANS 12:10]. THIS WAS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRESUPPOSITION FOR ALL EXEGESIS [AMONG ORTHODOX LUTHERAN THEOLOGIANS]. THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD HIMSELF; HE IT IS WHO ENLIGHTENS THE INTERPRETER TO FIND THE MIND AND SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, AND THIS HE ACCOMPLISHES THROUGH SCRIPTURE ITSELF. WITHOUT THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE SPIRIT NO EXEGETE CAN GRASP WITH SALUTARY RESULTS THE CONTENT OF SCRIPTURE.

WHAT IS THIS GUIDANCE AND ENLIGHTENMENT THE HOLY SPIRIT PROVIDES THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETER? ESSENTIALLY IT CONSISTS IN THE SPIRIT GUIDING THE INTERPRETER NOT SO MUCH TO UNDERSTAND THE SENSUS LITERAE, WHICH IS OPEN EVEN TO AN UNBELIEVER, AS TO BELIEVE THE INTENDED SENSE OF SCRIPTURE; IT CONSISTS IN HIS LEADING THE BELIEVER TO BREAK WITH THE DICTATES OF REASON AND EVEN WITH THE APPARENT EVIDENCE OF EXPERIENCE AND TO HOLD FAST TO THE MESSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO CLASSICAL LUTHERANISM, OFTEN REQUIRES A VIRTUAL SACRIFICIUM INTELLECTUS. FAITH IS OFTEN IN THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE ABSURD—ACCORDING TO HUMAN REASONING. WHETHER THE WORD OF SCRIPTURE AGREES WITH OUR REASON OR NOT, WE CAN ONLY SUBMIT TO IT, BELIEVE IT, AND HOLD TO IT. SUCH SUBMISSION [WROUGHT IN US BY THE HOLY SPIRIT], SUCH TOTAL COMMITMENT TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SACRED WRIT, IS AN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITION. TYPICAL OF THE LUTHERAN POSITION IS THIS STATEMENT BY CALOV:

WE OUGHT TO TAKE CAPTIVE EVERY THOUGHT IN OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST [2 Corinthians 10.5]. NOW IF OUR MINDS AND THOUGHTS ARE TO BE TAKEN CAPTIVE UNDER THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO ACCEPT THE WORD OF GOD EVEN IF OUR MIND CANNOT COMPREHEND IT AT ALL, EVEN IF IN OUR MINDS WE ARE PERSUADED THAT IT IS FALSE. WITH RESPECT TO THE MYSTERIES OF FAITH THE MODE OF THINKING OF GOD’S WORD IS SUCH "FOOLISHNESS" TO HUMAN JUDGMENT THAT "THE CARNAL MAN CANNOT GRASP OR UNDERSTAND IT ALL" [1 Corinthians 2.14]. IT IS EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT FOR US THEREFORE TO BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD, HOWEVER CRASSLY FOOLISH IT MAY SEEM, AND NOT TO FOLLOW SCIENCE AND OUR ERRING CONSCIENCE. CONTRARIWISE, WE MUST HOLD FAST TO THE WORD OF GOD, WHATEVER OUR ERRING CONSCIENCE, WHICH REGARDS IT ALL AS ABSURD, MAY ARGUE TO THE CONTRARY. BUT WE MUST ADD THAT THE WORD OF GOD WITH ITS DIVINELY INSTILLED CLARITY AND EFFICACY HAS THE POWER TO FREE EVEN THE MISTAKEN CONSCIENCE FROM ITS ERRORS AND PROVIDE A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH." [From: 'The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism' R. Preus]

However, whilst acknowledging the guidance and influence of the Holy Spirit in this work, we reject the contention [made by Pentecostals and Charismatics] that the interpreter of scripture relies entirely on the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to come to the fullest comprehension of the text. This, as Pentecostals and Charismatics concede, can mean the interpreter confuses his or her [or some other spirit] with the Spirit of God.

By contrast to these thoughts the LTJ paper places greater emphasis on what it calls 'Modern Hermeneutics'. It is, I contend, these so-called 'Modern Hermeneutics' [a by-product of the Enlightenment and the theory of evolution] that are responsible for driving the Ordination of women debate. Below are selected quotes, drawn from the paper, that indicate the thinking of the CTICR.

" TRADITIONALLY, BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS [OR THEOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS] HAS INVOLVED THE TASK OF FORMULATING RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. THESE RULES HAVE GUIDED THE CHURCH IN ITS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AN AUTHOR OR SPEAKER INTENDED TO COMMUNICATE. HERMENEUTICS TODAY, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN BROADENED TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE RULES, METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED TO INTERPRET WRITTEN TEXTS BUT ALSO THE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE UNDERSTANDING POSSIBLE." [LTJ Pgs. 5-6]

" MODERN HERMENEUTICS, WHICH IS A CHILD OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT, OFTEN MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN 1) WHAT A TEXT SAYS AND WHAT IS INTENDED WITH IT; 2) WHAT VARIOUS WRITERS AND BOOKS SAY; AND 3) WHAT A TEXT SAID THEN AND WHAT IT MEANS NOW…THESE TOOLS MAY CONTAIN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE, THEY THEMSELVES NEED TO BE USED CRITICALLY IF THEY ARE TO SERVE THE CONFESSIONAL SCHOLARSHIP OF THE CHURCH." [LTJ Pg. 6]

" HERMENEUTICS DEALS WITH THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TEXT [FOR OUR PURPOSES WE TAKE THE TEXT AND THE AUTHOR AS ONE] AND THE READER. IN THE PRE-MODERN PERIOD, THE EMPHASIS WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON THE TEXT, AS AN OBJECTIVE, STABLE ENTITY. IN THE EXTREMES OF THE POSTMODERN [OR HYPERMODERN] PERIOD OF OUR OWN DAY, THE EMPHASIS HAS SWITCHED THE OTHER WAY ROUND AND IS NOW ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON THE READER AND THE READING [OR INTERPRETATIVE] COMMUNITY. WE TAKE OUR POSITION SOMEWHERE IN THE CENTRE, FOR TWO REASONS."

" FIRST, WE RECOGNISE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE TEXT AND DO NOT HOLD THAT THE MEANING OF A TEXT IS CONSTRUCTED BY THE READER."

" SECONDLY, WE TAKE A MIDDLE POSITION BECAUSE WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE READER CONTRIBUTES TO THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS. THE READER BELONGS TO A COMMUNITY THAT IS CHARACTERISED BY A PARTICULAR USE OF LANGUAGE AND SPECIFIC TRADITIONS. THIS CONTEXT CONDITIONS THE READER TO READ OR HEAR THE MESSAGE OF THE TEXT IN A PARTICULAR WAY." [LTJ Pgs. 6-7]

" LUTHER’S HERMENEUTIC, FOR INSTANCE, IS HIS LAW–GOSPEL APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE, WHICH IS BASED ON THE CONVICTION THAT GOD SPEAKS TO THE CHURCH IN JUDGMENT AND GRACE THROUGH HIS WORD. THIS IS LINKED WITH HIS BELIEF THAT CHRIST IS THE CENTRE OF SCRIPTURE AND THAT ALL SCRIPTURE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF CHRIST."

" IT IS AGREED THAT WHILE THE LUTHERAN REFORMERS TOOK IT AS AXIOMATIC [that is, true] THAT GOD’S INTENDED MEANING IS THE LITERAL OR INTENDED SENSE [SENSUS LITERALIS OR SENSUS LITTERARUM] OF A PASSAGE, THEY DID NOT HOLD THAT THE LITERAL MEANING OF A TEXT EXCLUDES A FIGURATIVE UNDERSTANDING. IT IS ONLY MODERN HERMENEUTICS THAT FORCES READERS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A LITERAL AND A FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION." [LTJ Pg. 7]

" ACCORDING TO SCHLEIERMACHER, THE MEANING OF A PARTICULAR PASSAGE CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE, AND THE MEANING OF THE WHOLE CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR PASSAGE. APPLIED TO EXEGESIS, IT MEANS THAT INDIVIDUAL WORDS AND PARTS OF A SENTENCE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD FULLY WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SENTENCE AS A WHOLE, THE PARAGRAPH AS A WHOLE, THE CHAPTER AS A WHOLE, AND THE WORK AS A WHOLE. THE OPPOSITE ALSO APPLIES, IN THAT THE WORK AS A WHOLE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT DUE ATTENTION TO THE MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS AND SENTENCES." [LTJ Pgs.8-9]

" UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF POST-ENLIGHTENMENT RATIONALISM, THE HUMAN SUBJECT AS READER HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE CENTRE. MODERN READERS IN THEIR SUBJECTIVITY EITHER INTERROGATE THE TEXT TO EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM IT, OR THEY GO BEYOND THE TEXT IN THEIR SEARCH FOR GOD [HEGEL AND BARTH] OR ELSE THEY GO BEHIND THE TEXT TO EXPLAIN WHAT PRODUCED IT [SCHLEIERMACHER AND BULTMANN]. HERE THE HUMAN SUBJECT OR AGENT IS ACTIVE AND THE TEXT PASSIVE. REASON IS THE MAIN TOOL THE READER USES IN TRYING TO APPROPRIATE THE TEXT. WITH THIS APPROACH, GOD HAS NO ROLE IN THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN READER AND TEXT OTHER THAN ILLUMINATING THE READER’S UNDERSTANDING." [LTJ Pgs. 9-10]

" [A] NEW HERMENEUTIC, IDENTIFIED WITH FUCHS AND EBELING… UNDERSTANDS REVELATION AS A LANGUAGE EVENT OR WORD EVENT. THIS IS STILL VERY MUCH A PRODUCT OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT. APART FROM ANYTHING ELSE, THE NEW HERMENEUTIC STILL SEES THE HUMAN SUBJECT FIRMLY IN CONTROL OF THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS. THE GOAL OF INTERPRETATION HERE IS NOT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT BY MEANS OF GRAMMATICAL AND HISTORICAL EXEGESIS, BUT RATHER THE EXISTENTIALIST SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERPRETER THROUGH THE TEXT. THE TEXT IS MERELY THE MEANS TO AN END." [LTJ Pg. 10]

" ANALYTICAL METHODS OF INTERPRETATION [TEXTUAL CRITICISM, FORM ANALYSIS, HISTORICAL ANALYSIS, LITERARY ANALYSIS, DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, AND RHETORICAL ANALYSIS] HAVE THEIR PLACE IN EXEGESIS AS WE TRY TO UNCOVER AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE AUTHOR. WE ARE FREE TO USE THESE INSTRUMENTS AS LONG AS HUMAN REASON IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT IS TRUE AND FALSE IN SCRIPTURE." [LTJ Pg. 11]

Lutheran Interpretation Principles

1. Lutherans say that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God - the Bible is the Word of God! As a whole and in all their parts the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Everywhere the Bible attests that it is the Word of God. In the OT we read again and again, “ THUS SAYS THE LORD.” In the NT Paul thanks the Thessalonians that they received the apostles teaching not as a human word, but as what it really is, God’s Word [1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:19-21]. The Confessions consistently demonstrate the principle of deriving the meaning from the text of scripture. For example: “ WE SHALL SIMPLY PRESENT PAUL’S MEANING ” [Tappert 155.231]; “ WE KNOW THAT WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS THE TRUE AND GENUINE MEANING OF PAUL” [201.84]; “ THE PROPHET’S [Malachi] OWN WORDS GIVE US THEIR MEANING ” [264.32].

2. As the Word of God, the Bible is wholly truthful and inerrant [without error]. Your Word is truth [John 17:17]. While the Cretans and other human beings may be liars [Titus 1:12], God…never lies [Titus 1:2]. Although 'absolute inerrancy' can only be ascribed to the original book or letter [and we don’t have any of these available today] the Lutheran Confessions do regard “ GOD’S WORD AS THE ETERNAL TRUTH ” [Tappert 529.13]; state that “ GOD DOES NOT LIE…GOD’S WORD CANNOT DECEIVE” [464.57] and reject the notion that God “ WOULD CONTRADICT HIMSELF.” [646.35] True, there may appear to be errors in some places in the Bible, but the extent of this problem should never be exaggerated. Such discrepancies are due to copyists errors, limitations in our knowledge, etc. What we can be certain of is that God, through the Holy Spirit, has protected the transmission of the text in every essential detail. The LCA adopted these seven points on Inerrancy in 1972, saying it is contrary to the sound doctrine of the scriptures:

A] to speak of errors in the Holy Scripture;

B] to hold that what according to clear biblical statements 'actually is or actually happened' may be regarded as what is not or actually did not happen;

C] to adopt uncritically and to propagate all the claims of historical criticism which often rest on or lead to an unbiblical scepticism as to the historical bases of the Christian faith;

D] to use modern knowledge as a means to judge any biblical statement and attack the authority of scripture;

E] to make faith in the inerrancy of scripture in any way depend on the human certainty attained by rational argument and demonstration;

F] to regard all statements of the Scripture as being of equal value and importance;

G] to treat the bible in such a way as though its divine authority rendered historical investigation unimportant or irrelevant.

3. Though the Bible is in reality a collection of 66 different documents written in different times and cultures by different men it has one primary author, the Holy Spirit. With such an author, we can expect Scripture to be clear, harmonious and consistent with itself. The Bible is the clearest of all books [Luther]. Given this unity the idea that 'scripture interprets scripture' is a fundamental and legitimate hermeneutical principle attracting widespread ecumenical acceptance. Accordingly, texts are not to be ripped out of context – it could be said that a text taken out of context is a pretext. Nor was Luther’s emphasis on 'scripture interprets scripture' motivated by a desire to free scripture from 'ecclesiastical interpretation' [adaptation?]. The idea that 'scripture interprets scripture' follows from the revelatory nature of the Word and its unity of divine authorship, content and purpose.

Given this principal, passages dealing with the same subject matter may be used to explain or corroborate each other; the less clear passages can be considered in the light of the clearer ones [Tappert 291.20-292.21 & 156.238-240]; and figurative expressions may be clarified by passages that speak on the same subject in plain, simple language. Note how in the Confessions passages from Paul and John are used side by side [125.29-33] and in one paragraph 15 different biblical books are cited [549.26]. Often a passage is cited simply to corroborate the interpretation given to another passage i.e. the meaning of 'remembrance' in 1 Corinthians 11.24 is illustrated by Psalm 111.4-5 [271.72], and that Matthew 26.27 indicates that all communicants should receive the sacramental wine is reinforced by 1 Corinthians 11.20-34 [60.2-3].

" THAT SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS ITSELF MEANS FOR LUTHERAN THEOLOGY MERELY THAT THE TRUE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MUST BE DERIVED FROM SCRIPTURE ITSELF. THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF ALL SCRIPTURE, MUST BE ALLOWED TO BE HIS OWN INTERPRETER. ANY COMPROMISE OF THIS PRINCIPLE TURNS SCRIPTURE INTO AN INANIMATE SKELETON OR MUTE IMAGE THAT MUST BE ANIMATED BY THE CHURCH…HOLLAZ DIVIDES THE HERMENEUTICAL AIDS SUGGESTED BY SCRIPTURE ITSELF INTO THREE CLASSIFICATIONS: ANTECEDENT, FORMAL, AND CONSEQUENT. THE ANTECEDENT AIDS FOR INTERPRETATION ARE PRAYER; A PREVIOUS ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE ARTICLES OF FAITH; A SOLID KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLICAL MODE OF SPEAKING, WHICH WOULD ENABLE ONE TO RECOGNIZE THE GENRES, TROPES, ETC.; A LOVE FOR THE TRUTH THAT DESIRES ONLY TO FIND THE GENUINE SENSE OF A TEXT AND INTERPRET IT CLEARLY; AND FINALLY, THE CONTINUED AND REPEATED READING OF SCRIPTURE. THE FORMAL AIDS ARE A CAREFUL AND ANALYTICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WORDS AND PHRASES OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT; A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SCOPE AND INTENTION OF THE TEXT [BEARING IN MIND ALWAYS THAT THE AIM OF ALL SCRIPTURE IS THE GLORY OF GOD AND THE INSTRUCTION, COMFORT, AND EDIFICATION OF BELIEVERS]; CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CONTEXT OF EVERY TEXT AND PERICOPE; AN EXHAUSTIVE COLLATION OF PARALLEL PASSAGES SO AS TO GATHER ALL POSSIBLE DATA ON THE GREAT BIBLICAL THEMES [REMEMBERING ALWAYS THAT PARALLEL PASSAGES MUST ALWAYS DEAL WITH THE SAME SUBJECT]; AND FINALLY, CONTINUAL REFERENCE TO THE ANALOGY OF FAITH. ALL THIS SHOULD PROVIDE THE EXEGETE WITH A MASTERY OF THE BIBLICAL MODE OF SPEAKING AND THEOLOGY SO THAT HE READS SCRIPTURE FROM THE INSIDE. THE CONSEQUENT AIDS FOR INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE ARE THE MEANS NECESSARY FOR SERIOUS APPLICATION OF THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: WE ARE TO TRANSLATE THE LITERAL SENSE OF THE DIVINE WORDS INTO TEACHING, REPROOF, CORRECTION, AND INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS." [From: 'The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism' R. Preus]

4. The sufficiency of Scripture [Latin ‘Sola Scriptura’ – scripture alone] for all matters of Christian teaching and life. We need to have fresh conviction about this. Our position as a church is not Scripture plus Church tradition or the Early Church Fathers or the Lutheran Confessions or anything else including human reason and the prevailing culture, but only scripture. We can [and we must] rest our opinions about God and doctrine on scripture alone.

" THE HERMENEUTICAL TASK IS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST TO ESTABLISH THE ONCE-FOR-ALL MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURE TEXT. THIS MEANING DOES NOT AND CANNOT CHANGE. IT REMAINS THE SAME FOR THE ISRAELITES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND FOR THE CHRISTIANS OF THE FIRST CENTURY AND OF TODAY. THE INTENTION OF SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE ALTERED OR VITIATED [that is, weakened/spoilt] ACCORDING TO THE CANONS OF HUMAN INGENUITY OR REASON OR ACCORDING TO CULTURAL OR INTELLECTUAL ADVANCES." [From: 'The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism' R. Preus]

" CLOSELY RELATED TO THE ISSUES OF MALE HEADSHIP AND FEMALE SUBORDINATION IN THE CHURCH AND IN MARRIAGE IS THE ISSUE OF CULTURE AND THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE…BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT THE MATTER OF CULTURE IS NOT THE CRITICAL ISSUE. THE CASE FOR THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN HIGHLIGHTS THE ISSUE OF CHURCH AND CULTURE. GOD’S REVELATION, AND THEREFORE SCRIPTURE, IS ALWAYS TIED TO A PARTICULAR CULTURE, ITS LANGUAGE AND TRADITIONS. BY THE SAME TOKEN, IT ALSO TRANSCENDS AND CRITIQUES CULTURE. AT THE SAME TIME, EVERY INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IS INFLUENCED BY CULTURE, SINCE WE BRING TO THE TEXT OUR PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CULTURAL BIASES, WHICH IN TURN NEED TO BE JUDGED BY THE TEXT TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE APPROPRIATE, FOR THERE IS NO EXEGESIS WITHOUT PRESUPPOSITIONS. PART OF THE DIFFICULTY IN THE CURRENT DEBATE IS DETERMINING WHETHER THE KEY TEXTS MERELY REFLECT THE CULTURE OF THEIR DAY OR WHETHER THEY ARE ALSO TRANS-CULTURAL AND BINDING ON THE CHURCH AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL PLACES." [LTJ Pg.21]

5. The New Testament is the final authoritative interpreter of the OT. Whereas the OT is a lamp shining in a dark place, the NT brings us the full light of day and the Morning Star [2 Peter 1:19]. Whereas the OT is the moon, the NT is the sun [Wilhelm Loehe, Three Books about the Church]. The Confessions frequently use New Testament passages to interpret the Old Testament i.e. Ephesians 5.9 & Colossians 3.10 interpret 'the image of God' Genesis 1.27 [114.18-20], whilst Abraham’s faith and Abel’s sacrifice are explained by Romans 4.9-22 and Hebrews 11.4 [150.202].

6. We hold that if we want to settle a doctrinal issue, we go to the specific texts that deal with the issue. This is only common sense. If we want to know how to change the wheel on our car, we don’t open the manual to the pages dealing with the electrical system.

7.We need to carefully distinguish between what is merely a precedent or a biblical custom, and what is commanded or mandated by God. Foot washing, for example, was a Palestinian custom Jesus used merely as an example [John 13:15] to explain how Christians should love one another. There is no permanent command to the church to keep the custom of foot washing - a custom that only makes sense in a culture where people walked in sandals on dusty roads. What is permanent is, for example, Jesus new commandment that we love one another [John 13:34].

8.The Word of God transcends time and place. We have no licence to revise the Bible in the light of any form of cultural change. Jesus and the apostles did speak into a culture, but they could rise above it when the culture was wrong [i.e. Jesus strong denunciations of Pharisaism].

" NOW THE SEVERAL HERMENEUTICAL RULES THAT GOVERN LUTHERAN EXEGESIS ARE CERTAINLY DEPENDENT ON THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF SCRIPTURE, ITS INFALLIBILITY AND CLARITY, AND ON THE SOLA SCRIPTURA PRINCIPLE, BUT IT IS NEVERTHELESS THE HERMENEUTICAL RULES THAT GOVERN THE EXEGESIS …DOCTRINE MUST BE THE RESULT OF SOUND EXEGESIS, AND EXEGESIS THE RESULT OF THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF HERMENEUTICAL RULES. ONLY WHEN THE HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES ARE SOUND AND BIBLICAL WILL THE DOCTRINE BE SOUND. WHERE THE BASIC BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL NORMS ARE ABANDONED, A RADICALLY DIFFERENT THEOLOGY, UNEVANGELICAL IN NATURE, WILL RESULT." [From: 'The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism' R. Preus]

NOTE:

The LTJ paper gives the following hermeneutical rules agreed upon by the CTICR, but adds little or no detail.

" BOTH PARTIES TO THE DEBATE IN THE LCA AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING HERMENEUTICAL RULES, EVEN IF THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD OR APPLIED. HOWEVER, AS WE KNOW, GENERAL AGREEMENT AT THE LEVEL OF PRESUPPOSITIONS DOES NOT GUARANTEE AGREEMENT IN EXEGESIS OR APPLICATION.

FIRST, WE CONFESS THAT ALL OUR INTERPRETATION IS GUIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE RULE OF FAITH [REGULA FIDEI], WHICH IS SUMMARISED BY THE TWO ECUMENICAL CREEDS.

SECONDLY, WE CONFESS THE FULL INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE AS THE WORD OF GOD. HOWEVER, WE COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS IN REGARD TO THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN. THIS NOT ONLY INDICATES DIFFERENCES IN EXEGESIS BUT ALSO POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCES IN THEOLOGY. AT ISSUE IS NOT THE AUTHORITY OF GOD’S WORD BUT HOW IT IS TO BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED TODAY.

THIRDLY, WE CONFESS THAT SCRIPTURE IS THE ONLY RULE AND NORM ACCORDING TO WHICH ALL DOCTRINES AND TEACHERS ALIKE MUST BE APPRAISED AND JUDGED (FORMULA OF CONCORD, EPITOME, RULE AND NORM 1). THE LCA HOLDS THAT THE NORMATIVE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE HAS A TWOFOLD BASIS. ON THE ONE HAND, SCRIPTURE IS AUTHORITATIVE BECAUSE GOD IS ITS AUTHOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, SCRIPTURE IS AUTHORITATIVE BECAUSE IT BEARS WITNESS TO CHRIST.

UNDER HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS WE ALSO NEED TO ADD FOUR THEOLOGICAL AXIOMS…BY GRACE ALONE (SOLA GRATIA), BY SCRIPTURE ALONE (SOLA SCRIPTURA), AND BY FAITH ALONE (SOLA FIDE)…‘CHRIST ALONE’ (SOLUS CHRISTUS). THEY SAFEGUARD THE FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLE, THE ARTICLE ON JUSTIFICATION, WHICH IS THE SUM AND ESSENCE OF SCRIPTURE. [LTJ Pgs. 11-12]

HERMENEUTICAL RULES FOR EXEGESIS. THE FIRST RULE IS THAT THE SCRIPTURES CAN ONLY BE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD CHRISTOCENTRICALLY: CHRIST IS THE CENTRE OF THE SCRIPTURES, AND THEREFORE ALL SCRIPTURE, INCLUDING THE OLD TESTAMENT, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF CHRIST (LUKE 24:27,44; JOHN 5:39; 20:31). ALL SCRIPTURE IS ULTIMATELY SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF CHRIST, WHO PREACHES BOTH LAW (HIS ALIEN WORK) AND GOSPEL (HIS PROPER WORK). IT REMINDS US THAT THE CHRISTOCENTRIC FOCUS OF SCRIPTURE MUST NEVER BE SEPARATED FROM ITS SOTERIOLOGICAL PURPOSE. THE CHRISTOCENTRICITY OF SCRIPTURE IS FIRST OF ALL A HOMILETICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RULE AND MUST NOT BE TURNED INTO A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHICH PARTS OF THE BIBLE ARE AUTHORITATIVE AND WHICH ARE NOT.

THE SECOND HERMENEUTICAL RULE IS THAT SCRIPTURE IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER (SCRIPTURA SUI IPSIUS INTERPRES). THIS RULE COMES OUT OF LUTHER’S CONTROVERSY WITH THE ROMAN CHURCH, WHICH HELD THAT SCRIPTURE IS A CLOSED BOOK UNTIL IT IS AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRETED BY THE CHURCH (ULTIMATELY BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF). ROME ARGUED THAT BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS UNCLEAR IT NEEDS AN INTERPRETER. LUTHER’S COUNTERARGUMENT WAS THAT SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR, SIMPLE AND TRANSPARENT. IN A WORD, SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS ITSELF. IN THE CURRENT DEBATE, IT WOULD BE A MISUSE OF THIS RULE TO DECLARE THE TWO KEY PASSAGES UNCLEAR AND THEN INTERPRET THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL, CONCLUDING THAT WOMEN MAY BE ORDAINED BECAUSE THE GOSPEL TRUMPS THE DOMINICAL AND APOSTOLIC PROHIBITIONS. FOR LUTHER, THE RULE THAT SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE MEANS THE REVERSAL OF THE NORMAL SUBJECT–OBJECT ORDER OF LIFE: IT MEANS THAT SCRIPTURE POSES THE QUESTION RATHER THAN WE. THE SCRIPTURES BECOME THE SUBJECT AND WE BECOME THE OBJECT.

THE THIRD RULE HAS TO DO WITH THE PROPER DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND GOSPEL. .THE CLAIM IS MADE THAT SOME OF THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN USE AN INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE GOSPEL (THE EQUALITY OF ALL IN CHRIST) TO OVERRIDE AN APOSTOLIC COMMAND. THEY ARE SAID TO LUMP THE APOSTOLIC COMMANDS IN THE TWO KEY TEXTS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF LAW AND THEN TRUMP THEM WITH THE GOSPEL. HOWEVER, IT IS RENOUNCED BY MEMBERS OF THE CTICR ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE. SUCH A METHOD OF INTERPRETATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EITHER LUTHER OR THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, FOR IT AMOUNTS TO USING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND GOSPEL AS A CRITICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN AS A RULE FOR EXEGESIS AND AN AID TO APPLICATION.

THE FOURTH RULE IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE THIRD AND ADDRESSES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SCRIPTURES AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. HOWEVER, FOR REASONS ALREADY GIVEN, WE CANNOT USE THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION IN THE CURRENT DEBATE TO SET ASIDE THE DOMINICAL AND APOSTOLIC COMMANDS. THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THE PROHIBITIONS ARE ONLY TEMPORARY MUST ARGUE THEIR CASE EXEGETICALLY." [LTJ Pgs. 12-15]

Other Factors involved in the Interpretation of Scripture

Lutherans also emphasize [very strongly] certain structures or teachings within scripture that are sometimes [quite wrongly] elevated to the level of hermeneutical principles. These are, notably, the division of all scripture into either Law or Gospel messages, the central message of justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake, and the related contentions that scripture is Christocentric and functions to make sinners wise to salvation.

" FOLLOWING LUTHER, THE THEOLOGIANS OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY MAKE CHRIST THE CENTRAL THEME OF ALL SCRIPTURE. CHRIST IS THE PEARL, THE SCOPE, THE CENTRE, THE NUCLEUS, THE EVANGELICAL TREASURE OF ALL SCRIPTURE, OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ALIKE. ALL SCRIPTURE POINTS TO HIM. ONLY IN HIM IS SCRIPTURE READ ARIGHT AND UNDERSTOOD. “THE GENUINE SCOPE AND ULTIMATE INTENTION OF THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURE IS THAT WE MIGHT COME TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON, THE OFFICE, AND THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST. WITHOUT CHRIST THE SCRIPTURE IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT WHEREBY THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE, BUT A DEAD LETTER, A LETTER THAT KILLS. THE GOAL OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT JUST THAT WE MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING HISTORICALLY ABOUT CHRIST AND THEN TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT WE MIGHT COME TO HIM, COME TO HIM IN FAITH AND TRUE REPENTANCE, AND IN HIM AND THROUGH HIM FIND LIFE. HE WHO DOES NOT SEEK LIFE IN CHRIST BUT THINKS THAT HE CAN MANAGE IN SOME OTHER WAY WILL NEVER BE A FIT READER OF SCRIPTURE.” THE CHRISTOCENTRICITY OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT THEREFORE MERELY SOME WORN CLICHÉ, BUT A PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED DIRECTLY BY SCRIPTURE AND BY CHRIST HIMSELF (E.G., JOHN 5:39; 2 TIM. 3:15) FROM THE MASS OF PROPHECY AND TYPOLOGY PRESENT THROUGHOUT SCRIPTURE. THE CHRISTOCENTRICITY OF SCRIPTURE BECOMES A HERMENEUTICAL NORM. ALL SCRIPTURE MUST BE READ AND EXPOUNDED CHRISTOLOGICALLY.

THIS CONVICTION OF ALL THE ORTHODOX LUTHERANS THAT THE CHRISTOCENTRICITY OF SCRIPTURE IS A HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLE DOVETAILS PERFECTLY WITH THEIR BELIEF THAT THE THEOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE IS ONE UNIFIED CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, WITH THEIR STRONG AND CONSISTENT CHRISTOLOGICAL EXEGESIS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, WITH THEIR EMPHASIS ON THE ANALOGY OF FAITH AS A HERMENEUTICAL NORM, AND WITH THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL SCRIPTURE IS LAW OR GOSPEL. BUT WHAT IS OF HIGHER SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT THE CHRISTOCENTRICITY OF SCRIPTURE UNITES THE FORMAL [SOLA SCRIPTURA] PRINCIPLE OF THEOLOGY WITH THE MATERIAL PRINCIPLE [JUSTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST] IN SUCH A WAY THAT NEITHER STANDS ALONE, BUT EACH COMPLEMENTS THE OTHER PERFECTLY." [From: 'The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism' R. Preus]

An important recent trend [over the last 30-40 years] in scriptural interpretation is that of GOSPEL REDUCTIONISM. This is very common in the LCA today. This basically argues, in the words of a Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink, that:

" THE GOSPEL IS THE NORM IN SCRIPTURE AND SCRIPTURE IS THE NORM FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL.... WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPEL THE BIBLE REMAINS UNINTELLIGIBLE AND USELESS. ONLY FROM THE GOSPEL DO ALL INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE RECEIVE THEIR PROPER PLACE AND MEANING."

[From 'Theology of the Lutheran Confessions' 1961]

And all would agree that the Gospel is the leading theme in scripture, the theme which makes sense of the scriptures as whole. Rightly, the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins has been described as the hub of the wheel from which all the spokes radiate and to which they all lead. But the Gospel may not be set in opposition to the spokes, or the wheel will collapse. The Gospel [or the spoken Word] may not be used as a critical authority which we set over against other parts of the Bible. In other words, we may not use a Gospel focus to drain other parts of the Bible of their colour so that we reduce and homogenise other teachings [e.g. the order of creation, the fall into sin, the Law and the doctrine of the ministry] until they no longer have any significance. It simply will not do to reduce the interpretation of scripture down to the lowest possible denominator! What is Law in scripture must be explained and understood as Law, and what is Gospel in scripture must be explained and understood as Gospel. If all scripture is understood and explained as Law there is no instrument for the Holy Spirit to create faith in Christ and as a result no comfort against the terrors of the Law. If all scripture is explained and understood as Gospel, there will be no instrument for the Holy Spirit to convict man of his sin and show him his need for a Saviour, thus weakening the force of the Gospel. Rather, instead of being the sole principle for the interpretation of the Scriptures, it [the Gospel] provides the basic rule which clarifies the scriptural view concerning the relation between faith and good works.

The Confessions do not use the Law-Gospel distinction and the doctrine of justification as hermeneutical principles. They insist on deriving the meaning of the texts from the simple, proper and natural meaning of the words themselves [153.224]. Writing in 1968 R.A. Bohlmann, in 'Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions' [pgs. 116-117] says:

" THE CONFESSIONS THEMSELVES DO NOT SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT THE LAW-GOSPEL DISTINCTION OR THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION SERVE AS AN OVERARCHING HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO THE SCRIPTURES…IN FACT, HAD THE CONFESSIONS EMPLOYED THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION IN THIS WAY, THEIR EXEGESIS WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS OPEN TO THE CHARGE OF SUBJECTIVISM AS WAS THAT OF THEIR ROMAN CATHOLIC AND ENTHUSIAST OPPONENTS. "

This does not mean, however, that the doctrine of justification and the Law-Gospel distinction serve no hermeneutical role. The Confessions do refer to them whenever they [the doctrine of justification/the Law-Gospel distinction] are particularly at stake or under attack. As such they can be used to control a situation in which they might be weakened or confused. For example, the doctrine of justification can be used to clarify the relationship between faith and works. In these circumstances they function as applications of the hermeneutical principle that scripture must interpret itself. Moreover, both doctrines should serve as guiding presuppositions for any exegetical work since they are drawn from scripture and epitomize the content of the entire bible.

As regards the interpretation of scripture the Lutheran Confessions maintain a careful, critical continuity with the Church Fathers e.g. acceptance of the ecumenical creeds and condemnation of heresies. The Fathers are frequently cited in the Confessions. This said the Confessions do not suggest the testimony of the Fathers is a hermeneutical principle for biblical interpretation. " THE CONVICTION THAT A CHURCH PRACTICE CONTRARY TO GOD'S COMMAND SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED IS NOT ONLY DERIVED FROM SCRIPTURE, BUT IS ANCIENT CANONICAL TEACHING [AC XXII]." [cited in ‘Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions’ R. Bohlmann Pg. 129]

Finally, some claim that the Confessions also serve a hermeneutical function. But it is best to say that The Confessions give impetus and direction to the ongoing study of scripture. "…SUBSCRIPTION TO THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS MEANS THAT THE CONTEMPORARY LUTHERAN INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES ACCEPTS NOT ONLY THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIBLICAL EXEGESIS THAT CONSTITUTES THE DOCTRINAL CONTENT OF THE CONFESSIONS, BUT ALSO THE HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES EMPLOYED BY THE CONFESSIONS IN REACHING THEIR CONCLUSIONS." [‘Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Lutheran Confessions’ R. Bohlmann Pg. 136]

Conclusion

The LTJ paper only acknowledges what we already know [and have known for a long time], that each of the parties engages the WO debate with different hermeneutical understandings and imperatives. So, in my opinion, there can be no agreement or resolution of the WO issue at the General Synod in 2006 [or any other General Synod for that matter] without considerable mutual accommodation.

Basically, as I see it, this is the situation. One party [those against the ordination of women] largely rely upon and apply the hermeneutical principles built into the scriptures themselves and highlighted by the Lutheran Reformation. If they use the modern hermeneutical tools at all they do so with extreme caution, they uphold the authority of scripture over human reason [ministerial use of reason] and they reject secular equalitarian/cultural pressures to permit change. The other party [those for the ordination of women] though aware of the scriptural/Lutheran interpretative methods [and paying lip service to them] have given ascendancy [consciously or unconsciously] to the modern, critical hermeneutical tools. They have, as a result, sometimes elevated human reason over scripture [magisterial use of reason] and are prepared to accommodate secular equalitarian/cultural expectations within the life of the Church.

The monumental challenge ahead for our small church [for any church body] - the challenge of upholding and confessing the unity of the Apostolic faith [and I mean here a genuine unity, not one based on clever rhetoric, indifference to heresy, appeasement and a hollow, untenable consensus], is identified particularly well by an LCMS Pastor, Christopher Mitchell, in his commentary on the 'The Song of Songs' [Concordia Commentary Series].

" IN CRITICAL AND POST-MODERN EXEGESIS…TRUST IN THE APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITH FREQUENTLY HAS BEEN REPLACED BY A HERMENEUTIC OF SUSPICION OR OUTRIGHT UNBELIEF…TOWARD THE END OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, METHODOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH A READER-RESPONSE HERMENEUTIC AND THE POST-MODERN MOVEMENT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT EVERY READER BRINGS HIS OR HER OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS TO THE TEXT AND THAT THESE PRESUPPOSITIONS PLAY A LARGE ROLE IN DETERMINING THE MESSAGE THE READER PERCEIVES IN THE TEXT." ['The Song of Songs' C. Mitchell Pg. 18]