Chapter Seven
Walther’s Hermeneutical Principles
Raymond F. Surburg
Although C. F. W. Walther was a prolific writer,1 who has left a large written literary heritage, he has not written a separate book or treatment on the important subject of Biblical hermeneutics. This does not imply that Walther was unaware of its existence and that as a theologian who interpreted Scripture constantly, or that he was not cognizant of the exact nature and number of hermeneutical principles the sound Biblical interpreter and expositor needed to know and employ in his reading and explication of God’s Word. An analysis of his many sermon books, theological essays, articles and editorials in Der Lutheraner, Lehre und Wehre, Pastoraltheologie, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Synodical essays, and in his classroom lectures at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, reveals an accurate knowledge of the rules of Biblical interpretation. Walther shows intimate familiarity with the hermeneutics of Luther and with those principles of interpretation used by the various authors of the Lutheran Confessions as found in the Book of Concord of 1580. Walther correctly distinguished between the science of hermeneutics and the art and science of exegesis, which in the past have been identified by some scholars, which they certainly are not.2 Hermeneutics set forth the proper rules of interpretation, while exegesis applies these principles in the interpretation of the Bible.3
Although Walther did not write a special book or monograph on the subject of Biblical hermeneutics, he did outline the main principles of Biblical and Lutheran hermeneutics in a series of theses, which constituted a substantial part of his book, Die Ev. Lutherische Kirche, die Wahre sichtbare Kirche Gottes auf Erden (The Lutheran Church the True Visible Church of God on Earth).4 Of this book, pages 59-146 (the volume has 168 pages) give a number of theses by means of which the eminent Concordia Seminary professor of the last century stated all the important hermeneutical rules that
95
must be observed for the sound apprehension and explication of Holy Scripture. Theses XIII-XXI set forth summarily the heart and essence of Biblical hermeneutics.5 Walther’s theses, a number of which had a series of corollary principles flowing from them, are based on Scriptural texts, statements from the Lutheran Confessions, the writings of Luther and quotations supporting his position found in the orthodox theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Today the Lutheran Church in America, Canada, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and certain islands of the various oceans is involved in the throes of a theological crisis. Serious errors in doctrine and practice have surfaced now for a number of decades. Today the use of the historical-critical method with its devastating and emasculating effects on Lutheranism is strongly reminiscent of the theological situation as it obtained in Germany and America in Walther’s time.6 Walther found in his adopted home in North America a sad doctrinal situation, which had been brought about by the adoption of anti-Scriptural principles of interpretation and was also effected by the use of the negative Biblical higher criticism.7 Since Walther’s time there have been further developed hostile types of Biblical criticism, such as form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and in recent years a type called structuralism.8 Opposition to the clear statements and teachings of Holy Writ has been the result of all types of criticism that have been spawned by rationalism and by the Enlightenment. Walther in his day protested against the rationalistic approach to the Bible. In leading theological circles rationalistic thinking controlled the study and practice of theology and religion. A return to the principles of interpretation adhered to by Walther in theory and practice could be a great aid to returning to the confessional hermeneutic as found in the Lutheran Confessions and also in returning to a church faithful to the Word of God.
THE COURSES OF WALTHER’S PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
Walther found a number of his key hermeneutical principles in the Bible itself. Other principles of interpretation were derived from the law of correct thinking as found in books of logic and were so employed when not in conflict with the teachings of Holy Writ.
Secondary sources for Walther’s hermeneutics were the writings of Luther, who had been responsible for the hermeneutical revolution in the sixteenth century when he broke with Rome.9 In Luther, Walther found such a high regard for the Scriptures of the Old
96
and New Testament. The Apocrypha were not considered canonical by the Reformer and also not by Walther. The latter found that the Lutheran Confessions employed the same kind of hermeneutics as did the Wittenberg Reformer. Principles of Biblical interpretation found in Luther’s writings and sermons were the following: the Christocentricity of the Scriptures of both testaments, the importance of the doctrine of justification as a touchstone for the evaluation of all interpretations, the necessity of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, the unity of the two testaments as presenting the same plan of salvation, the preliminary and preparatory character of the Old Testament, the importance of the analogy of faith in eliminating wrong interpretations, and the reliability and all-sufficiency of the Bible. It was during an illness in his theological student days that Walther had to interrupt his studies for a semester at the University of Leipzig, and during that time he read Luther’s writings in his father’s study.10 Thereafter Walther became a lifelong student of Luther’s writings. In addition to his intense study of Luther, he also assiduously studied the Lutheran Confessions of the Book of Concord of 1580, in which he found the same hermeneutical principles as he had discovered in Luther’s works.
WALTHER AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Walther followed Luther and the Lutheran Confessions in their emphasis on the sola Scriptura principal, which meant that Luther and Walther recognized as God’s Word only the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. Thesis XIII [TVC-50, Wahre-59] states: “The Ev. Lutheran Church recognizes the written Word of the apostles and prophets as the only and perfect source, rule, norm, and judge of all teachings — a) not reason, b) not tradition, c) not new revelations.” 11 The following Scripture passages were cited by Walther as supporting this thesis: Deuteronomy 4:2; Joshua 23:6; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2:4, 5, 15; Colossians 2:8; Matthew 15:9. 11 In Luther’s day it meant the rejection of the authority of Rome, i.e., that it was the God-given prerogative of the Church to teach what were the true doctrines and also what was ethically proper. The second source for doctrine, tradition, was repudiated by Luther and the Lutheran Confessions. Between 1839-1887 Walther rejected all those Roman doctrines not based on Holy Writ, as well as the Mariological doctrines adopted by Rome since the Council of Trent (1954-63). Reason, which was used by Rome, Calvinism, and higher criticism of a negative kind to explain away the clear teachings of God’s Word, was not permitted. In
97
Luther’s day the Schwaermer Enthusiasts claimed to be the recipients of new revelations. Walther in his lifetime saw the origin of such cults as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, New Thought, and other anti-Trinitarian aberrations, all of which claimed new revelations from their founders and leaders. Naturally, Walther repudiated them as frauds or as suffering from delusions.
That Holy Writ (exclusive of the Apocrypha) is the only source and norm for Christian doctrine and life, Walther showed to be the historical-theological position of the Lutheran Church. He demonstrated this truth from a number of quotations from the Lutheran Confessions. Thus the Smalcald Articles declare: “The Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel from heaven.” Human reason as a source of religious knowledge is rejected by the Apology, Article IV, and by the Formula of Concord, Thorough Declaration, Article II. 12
The Apology in Article XII and the Smalcald Articles, II, 11:2 reject tradition as another source for revelations from God. New revelations as a source of knowledge in religion are unacceptable and are condemned in the Smalcald Articles. II:13 13
THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE AS
HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLE
One of the characteristics needed to allow for sound and correct interpretation is the belief and conviction of the clarity or clearness of Holy Writ. In Thesis XIV, Walther asserted: “The Ev. Lutheran Church holds fast to the clearness of Scripture (There are no “views” and “open questions.”)”14 If this rule were not accepted it would mean that many teachings and statements that are clear could be repudiated by being explained away or given a meaning foreign to the intent of the text. Walther based this principle on Psalm 119:105: “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” The Apostle Peter calls the Old Testament “a more sure word of prophecy, a light that shineth in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). The Apostle Paul calls the Word of God “the light of the glorious Gospel” (2 Cor. 4:3, 4).15
Because of the clarity or perspicuity of the Scripture, Walther held that the Bible is readily understandable. Just as a newspaper does not require of the ordinary reader an interpreter to understand the contents, unless he be a person in the process of learning the language in which the newspaper is written, so the reader can understand the essential contents of the Bible. The average Christian does not need a church council, a pope, the consensus of the Church fathers or tradition to teach him what Holy Writ states. This principle of
98
interpretation was expressed by Walther in Thesis XV, which declared: “The Ev. Lutheran Church acknowledges no human interpreter of Scripture whose interpretation must be received as infallible and binding on account of his office — 1. not an individual, 2. not an order, 3. not a particular or general council, 4. not a whole Church (nicht eine ganze Kirche).16
In Luther’s day the Church of Rome relied on individuals, popes, the consensus of the Church Fathers, particular councils and the alleged special guidance of the Holy Spirit of the Magisterium, which supposedly represented the whole Church. Walther claimed that 2 Peter 1:20 forbids private interpretation.17 It has been declared that there are about twenty passages whose meaning has been determined by the Church, which must be accepted, whether this interpretation agrees with the context or even disagrees with it. Examples of texts officially defined by the Teaching Magisterium are: Matthew 16:18 (primacy of Peter), John 21:15-17 (primacy of Peter), James 5:13 (Holy Unction and Last Rites). Walther contended that the Biblical interpreter needed to show that his interpretation was not merely his own, but that of the Holy Spirit.18
Relative to the matter of the primacy of the Pope, Luther said: “When they apply the ‘rock’ in Matthew 16:18 to Peter, that is a private interpretation, and is not to be believed. They cannot prove from Scripture that Peter is the Pope. But we can prove that the ‘rock’ is Christ. This interpretation is right, taken from God’s Word.19
THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE TAUGHT BY WALTHER
Walther followed Luther in repudiating the allegation that Holy Writ contained errors. Luther wrote: “The Scriptures have never erred.” Again, in another confessional writing the Reformer declared: “It is impossible that the Scripture should contradict itself.” C. F. W. Walther agreed with the Reformer, saying: “Whosoever believes with his whole heart that the Bible is the Word of God, cannot believe anything else than that it is inerrant.”20 Again Walther wrote: “Whoever thinks that he can find an error in Holy Scripture does not believe in Holy Scripture but in himself.”21
That the Bible contained mistakes, errors, and contradictions was the position of the rationalistic theologians and exegetes whom Walther fought vigorously, theologians who were active in Germany, the European continent, and in North America.22 The arguments advanced in Walther’s day are the same ones advanced a hundred years after his death. In fact, with the addition of more types of criticism, as form, redaction, tradition, and now a revolutionary kind
99
called structuralism, the situation in the last decades of the twentieth century has greatly worsened. If the Old Testament exhibits contradictory systems of theology and if there is a great theological difference between the two Testaments and if there are many erroneous views and contradictory teachings in the Bible, then the meaning of many passages, pericopes, chapters, and books is dubious; then the Bible at best is an unclear book and a book of confusion. A Bible whose meaning in numerous places is uncertain means that the certainty of salvation is impossible and the guarantee of eternal life is a myth. When the authority of the Bible is repudiated, then those assertions that are introduced by the formula: “Thus says the Lord,” becomes nothing but the equivalent of: “Thus says man.” Then reason, instead of being the servant, by means of which God’s Word is understood, becomes its master and lord to the repudiation of God’s authority. For both Luther and Walther, Dame Reason was to be avoided at all costs.23
THE BIBLE INTERPRETS ITSELF
Luther and Walther both followed the principle, an important one in a Biblical system of hermeneutics, that Scripture interprets Scripture, stated by the theologians in Latin as Scriptura Scripturam interpretatur. The only authentic and reliable interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself. Human reason is not to sit in judgment as to what may or may not be accepted in the Word of God. Walther followed Luther, who in his writings expatiated on this basic hermeneutical principle that only Scripture is able correctly to interpret itself. Thus in Thesis XVI Scripture, Walther declared: “The Ev. Lutheran Church accepts God’s Word as it interprets itself.”24 A number of passages in the New Testament tell its readers clearly that David, Isaiah, Moses, Jeremiah, and others in the Old Testament predicted events about Christ’s life and work prior to His coming into this world as Savior. Jesus claimed that Abraham saw his day (John 8:52) and in his Gospel, John postulated that in connection with Isaiah’s version in the temple (Isaiah 6) Isaiah saw not only Yahweh but Jesus (John 12:41). In numerous passages New Testament writers assert that many facts about the life and ministry of Christ were foretold many centuries prior to their occurrence. The New Testament makes unequivocably clear that Jesus Christ was the heart and center of the Old Testament, just as this is also true of the New Testament.25
In connection with the principle that the Bible interprets itself, Walther discussed nine other hermeneutical rules which he believed
100
flowed from and were related to the self-interpreting character and nature of the Bible.26 The basis for sound exegesis was the use of the Bible in the languages in which the Holy Spirit caused both testaments to be penned; namely, Hebrew and Aramaic (for portions of Daniel and Ezra) and Greek for the New Testament. In Luther’s time the Latin translation known as the Vulgate was declared the official Bible of the Church, and its translation determined the meaning where differences existed between it and the original text of the Bible. Luther and the Reformers rejected the Vulgate as the primary source for the knowledge of God’s Word.27 Walther cited Luther, who wrote: “As clearly as we love the Gospel, so zealously we must cherish the languages. God had a purpose in giving the Scriptures in two languages, the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.”28 Walther followed Luther and asserted under Thesis XVI, A: “The Ev. Lutheran Church lets the original text alone decide.”29
Although the Bible is unique in that God is its author and often sets forth truth beyond reason, it still is written in human language, which must follow the rules of grammar. Luther stated this clearly. Walther agrees and declared under Thesis XVI, B: “The Ev. Lutheran Church, in the interpretation of the words and sentences, holds fast to the usage of language.”30 Walther quoted Deuteronomy 30:11-14, where Moses reminded the children of Israel that Yahweh gave his commandments in language so that they could understand; in their mouth and heart that they might do it, which meant they could understand them and practice them. Walther quoted from Article 12 of the Apology, where Melanchthon claimed the papists in setting forth their views on “penitence” violated the clear meaning of the Scriptures by ignoring basic grammatical principles.31 Further, C. G. Hofmann and others are mentioned as teaching that the Bible must first of all be dealt with grammatically before it can be used theologically.32
WALTHER AND THE LITERAL SENSE
To arrive at the correct understanding of Holy Writ it is vital that the interpreter believe that the literal sense is the primary sense of the Bible. Under Thesis XVI, C, Walther averred: “The Lutheran Church acknowledges only the literal sense as the true sense.”33 In Luther’s day the allegorical method was one of four different meanings which the Church could attribute to a Scriptural verse or pericope.34 This made sound interpretation impossible and also removed fixed and certain truths from being established. Relating to
101
this principle was the one Walther listed under Thesis XVI, D; namely, “The Ev. Lutheran Church holds the literal sense has but one sense.”35 This hermeneutical principle eliminates allegorization of the text and assures that a given Scripture can be relied upon to enunciate a clear Biblical doctrine or teaching. Luther from time to time wrote against allegory as robbing a text of its certain meaning.36
To permit a Biblical text to have more than one meaning constituted a serious problem in Walther’s day, just as it does today in Protestantism and Lutheranism. If such a principle were used in legal hermeneutics, the legal system of a nation would be thrown into chaos and confusion.37 The same judgment must also be made about the manner in which different types of higher criticism have operated with the Bible. For Luther, Walther and those wishing to interpret Scripture correctly, a text had but one meaning. In the Old Testament, in Psalm 110:1 David wrote: “The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.’” This verse Christ claimed spoke to Him. Various New Testament writers have quoted verses 1 and 4 of Psalm 110 as speaking of Christ and of the Mechizedekian priesthood of Christ. Critical scholars in Walther’s day claimed that Psalm 110 had nothing to do with Christ and was first of all a coronation psalm.38 Psalm 2, mentioned a number of times in the New Testament books, is considered a Messianic poem speaking exclusively about the Messiah.39 However, critical scholarship has repudiated the New Testament’s interpretation as erroneous. Refusing to accept the Biblical principle that Scripture has only one intended sense, scholarship in Walther’s day had resorted to the device called “reinterpretation” of Biblical text. Neo-orthodoxy and modern liberalism frequently reject the clear meaning given in the Bible itself and actually, in a different way, have returned to the erroneous hermeneutics rejected by the Protestant Reformers.
The many miracles of the Bible, of which there are over a hundred, are reinterpreted by historical critics as sagas, myths, legends, and parables and are represented as the unscientific pre-Copernican thinking of writers who mistakenly believed that God could interfere with the laws of nature. The continuum of nature could not be entered into by God. Walther believed in miracles because not to do so would be tantamount to violating the clear assertions of God’s Word. Rationalism considered the Biblical miracles as intellectually unacceptable.40
When Walther was completing his theological studies in Germany and when he entered the Lutheran ministry, rationalism ruled the theological scene and everything in the Bible which could not
102
be harmonized with reason was denied or explained away. Further, when Walther came to the United States, he found that Lutherans were such in name only. Calvinism with its denial of baptismal regeneration had made very serious inroads in American Lutheranism.41 In Walther’s day the catechism used was: A Short Exposition of the Principal Doctrines and Precepts of the Christian Religion. Its author was Quitman, an avowed disciple of John Semler, the “father of Rationalism.” He held the presidency of the New York Ministerium for 21 years, beginning in 1807.42
For the restoration of sound confessionalism in Walther’s day and also today, it was and is essential that Lutherans return to an acceptance of the literal meaning of the text. This involved abiding by what Holy Writ taught about revelation, inspiration, inerrancy, predictive prophecy, Messianic predictions and its numerous miraculous happenings.
INTERPRETATION MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE CONTEXT AND THE AUTHOR’S INTENTION
Walther clearly enunciated this important hermeneutical rule when he wrote in Thesis XVI, E as follows: “The Ev. Lutheran Church, in interpreting, is guided by the context and intention of the author.”43 Walther referred in his book to a number of places in the Lutheran Confessions where this basic hermeneutical principle was set forth and the claim made that the Roman Catholic theologians of Luther’s day violated this maxim. One example mentioned by the nineteenth- century St. Louis theologian is the statement from the Apology: “But adversaries, charming men, pick out those who are unskilled. Afterwards they attach something from their own positions. Therefore, entire passages are to be required, because according to common precept, it is unbecoming before the entire law is thoroughly examined to judge or reply when any single clause is presented. And passages, when produced in their entirety, very frequently bring the interpretation with them.”44 Walther also cited Gerhard, as follows: “The interpreter of every passage (Stelle) must agree with the purpose, the circumstances of the members (Glieder) and with its arrangement (Ordnung). As the jurists say, it is unworthy of a citizen to judge concerning certain words of the law without first having evaluated the whole law, so no judgments should be made about the correct interpretation, if the purpose, circumstances, and the order of the text are not taken into consideration.”45
103
THE NATURE OF THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE TEXT
Relative to the literal meaning of the text, Walther in Thesis XVI wrote: “The Ev. Lutheran Church acknowledges the literal sense may be the improper sense as well as the proper; but it does not depart from the proper sense unless forced by Scripture itself— either the circumstances of the text itself or a parallel passage or the analogy of faith.”46 In explaining this hermeneutical principle, Walther gave extensive quotations from the words of Martin Luther.47 Louis Fuerbringer, a pupil and great admirer of Walther, in his Theological Hermeneutics has discussed this principle of interpretation in paragraphs 16-24. According to Fuerbringer, following Walther, it is necessary to distinguish between the sensus literalis and the sensus literae. Wrote Fuerbringer: “The literal meaning (sensus literae) of a word should therefore in all cases be accepted as the intended sense (sensus literalis), unless sufficient reasons prompt the interpreter to accept a trope.”48 However, there are times when there are valid reasons for departing from the literal meaning of the words, then the exegete should not hesitate to do so, instead of clinging to the sensus literalis (Cf. I Corinthians 3:13-15; Matthew 19:12; 16:6, 12).49 In establishing the sensus literalis, it is necessary to abandon the sensus literae because of the usus loquendi generalis of the usus specialis, or on account of the context or the presumption that the author would not have contradicted himself, or finally, because of an article of faith.50
DARK PASSAGES SHOULD BE ILLUMINATED
BY CLEAR PASSAGES
Another hermeneutical principle employed by Walther was the one that affirmed that “dark passages are to be interpreted by the clear ones” (Thesis XVI G).51 As Walther pointed out, this maxim is often mentioned in Lutheran exegetical literature. Luther affirmed this principle while commenting on Deuteronomy 1:19-26, as follows: “That is the special nature of the whole of Scripture that it explains itself through all passages that belong together and by the analogy of faith. [Walther uses the Walch1 interpretation of Luther’s Latin original. It is slightly different reading than in all other sources. See WA 14, 556, StL 3, 1386 [🔗], AE 9, 21; “sole teacher”, “master alone”, “its own direction”.] That is above all the most reliable manner of exploring the meaning of Holy Writ, so that you, by keeping separate many passages, may endeavor to come to a comprehension of them.”52 In following this hermeneutical principle, Walther was adhering to an interpretative principle advocated by Melanchthon, Luther, and other authors in the Lutheran Confessions. Quenstedt, in his Theol. didactico-pol, sets forth this rule of interpretation.52a
104
ARTICLES OF FAITH MUST BE ESTABLISHED FROM PASSAGES CLEARLY TEACHING THEM
Another interpretative principle of Walther’s was the one framed by him in XVI, H: “The Ev. Lutheran Church takes the articles of faith from texts constituting the seat of the doctrine and judges all obiter dicta accordingly.”53 Walther referred to Luther’s writing, “Against the Heavenly Prophets” of 1524 (St. L, XX, 213 ff.) [AE 40, 157], where the Reformer declared: This is our basic foundation (Grund), where the Holy Scriptures establish something to be believed one should not deviate from the words as they are expressed, nor from the order as they appear, unless an express article compels the words to mean something else or to be arranged differently. Otherwise, what would happen to the Bible?”54
This hermeneutical principle was likewise advocated by Gerhard who wrote: “Every article of faith has its own seat, while in other passages there may be allusions. The latter passages must not be employed to contradict those passages which set forth a doctrine in clear terms. Thus the doctrine of justification is found in Romans 3 and 4, Ephesians 2, and Galatians 2 and 3. The Lord’s Supper is found stated in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and I Corinthians 10 and 11.55
NO DOCTRINE TO BE ACCEPTED THAT MILITATES AGAINST THE ANALOGY OF FAITH
Walther in XVI: I enunciated this important rule of interpretation, flowing from the truth that God’s Word interprets itself, “The Ev. Lutheran Church rejects out of hand every interpretation not in harmony with the analogy of faith (Romans 12:6)”56 The Lutheran Confessions affirm this principle of interpretation a number of times. Thus Article XXVI of the Apology states: “Examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i.e., according to certain clear passages…”57 The Formula of Concord declares: “For the apostle testifies that ‘whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Rom. 15:4.)’ But it is certain that any interpretation of the Scripture which weakens or even removes this comfort and hope is contrary to the Holy Spirit’s will and intent.”58 Walther also showed that Gerhard, Johann Musius, Pfeiffer, and Baier all supported this same hermeneutical principle.59
EVERYTHING SET FORTH IN THE BIBLE IS IMPORTANT
In his great classic The Evangelical Lutheran Church the True Visible Church of God on Earth, in Thesis XVII, Walther adds to
105
what he had asserted in Thesis XIII about God’s Word and its source and authority. Thus in Thesis XVII Walther declared: “The Ev. Lutheran Church accepts the whole written Word of God (as God’s Word), deems nothing in it superfluous or of little worth but everything needful and important, and also accepts all teaching deduced of necessity from the word of Scripture.”60 Scripture verses supporting this principle are: Matthew 5:18, 19; Revelation 22: 18, 19; Matthew 22: 29-32. In the enunciation of this rule Walther again was following Luther.61 Walther ruled out the practice of claiming that those teachings and practices which modern culture or the Zeitgeist finds unacceptable are time-bound and no longer binding. To allow the latter to supersede God’s timeless truths is wrong. Thus Luther wrote: “Beloved, God’s Word is God’s Word, and dares not lack much. He who makes God a liar and insults Him in one thing, be it even unimportant, that he is made a liar and insulted, blasphemes the whole God and considers small all blasphemies of God.”62
EACH BIBLICAL TEACHING MUST HAVE ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE
Correct and sound Biblical interpretation for Walther also involved the principle set forth by him in Thesis XVIII, which stated: “The Ev. Lutheran Church gives each teaching of God’s Word the place and importance it has in God’s Word itself.”63 According to the St. Louis professor, there are five corollaries that flow from this basic hermeneutical principle. The first of these he phrased in this way: “It makes the teaching concerning Christ, or justification, the foundation and marrow and guiding star of all teaching.”64 The following Scriptures Walther believed were the basis for this principle: 2 Corinthians 3:11; Revelation 19:10. Paul clearly emphasized this principle of interpretation, when he wrote to the Corinthians: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid,” which the context showed is Jesus Christ. This rule guided Paul’s preaching and pastoral activity: “For I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified.” John, in Revelation, declared: “The witness of Christ is the spirit of prophecy.” That this rule was nothing new Walther showed by a number of quotations from the Lutheran Confessions, specifically from the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord, all of which stressed the importance of Christ-as the center and heart of Holy Writ and of the work of justification.65
106
LAW AND GOSPEL MUST BE PROPERLY DISTINGUISHED
In his preaching, teaching, missionary endeavors and counseling, the Lutheran exegete must sharply distinguish between Law and Gospel.66 The proper distinction between Law and Gospel so impressed Walther that he delivered a series of evening lectures given over a number of years to St. Louis Seminary students, in which the great leader of the Missouri Synod extensively explored all the facts and facets connected with this distinguishing activity, essential to the proper interpretation of the Bible.67 Walther adduced the following Bible passages as setting forth the necessity for this exegetical procedure: John 1:17: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”; or Paul’s assertion: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4); or the same apostle’s advice to pastor Timothy: “Do your best to present yourselves to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, who correctly divides (better handles) the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).68
It was Luther who emphasized the proper distinction between Law and Gospel as a procedure in Biblical hermeneutics. The Lutheran authors of the Formula of Concord devoted a special article to the proper understanding of their origin, function, and purpose. Thus the Epitome of the Formula of Concord asserts: “The distinction between law and Gospel is an especially brilliant light which serves the purpose that the Word of God may be rightly divided and the writings of the prophets and apostles be understood and understood correctly.”69 Walther also quoted at length from the writings of Luther’s Sermon on the Distinction between Law and Gospel of the year 1522.70
A third corollary flowing from the principle that each doctrine must be given the place and importance ascribed to it in the Bible was the necessity of making a distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines.71 This hermeneutical principle Walther deduced from 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, which reads: “But each of you should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any other foundation that that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or straw his work will be shown what it is because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work: if what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss, he himself will be saved, but only as one escapes through flames.”72
In support of this principle Walther gave quotations from the Apology, the Large Catechism, from various orthodox Lutheran
107
theologians, such as Quenstedt, Baier, Hollaz, and Dannhauer.73
A fourth principle, flowing from Thesis XVIII, was to give Walther’s exact words: “The Ev. Lutheran Church distinguishes between what God’s Word commands and what it leaves free (things indifferent, adiaphora, church government).”74 This interpretative principle Walther deduced from the following passages: Matthew 23:8; Galatians 5:1, 2; 2 Corinthians 8:8; and 1 Corinthians 9:19.75 To show that this principle is in harmony with the Lutheran Confessions, “the father of the Missouri Synod” gave a quotation from Article VII (the church) of the Augustana, which stated: “It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian Church that ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed uniformly in all places.”76 It is as Paul says in Ephesians 4:4-5: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Further, Walther referred to statements found in the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord.77 Walther also showed from the writings of Luther and Gerhard that these theologians of Lutheranism advocated and employed the same hermeneutical principle of interpretation.78
The fifth principle emanating from Thesis XVIII was this important one, expressed thus by the St. Louis professor: “The Ev. Lutheran Church distinguishes sharply between the Old and New Testament.”79 Two Scripture are cited in proof of this very important hermeneutical principle. They are Galatians 4:1-5 and Colossians 2:16-17. In Galatians 4:1-5 Paul wrote relative to the preparatory character of the Old Testament: “I am saying that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” And verse 7 concludes: “So you are no longer a slave, and since you are a son, God has made you an heir.”80
ONLY GOD’S WORD CAN ESTABLISH ARTICLES OF FAITH
Another important hermeneutical principle advocated by Walther was the one which he expressed in Thesis XIX in this way: “The Ev. Lutheran Church accepts no teaching as an article of faith which is not contained in God’s Word.”81 Scripture verses which clearly teach this principle are: Hebrews 11:1; Titus 1:9; and 2 Peter 1:19.82 This principle eliminated a whole host of teachings, many of which
108
are based upon the consensus of the Church Fathers, the decisions of the teaching magisterium and the tradition, of which only the Roman Catholic Church has knowledge and control. It would also rule out teachings of certain Protestant denominations, who in the establishment of their theological systems have gone beyond the clear teachings of the Bible. Likewise the many different cults claiming new revelations as a source for their theological teachings would also be violators of this Scriptural principle.
In addition to the Bible verses that rule out non-Biblical doctrines, Walther also showed that this was a principle subscribed to by Luther.83 Walther reproduces four long passages from the Wittenberg Reformer’s writings, taken from the Walch edition: volumes XVIII, 1680-1686 [StL 18, 1371-1377]; XIX, 1032-34 [StL 19, 829 f.]; XVIII, 2058-66 [StL 18, 1675-1680]; VII, 1032-34 [StL 7, 717 f.].84
THE ABILITY CORRECTLY TO INTERPRET:
A GIFT FROM GOD
In Thesis XX, Walther expressed the view that correct interpretation is a gift God bestows upon individuals.85 Walther based this assertion upon 1 Corinthians 13, and especially upon verses 4, 7, 8 and 30 of Chapter 12.86 This gift is not granted by the Holy Spirit to all because the Holy Spirit bestows different gifts on Christ’s followers. In 1 Corinthians Paul warns: “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” Luther was a person who stood preeminent as a correct Biblical interpreter and expositor. Melanchthon, in a forward to the Third Latin part of Luther’s works, wrote: “It is good that we have Luther’s exposition books — I remember that Erasmus of Rotterdam was wont to say that there was no abler — and better exterpreter than Luther among all those writings we have since the days of the apostles.”87 Gerhard advised that one should consult other interpreters of the ancient church. Even though their interpretations are not authentic or to be compared with canonical Scriptures, still their efforts are to be accepted thankfully and they are to be prized and subjected to the Word of God, as Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:19, 20, and 21.88
THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS HAVE A HERMENEUTIC VALUE
In Thesis XXI, Walther declared: “The Ev. Lutheran Church is sure that the teaching of its Symbols is the pure God’s truth because it agrees with the written Word of God in all its points.”89 Because the Lutheran Confessions were held by Walther to be in
109
accord with the Bible, the Lutheran Symbols could be used to evaluate the teachings and pronouncements of its professors, pastors, teachers, and lay people as to their Scriptural correctness.90 The theological views enunciated in the two Catechisms of Luther, the Augustana, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Tract on the Power and Primacy of the Papacy of 1537 and The Formula of Concord are the norma normata, the hermeneutical criteria for the evaluation of the theology of the Enthusiasts, of Calvinism and of Roman Catholic doctrines. Thus for orthodox Lutherans the Lutheran Confessions since 1580 have served as a hermeneutical device for ascertaining the correctness of churches and denominations.
THE INFLUENCE OF WALTHER’S HERMENEUTICS
Walther’s principles of Biblical interpretation greatly influenced and shaped the exegetical practice of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for many years after his death in 1887. This may be seen from the writings of Stoeckhardt, A. L. Graebner, L. Fuerbringer,91 Francis Pieper 92 and many other professors and authors of articles in the various scholarly and popular journals of the Synod. The article on “Biblical Interpretation” in The Abiding Word showed that Walther’s hermeneutics was still the official position of the LC-MS even a century after the Synod’s organization in Chicago in 1847.93 Unfortunately, after 1947 the position of Walther and The Lutheran Confessions on Biblical interpretation was not adhered to by many in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod because they adopted the presupposition and conclusions of higher criticism. The need today is for a return to the Waltherian principles of Biblical interpretation by all pastors, professors, teachers, and lay persons in the Synod.
110
NOTES
1 ^ Carl C. Meyer and James Michael, “Walther Bibliography,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 32:658-663, October 1961. [Not available on media.ctsfw.edu]
2 ^ N. A. Nash, “Exegesis,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 3, 360-361. versus William Arndt, “Hermeneutics,” Erwin L. Lueker, Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), 463-464.
3 ^ M. H. Scharlemann, “Hermeneutics,” Erwin L. Lueker (editor) Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975), 375-376.
4 ^ C. F. W. Walther, Die Evangelische-Lutherische Kirche die wahre Sichtbare Kirche Gottes auf Erden (St. Louis: Lutherischer Concordia Verlag, 1891). A summary of this book may be found in Wm. Dallmann, W. H. T. Dau, and Th. Engelder, Walther and the Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1938), pp. 116-128. This work will hereafter be cited Walther, Die wahre Kirche.
5 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 59-146. [TVC 50-131]
6 ^ Lewis W. Spitz, “Walther’s Contribution to Lutheranism.” Concordia Theological Monthly, 32:587, October 1961.
7 ^ Cf. Ralph A. Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation," in the Lutheran Confessions (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982), pp. 127-143. Raymond F. Surburg, “An Evaluation of “A Stance toward Contemporary Biblical Studies,’ ” (Springfield, Illinois: Concordia Seminary Library, 1966).
8 ^ Daniel Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 88 pages.
9 ^ Raymond F. Surburg, “The Significance of Luther’s Hermeneutics for the Reformation,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 24:241-261, April 1953.
10 ^ Spitz, p. 585.
11 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 61-62. [TVC 50]
12 ^ Ibid„ pp. 61-62. [TVC 52 f.]
13 ^ Ibid., p. 65. [TVC 54-55]
16 ^ Ibid., pp. 70-71. [TVC 61]
18 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 71-72. [TVC 61]
19 ^ D. Martin Luther's saemmtliche Schriften, 23 vols. in 25, ed. Johann B. Walch, in modern German (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1880-1910), 19:1073 [AE 36, 137-138]; 1:713f. [sic]; 15:1481 [AE 32, 11]. Hereafter cited as St. L. [Surburg’s references do not match Walther’s. Walther’s reference is Walch1 9, 857-859; StL 9, 1361 ff.; AE 30, 166 f.]
20 ^ Lehre und Wehre, 13:103 [sic?], April 1867.
21 ^ C. F. W. Walther Was lehren die neueren orthodox sein wollenden Theologen von der Inspiration. [See CSL notes here; Walther was not the author but Ed. Preuss]
22 ^ Robert D. Preus, “Walther and the Scripture,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 32:685, November 1961.
24 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 77. [TVC 61]
25 ^ 2 Timothy, 3:15-17.
26 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 79-104. [TVC 68-90]
27 ^ W. H. Koenig, “Luther as a Student of Hebrew,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 24:853, November 1953.
28 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 79. [TVC 68]
31 ^ Ibid., pp. 81-82. [TVC 71]
111
34 ^ Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Third Revised Edition; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 40-42.
35 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 85.[TVC 74]
37 ^ Cf. Lieber, Legal Hermeneutics, 3rd edition, p. 74f., cited in Theological Quarterly, 1902, p. 110.
38 ^ Arthur Weiser, The Psalms. A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 692-693.
39 ^ George Stoeckhardt, Adventspredigten. Auslegung der vornehmsten Weissegungen des Alten Testaments (St. Louis: Lutherischer Konkordia Verlag, 1887), pp. 61-68.
40 ^ Cf. S. V. McCasland, “Miracle,” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New York and And Nashville: Abingdon Press 1962), IV, 392-397.
41 ^ Spitz, p. 587; J. F. Koestering, Auswanderung der saechsischen Lutheraner im Jahre 1939 (St. Louis: Druck und Verlag von A. Wiebusch und Sohn, 1866), pp. 1 ff.
42 ^ Frederick Henry Quitman, Evangelical Catechism or a Short Exposition of the Principal Doctrines and Precepts of the Christian Religion (Hudson: William E. Normann, 1814).
43 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 91.[TVC 79]
44 ^ Concordia Triglotta. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), Apology III, Par. 159.
45 ^ Gerhard, Exeges. article Loc. de Scriptura S., par. 535.
46 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 92.[TVC 80]
47 ^ L. Fuerbringer, Theological Hermeneutics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1924), pp. 10-13.
51 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 99.[TVC 85]
52 ^ St. L. 3, 2042 [sic: St. L. 3, 1386; W1 3, 2042; WA 14, 556; AE 9, 21]; Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 98. [TVC 85]
53 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 99.[TVC 86]
54 ^ St. L„ 20, 213 ff. [AE 40, 157; text here],
55 ^ Gerhard, Loc. de interpretatione, S.S., par. 212; Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 100.[TVC 86]
56 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 100. [TVC p. 87]
57 ^ Apology XXVII, par. 60 in Theodore Tappert, The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), p. 279. [Triglotta p. 441]
58 ^ Solid Declaration, XII, 92, Tappert, p. 632.
59 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 101-104.[TVC 87 ff.]
62 ^ St. L., 20:965 f. [sic: Walch1 20, 965, St. L 20, 775; AE 37, 26] [TVC 91]
63 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 108. [TVC 94]
65 ^ Ibid, p. 108-109. [TVC 95]
67 ^ C. F. W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel. Reproduced from the German edition of 1897, by W. H. T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1929. This book was condensed by Walther C. Pieper, as God’s No and God's Yes (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972).
68 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 111-112.
69 ^ Formula of Concord, V., Tappert, p. 558.
112
70 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 112-113; [TVC 98] St. L., 9, 411-421. [sic: Walch1 9, 411-421; StL 9, 798 ff.; not in Am. Ed.]
73 ^ Ibid., pp. 114-123. [TVC 100]
76 ^ The Augsburg Confession, Article VII, Tappert, p. 32.
77 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 123-126.[TVC 107]
78 ^ Ibid„ pp. 116-127. [TVC 110-111]
83 ^ St. L., 17:1680-1686 [sic: StL 17, 1340 ff.; AE 41, 212, 216]; 8:1032-1034 [sic: StL 8, 1003 ff.; not in Am. Ed.]; 19:1604 f. [sic: StL 19, 1317; AE 36, 284] [missing 4th ref.: W1 18, 2058-2066 or StL 18, 1675 ff.; AE 33, 19 ff.]
84 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 131-136.[TVC 115-119]
86 ^ Ibid., pp. 136-137.
87 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 137.[TVC 120; Walch1 14, 539 f.; not in StL Ed.]
88 ^ Gerhard, Locus de interpretatione, S.S., par. 216; Walther, Die wahre Kirche, pp. 137-138. [TVC 121]
89 ^ Walther, Die wahre Kirche, p. 142. [TVC 121]
90 ^ Cf. Arthur C. Piepkorn, “Walther and the Lutheran Symbols,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 32-606-620, October 1961.
91 ^ L. Fuerbringer, Theological Hermeneutics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921).
92 ^ Cf. Index for Christian Dogmatics of Francis Pieper. Prepared by Walther W. F. Albrecht (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957), IV, pp. 995-998.
93 ^ Victor Mennicke, “Bible Interpretation,” in Theodore Laetsch, editor, The Abiding Word. An Anthology of Doctrinal Essays for the Year 1946 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), II, pp. 35-38.
113