Interpretation of scripture according to the LCMS

[Mr_E]

I do not wish to start a debate. I am simply trying to gain an understanding of LCMS's belief on how the Bible is to be interpreted.

I am currently an ELCA Lutheran and I have read that the LCMS believes that the Bible should be interpreted literally and it is inerrant. I also understand that you do not view the Bible with a historical-critical view as ELCA Lutherans do.

One of the reasons that I am asking this is because I believe that evolution could be a tool through which God created life. I understand that LCMS Lutherans generally do not agree with this. I suspect that this has to do with the fact that the Bible says the world was created in seven days and, if life as we know it was created through evolution, then it took much more than seven days. I believe that these seven days may not have been seven days as we understand them. The seven days could be symbolic or, since God is not bound by the laws of time, his days may be different than ours. I am not trying to encourage anybody else to believe this, but it is where I stand currently.

Then there are a lot of other examples (such as the entire book of Revelation) that I believe are not to be interpreted literally.

So, if any of the LCMS Lutherans out there would like to share their beliefs on this, I would greatly appreciate it!

 

[Zecryphon]

I do not wish to start a debate. I am simply trying to gain an understanding of LCMS's belief on how the Bible is to be

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']interpreted[/font].

I am currently an ELCA Lutheran and I have read that the LCMS believes that the Bible should be [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']interpreted[/font]

One of the reasons that I am asking this is because I believe that evolution could be a tool through which God created life. I understand that LCMS Lutherans generally do not agree with this. I suspect that this has to do with the fact that the Bible says the world was created in seven days and, if life as we know it was created through evolution, then it took much more than seven days. I believe that these seven days may not have been seven days as we understand them. The seven days could be symbolic or, since God is not bound by the laws of time, his days may be different than ours. I am not trying to encourage anybody else to believe this, but it is where I stand currently.

Then there are a lot of other examples (such as the entire book of Revelation) that I believe are not to be interpreted literally.

So, if any of the LCMS Lutherans out there would like to share their beliefs on this, I would greatly appreciate it!

All "reading the Bible literally" means, is to read it as it is written. If what you're reading is a book of history, you read it as history, if it's poetic, you read it as poetry, if it's apocalyptic, you read it as apocalyptic. People seem to think that when a person is reading the Bible literally, they reject symbolism and metaphor, this is not true. If the passage we're reading is symbolic or contains a metaphor we read it as such and interpret it as such. Keep in mind that interpretation really only comes into play when dealing with symbols or metaphors. Not everything in the Bible is symbol or metaphor so the need to interpret everything in the Bible really is not necessary, yet that's what a lot of people think which is why I constantly hear the following accusation hurled at me: "according to your interpretation, not mine."

 

[Mr_E]

All "reading the Bible literally" means, is to read it as it is written. If what you're reading is a book of history, you read it as history, if it's poetic, you read it as poetry, if it's apocalyptic, you read it as apocalyptic. People seem to think that when a person is reading the Bible literally, they reject symbolism and metaphor, this is not true. If the passage we're reading is symbolic or contains a metaphor we read it as such and interpret it as such. Keep in mind that interpretation really only comes into play when dealing with symbols or metaphors. Not everything in the Bible is symbol or metaphor so the need to interpret everything in the Bible really is not necessary, yet that's what a lot of people think which is why I constantly hear the following accusation hurled at me: "according to your interpretation, not mine."

So, based on what you are saying, the only difference between the way an ELCA Lutheran reads a Bible and the way an LCMS Lutheran reads the Bible is that ELCA Lutherans like to look at things from a historical-critical lense?

 

[wildboar]

To read literally does not mean to read literalistically. The problem with the introduction of millions of years into Genesis is that then you have death and according to the Scriptures death did not occur until the sin of Adam. There is also nothing within the context of Genesis to suggest it is symbolic language like we find in the book of Revelation.

 

[Till]

Check out

www.[B]lcms[/B].org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/compinterp.pdf

As a primer:

Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zecryphon]

So, based on what you are saying, the only difference between the way an ELCA Lutheran reads a Bible and the way an LCMS Lutheran reads the Bible is that ELCA Lutherans like to look at things from a historical-critical lense?

Where did I even mention historical-criticism? Your statement would be true if every ELCA Lutheran read the Bible in the way I described. I don't believe they do. The historical-critical method has to do with interpretation. What I was talking about was not interpretation but the proper understanding of reading something literally and what that really means.

 

[DaRev]

The LCMS hermeneutic is Scripture interprets Scripture. We follow the grammatical-critical hermenutic of Biblical interpretation. Context is king. Historical narratives are interpreted as historical narratives. Hebrew poetry is interpreted differently than narratives. Apocalyptic literature is interpreted accordingly. And all Scripture is interpreted in light of the Gospel and Scripture as a whole.

The LCMS does indeed take into consideration the historical setting of each writing, but only to determine the central meaning of the text, not to determine whether or not text is relevent to today. The Scriptures are written for all times and all peoples. They are just as relevent today as they were when the words were first crafted. This is one of the main differences between the LCMS and ELCA. The ELCA sees certain passages and writings as only relevent to the time they were written and thus are meaningless to today.

In the case of evolution and Genesis, the Scriptures state that the universe was created by God in seven 24 hour days. There is nothing in the context of Scripture as a whole to suggest that it is to be interpreted any other way. There is much in Scripture to support a seven 24 hour day Creation. The Scriptures state that death entered with the Fall of humanity. This is incompatible with the theory of evolution which maintains that death is a natural evolutionary process. Macro evolution is contrary to Scritpure, and the LCMS as Bible believing Christians generally reject the theory of evolution.

 

[Mr_E]

Where did I even mention historical-criticism? Your statement would be true if every ELCA Lutheran read the Bible in the way I described. I don't believe they do. The historical-critical method has to do with interpretation. What I was talking about was not interpretation but the proper understanding of reading something literally and what that really means.

You did not say that. I mentioned it as one of the differences that I am aware of. In the ELCA, things are looked at in the original context. That is what I meant about a historical-criticial view. Basically the ELCA uses this view to say that some of what the Bible does not permit is now OK (and I am not talking about ceremonial laws found in the Old Testament).

This is why most people in the ELCA believe that it is OK to ordane women and openly gay pastors in a committed relationship. They believe that times have changed and that these things are OK now. In my opinion, the historical-critical view is being taken to far and is causing the ELCA to befriend the world rather than obey God's Will.

Thanks to everybody who has responded so far! I have found your input very informative. Those that have commented on evolution and the seven 24 hour periods have made some very good points as well. It gives me a lot to digest and consider. I guess for me, the thing is, I feel like if evolution were to be proven true, it would have to fit with scripture somehow. I guess those of you who believe there is no chance evolution is true simply believe it will never be proven true. I guess luckily for us all, having the correct belief on whether or not evolution is true is not necessary for our salvation.

 

[filosofer]

It isn't as simple as presented above. There are presuppositions behind both historical criticism and historical-grammatical positions. Another topic in itself.

What is interesting is that historical criticism reflects modernism (as a world view) with which the Church has battled for at least three centuries. Modernism's basic premise was to be an "objective outside authority" over the Scriptures. But in a post-modern world in which we live now, the historical critical view is almost like a dinosaur. Post-modernism notes that one cannot engage the text without being part of the text community (not just in Biblical studies, but also science and other areas studies).

From that standpoint, post-modernism is much closer to the Biblical understanding. We cannot fully examine the Scriptures/Word without being engaged with the Scripture/Word community, having been constituted by that very same Word. Thus, the "objectivity" can only be achieved by God, and God does not want us to be "objective" but rather to be created, formed, and conformed to that Word of God.

This is even challenging to many Lutherans who are "conservative" morally and ethically but are essentially modernist in the approach to Scriptures.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

You did not say that. I mentioned it as one of the differences that I am aware of. In the ELCA, things are looked at in the original context. That is what I meant about a historical-criticial view. Basically the ELCA uses this view to say that some of what the Bible does not permit is now OK (and I am not talking about ceremonial laws found in the Old Testament).

This is why most people in the ELCA believe that it is OK to ordane women and openly gay pastors in a committed relationship. They believe that times have changed and that these things are OK now. In my opinion, the historical-critical view is being taken to far and is causing the ELCA to befriend the world rather than obey God's Will.

Thanks to everybody who has responded so far! I have found your input very informative. Those that have commented on evolution and the seven 24 hour periods have made some very good points as well. It gives me a lot to digest and consider. I guess for me, the thing is, I feel like if evolution were to be proven true, it would have to fit with scripture somehow. I guess those of you who believe there is no chance evolution is true simply believe it will never be proven true. I guess luckily for us all, having the correct belief on whether or not evolution is true is not necessary for our salvation.

Yep yep! Oh and I know tons of Missouri Synod Lutherans who subscribe to the old creation view, as well as theistic evolution. We're definitely not a stereotypical crowd. Of course you have found the ultimate key to this debate. "I guess luckily for us all, having the correct belief on whether or not evolution is true is not necessary for our salvation." Yet this line of thinking can possibly penetrate the entire Word, such as issues of women's ordination, and now homosexuality. Great questions and observations! I would have to say that I lean slightly to the old earth/young earth creation model, but I haven't even started with my Biblical research compared to the intellectuals on here. So far I've just stuck with the doctrines of the Missouri Synod and I haven't been led wrong yet.

 

[filosofer]

You did not say that. I mentioned it as one of the differences that I am aware of. In the ELCA, things are looked at in the original context. That is what I meant about a historical-criticial view. Basically the ELCA uses this view to say that some of what the Bible does not permit is now OK (and I am not talking about ceremonial laws found in the Old Testament).

This is why most people in the ELCA believe that it is OK to ordane women and openly gay pastors in a committed relationship. They believe that times have changed and that these things are OK now. In my opinion, the historical-critical view is being taken to far and is causing the ELCA to befriend the world rather than obey God's Will.

Again, it is not as simple as you state. Those who hold to a high view of Scripture examine the text and original context; in fact, one cannot be a faithful interpreter of Scripture without doing so. Those who hold a high view of Scripture also note that some things in the New Testament are indeed culture-bound (head coverings for women, 1 Cor. 11) and so that is not binding for all Christians everywhere. The issue relates rather in how to determine whether something is culture-bound and what is not.

Likewise, the problem isn't so much that the HC method has been taken too far, but the underlying presuppositions of the HCM in the first place. Thus, some of the "methods" can be used by those with a high view of Scripture as well. But what is the question behind the question?

Thanks to everybody who has responded so far! I have found your input very informative. Those that have commented on evolution and the seven 24 hour periods have made some very good points as well. It gives me a lot to digest and consider. I guess for me, the thing is, I feel like if evolution were to be proven true, it would have to fit with scripture somehow. I guess those of you who believe there is no chance evolution is true simply believe it will never be proven true. I guess luckily for us all, having the correct belief on whether or not evolution is true is not necessary for our salvation.

While in one sense it is true that we can have a wrong view of creation and still be saved. But in another sense, creation including the ongoing care of God's creation is intimately connected with redemption. Consider

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:13-17 NAS

It might be worth investigating how often creation and redemption are connected throughout Scripture.

 

[JimfromOhio]

The LCMS does indeed take into consideration the historical setting of each writing, but only to determine the central meaning of the text, not to determine whether or not text is relevent to today. The Scriptures are written for all times and all peoples. They are just as relevent today as they were when the words were first crafted. This is one of the main differences between the LCMS and ELCA. The ELCA sees certain passages and writings as only relevent to the time they were written and thus are meaningless to today.

I agree. When I started visiting a few local ELCA churches, this was my major disagreement with them.

This is even challenging to many Lutherans who are "conservative" morally and ethically but are essentially modernist in the approach to Scriptures.

I agree. Man rationalize that certain rules, regulations, laws (ceremonial) and/or any other concept of commandments in the Bible do not apply today. If man see it does not apply, then others are not being obedient according to his understanding of the Scriptures. Enabler means one that enables another to achieve an end by providing excuses or by helping that individual avoid the consequences of such behavior. If God was in a church meeting today to discuss a moral change within the local church, how would you react? Would God change His holiness in order to change the church's views on various sins? Why people leaving Churches that teaches God's holiness? Why some are moving to another church that don't really teach God's holiness?

My thoughts:
The main issue is this: apart from general Orthodox Christianity, are not Biblical. Call yourself a Christian if you want, but if you have the wrong view of God, you're a pagan. Instead of interpreting the Bible on the basis of a historical grammatical contextual understanding of the text, we are developing a tolerance for every view in the name of love and unity and a non-divisive spirit. Today, people want to be "politically correct". That is deadly poison to truth. I believe that there is only one "right" interpretation of any given Biblical passage, the meaning God intended when He "breathed" His word into the human author. If this view is correct, it follows that of the many "different interpretations" skeptics refer to, there must be only one that is valid. That is, while a particular passage may have many applications, it must have only one meaning - the one the author (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) intended.

If we believe that "all Scripture is inspired by God" and inerrant, must we not be equally committed to the reality that it is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work"? God gave His true Word to be communicated entirely as He gave it, that is, the whole counsel of God is to be taught and preach (Matt 28:20; Acts 5:20, 20:27). God gave His true Word to be communicated exactly as He gave it. It is to be dispensed precisely as it was delivered without the message being altered. Interpretation of Scripture will never be an exact science. The beliefs we bring to the text - our theological presuppositions - will inevitably color our interpretation to some degree.

Biblical hermeneutics is the science that teaches the principles and methods of interpreting the Word of God. Proper hermeneutics provide us tools to help ensure that we are basing our interpretations on the truth as God has revealed it, while avoiding error to the greatest degree possible. The exegetical commentaries on this website generally follow the "Grammatico-Historical" method of interpretation. As its name implies, this method of interpretation focuses attention not only on literary forms but upon grammatical constructions and historical contexts out of which the Scriptures were written. It is solidly in the "literal schools" of interpretation, and is the hermeneutical methodology embraced by virtually all evangelical Protestant exegetes and scholars.

We can never eliminate our presuppositions (nor should we, if they are Scripturally sound), but we can "test all things" - including our interpretations - and "hold to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21 ).

Job, Jonah and others stories to me are literally true according to God's power however seem so "unreal" from sinner point of view. Unbelief is the oldest of the many spiritual diseases by which fallen human nature is afflicted. They refuse to accept anything which they cannot understand. Inspiration, Miracles, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Holy Spirit, the Resurrection, the Future State, all these mighty verities are viewed with cold indifference as disputable points, if not absolutely rejected. Can we entirely explain them? Who has not known that some of the minor facts and miracles of the Bible are the ostensible reasons which many assign why they cannot receive the Book as true, and make it their rule of faith and practice. People talk of the ark, and the passage of the Red Sea, and Balaam's ass, and Jonah in the whale's belly, and ask you sarcastically if you really believe such things to be credible and historically true.

In Matthew 12:40 Jesus said, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

I have been studying Job (one of my favorites). Job reads like history. It talks about a man named Job. He lived in the land of Uz. It relates details about his family, his life, and his suffering. It communicates to us his friends' interest in his suffering, and the spiritual struggling with which Job dealt. What's interesting is that other biblical writers refer to Job as a real person. Ezekiel refers to Job along with Noah and Daniel (Ezekiel 14:14,20). And James draws upon the example of Job to comfort the suffering, proving the point that God is merciful. He commends the endurance of Job (Jas. 5:11).

Its not the scriptures that are corrupted. Its a man's heart that is corrupted. Intelligence, reason, and choice. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. In order to "revere" the Word of God (Bible), you submit to the Holy Spirit who is the Author of the Bible. Jesus said in John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. We are to Honor the Word (not the Bible). Studying the scriptures requires the Holy Spirit which is inward, not outward. The Holy Spirit is within us believers, Christ dwells in our hearts, and "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27) is the burning core of the Christian faith.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Several things to note: as it has been said, literalistic is not an accurate term. Especially today, the bottom line is everyone to some degree reads the Bible with a post-modern persepective. No one looks at the passages that suggest the earth to be flat and standing on pillars to mean that, because post-moderns know the earth to be round. Now when reading those passages, our minds do ont even process "flat". But for centuries people considered it proof that the world was indeed flat.

A thing I really appreciated from a professor was that interpretation is always to some degree subjective. In his classroom he insisted that whenever you say "The Bible says" your phrase had best be followed up with a direct quote, other wise it is "my interpretation of the Bible says" (that is not to say interpretation is inherently wrong or bad, but I thought his system was a nice way of making a distinction).

I think DaRev has a good point on understanding context but recognizing authority. The Bible is God's Word to the people then and to us now. I believe firmly that the more we understood how it spoke to them, the better we can understand how it speaks to us. The suffering servant passages spoke one message to Israel living in exile then it spoke again to the apostles after Jesus' death.

On the topic of creation, I find it interesting that most people limit the discussion to Genesis 1-2 (particularly 1) when the Bible is littered with creation accounts that tell us various things and further inform what we know about God's work in creation both then and now.

Pax

 

[Archaenfel]

"On the topic of creation, I find it interesting that most people limit the discussion to Genesis 1-2 (particularly 1) when the Bible is littered with creation accounts that tell us various things and further inform what we know about God's work in creation both then and now."

That's because the opening account of Genesis is supposed to be the difinitive word on Creation. Now: I'm not going to get into whether or not God spent six 24-hour days on Creation ... perhaps His days are different than ours. Specific timing isn't nearly as important than understanding that complex systems do not spontaneously generate themselves from simple systems as Evolutionists would have you believe. I'm an Engineer, and to this date I've never seen nor heard of a car leaping out of a pile of parts. In order for a diamond to be a diamond it needs heat and pressure - and that's just a simple crystaline rock.

Life is complex.

In regards to Biblical interpretation, it is important to observe who is being talked to, what is being said, and why it is being said. When dealing with sexual relations, most of the rules in Leviticus 18 are based simply in not dishonoring others. Homosexuality, however, is called detestable. It is a vile act all on its own. Beastiality is called a perversion. It is a disgusting act all on its own. There is no context for them to be put in, and because of this homosexuality can be considered worse than sleeping with your mother. Sleeping with your mother is dishonorable ( not to mention just plain wierd ); sleeping with another man is detestable.

In regards to the OT laws and customs, we are mindful that they were established to keep the people of God mindful of God and focused on His graces. Rituals were meant to keep them focused and aware of the need to be close to God, the need to resist sin and try to remain pure, and the need for His redemption. We have not done away with these fundamental rites: they have merely been re-ordered into what we now call the Order of Service. Our rites and rituals look different, but fundamentally they serve the same purpose: we simply have stopped sending goats into the wild. If there can be any criticism, it is that we do not take our modern rites as seriously as we should.

 

[Studeclunker]

Jim and Archaenfel, very, very well said! These areas discussed in your last posts are exactly the areas that are lost in the ELCA and weakening in the LCMS. In fact, both congregations are a perfect example of a little leaven, leavening the lump. It only takes a few people of strong personality and patience to change the direction of a denomination.

A thing I really appreciated from a professor was that interpretation is always to some degree subjective. In his classroom he insisted that whenever you say "The Bible says" your phrase had best be followed up with a direct quote, other wise it is "my interpretation of the Bible says" (that is not to say interpretation is inherently wrong or bad, but I thought his system was a nice way of making a distinction).

This is most certainly true. For instance; "A little leaven, leavens the lump..." That is to say; tolerating a little error opens the door to a lot of error, in regards to the Church. First the quote and then one's application, or spin (if you will), on it.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

"On the topic of creation, I find it interesting that most people limit the discussion to Genesis 1-2 (particularly 1) when the Bible is littered with creation accounts that tell us various things and further inform what we know about God's work in creation both then and now."

That's because the opening account of Genesis is supposed to be the difinitive word on Creation. Now: I'm not going to get into whether or not God spent six 24-hour days on Creation ... perhaps His days are different than ours. Specific timing isn't nearly as important than understanding that complex systems do not spontaneously generate themselves from simple systems as Evolutionists would have you believe. I'm an Engineer, and to this date I've never seen nor heard of a car leaping out of a pile of parts. In order for a diamond to be a diamond it needs heat and pressure - and that's just a simple crystaline rock.

Life is complex.

In regards to Biblical interpretation, it is important to observe who is being talked to, what is being said, and why it is being said. When dealing with sexual relations, most of the rules in Leviticus 18 are based simply in not dishonoring others. Homosexuality, however, is called detestable. It is a vile act all on its own. Beastiality is called a perversion. It is a disgusting act all on its own. There is no context for them to be put in, and because of this homosexuality can be considered worse than sleeping with your mother. Sleeping with your mother is dishonorable ( not to mention just plain wierd ); sleeping with another man is detestable.

In regards to the OT laws and customs, we are mindful that they were established to keep the people of God mindful of God and focused on His graces. Rituals were meant to keep them focused and aware of the need to be close to God, the need to resist sin and try to remain pure, and the need for His redemption. We have not done away with these fundamental rites: they have merely been re-ordered into what we now call the Order of Service. Our rites and rituals look different, but fundamentally they serve the same purpose: we simply have stopped sending goats into the wild. If there can be any criticism, it is that we do not take our modern rites as seriously as we should.

I don't think the word "detestable" makes homosexuality worse than sleeping with your mom. There are several biblical reasons for this:
1) sin is sin, James says that violation of one Law is the violation of the entire Law. The only distinction we-as people of grace should make are between the one unforgivable sin (sin of the Spirit) to other sins, and perpetual sin verses a slip and a contrite sinner.
2) "based simply in not dishonoring others", in an honor-shame culture as the middle-east is, this is not simply a "simply". This is a huge issue. And it is still a trangression of the neighbor. Remember, the Law hangs on loving God with your heart, mind, and soul, and loving your neighbor as yourself.
3) Your example of sleeping with your mother for example is quite a grave issue. Remember that adultry and coveting a wife are two of the ten commandments. Note also 1 Cor. 5, where sleeping with your father's wife is grounds for an excommunication (the only Biblical example we have of one to my knowledge). This shows just how grave this issue is. Thus I don't think you can undermine those to make homosexual sins "worse".

One of the worst mistakes we can make is to focus on one sexual sin so much that we blind ourselves or lessen other ones. The bottom line is the Bible makes it clear that any sex outside of marriage is not right. That is what we should be trying to teach.

 

[Archaenfel]

I do concede to all good reason, but you seem to have missed the point for the sake of making a point.

You see: there isn't a mass movement of people seeking to legitimize sleeping with their mothers. We're all pretty good with the idea that such a thought isn't appropriate ( not to mention icky ). There is a movement to legitimize, or at least minimize, homosexuality. This was what I was writing against.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I do concede to all good reason, but you seem to have missed the point for the sake of making a point.

You see: there isn't a mass movement of people seeking to legitimize sleeping with their mothers. We're all pretty good with the idea that such a thought isn't appropriate ( not to mention icky ). There is a movement to legitimize, or at least minimize, homosexuality. This was what I was writing against.

I likewise can concede your point , in that we do have major issues in validating sex outside of marriage.

 

[joyfulthanks]

.