Robert Preus
1. Definition of the Term
The most important theological issue facing our Synod today centers in the use of the historical-critical method. The question is: May a genuine Lutheran who believes that the sacred Scriptures are the very Word of God and who is committed totally to the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions use the historical-critical method to understand, interpret, and apply the Scriptures? This critical question can be answered only when we know two things. First, we must know what the historical-critical method is. And to know what any method is we must have a clear picture of its goals and its presuppositions. Second, we must determine whether the method as such denies or undermines Christian theology at any point.
So we ask: What is the historical-critical method? As far as I have been able to determine by examining the works of scores of scholars using the method, a brief definition might run as follows. The historical-critical method is a way of studying Scripture by using all the criteria of scientific historical investigation. The method analyzes the text of Scripture in terms of language, literary form, redaction criticism, source criticism, as well as historical, archaeological, and other relevant data. The purpose of the method is not merely philological or linguistic to learn the intended meaning of text and verses of Scripture. The overarching purpose is historical. To discover the history and background of the form and content of any given portion or unit in Scripture and to trace that history of the given unit through every step of its development until it finds its way into the text of Scripture as we have it. This procedure, essential to the method, would apply to any story recorded in the Old Testament, any parable or discourse of Jesus, any action or miracle of our Lord. The overarching purpose of the method is, therefore, to assess historicity or truthfulness of the text of Scripture itself, to find the word or event behind the text, to find out what really happened, or the historical origin of what is recorded in Scripture. It is easy, I believe, to see some of the assumptions underlying this method of approaching Scripture. Assumptions regarding revelation, regarding Scripture, and regarding history.
The method was first conceived and worked out in the 18th century by scholars who either denied the possibility of a divine revelation or at least denied that Scripture was such a revelation. These early developers of the method denied also the divine origin and inspired nature of Scripture, thus depriving Scripture of its divine authority. They furthermore believed that all history was lived out according to principles of universal correspondence, analogy, and uniformity within history. And all historical records, including Scripture, must be criticized according to such principles. Far reaching changes, of course, have taken place in the method over the past two hundred years. For instance, form criticism has been invented. But the same assumptions underlie the use of the method today by all reputable and consistent practitioners of it.
Perhaps it is necessary at this point only to mention the utterly devastating results of this method. Lutheran exegetes using the method have denied the historicity of all God’s activities recounted in Scripture until the time of Abraham. They have denied the authenticity of many of Christ’s sermons and discourses. They have denied His deity and every miracle performed by Him. Now why does the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture come to such diverse, contradictory conclusions and to conclusions so totally destructive of our Christian faith? Because, I believe, it is a bad method. Because its assumptions regarding revelation, Scripture, and history are wrong and contrary to Scripture. Because it has set wrong goals for itself. And because ultimately it does not understand the nature of what it is dealing with. The sacred Scriptures themselves. Any method of doing anything is determined by the subject with which that method deals. That’s always true. Whether we think of a method of managing a corporation, a method of cutting meat, a method of researching historical data, or a method of reading a book. If this is true, then the nature of Scripture as God’s revelation of Himself and His will cannot be ignored or discounted at any point by any methods seeking to deal with Scripture in terms of its form or content. Scripture’s form is its revelatory character as God’s Word. Scripture’s content is God Himself. He’s the one spoken of everywhere in Scripture. God and His will and actions among men.
In the nature of the case, one cannot use the same method for reading, understanding, and applying Scripture that one uses for understanding any other merely human book which recounts merely human events and ideas. For instance, the historical-critical method is quite adequate and proper for understanding and analyzing Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The historian will immediately recognize according to his principles of universal correspondence and analogy within history that Caesar is a responsible and serious witness to events and a pretty good historian in terms of his own day. The critic will, therefore, accept Caesar’s statement that his army built an elaborate and complicated bridge and crossed the Rhine River. But this critic will recognize Caesar’s limitations as Caesar comments on the flora and fauna of Britain. Or he will recognize Caesar’s tendance as he speaks of his great victories over the barbarians. But Scripture, even though written by inspired men and reflecting their style of writing, their thought forms, their convictions, is not a merely human book or record like Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The Spirit of God is the author of Scripture. And the Spirit does not have a tendance which may be corrected according to any theory concerning continuity and analogy within history. Furthermore, unlike Caesar’s Gallic Wars which deals with the activities of Caesar, a man, the Scriptures witness to the mighty acts of God. Acts which transcend space, time, secondary causes, historical analogy, and everything else within our created order. The reader of Scripture as he confronts the content of Scripture—God and His mighty acts—can only accept the witness of the Spirit of God who testified through the writings of prophets and apostles to these revelations of God’s judgment and grace.
2. The Lutheran Use of Scripture
Does the historical-critical method deny Christian theology? It most certainly does, I believe. Specifically, it undermines the organic, cognitive foundation of all our theology, the sacred Scriptures. And as a result, it is at odds with every specific biblical and Lutheran rule of interpretation. Let me illustrate with just a few points.
We Lutherans believe in the unity of Scripture, in the analogy of Scripture. We believe that Scripture agrees with itself and its witness to Christ, to the gospel, and in all its doctrine. Listen now to the historical critic on this matter. And I’m quoting, “The assertion of a doctrinal unity of the biblical witnesses has been made impossible by the work of critical historical research.” Again we Lutherans believe in the divine origin, the verbal inspiration of Scripture. But listen again to the historical critic on this matter. And again I quote, “The advent of modern natural science and historical research showed that the Bible is not inerrant in the sense of the doctrine of verbal inspiration. The historical-critical method of research investigated even the biblical writings and showed that they originated in the same manner as other source documents of religion. All of this was a fatal blow to the orthodox conception of the Bible.” Again we Lutherans believe that Scripture is absolutely reliable, authoritative, inerrant, but listen to the historical critic on this matter. And again I quote, “In the Bible we know there is no unity of doctrine, no one theology, no single line of interpretation, not even agreement on what the facts are. The historical-critical method opened our eyes to pluralism, divergent trends, historical conditionedness and relativity, and also theological contradictions in the Bible.”
Now who are these men that I just quoted? Radicals? Modernists? Not at all. Well known, respected Lutheran theologians—every one of them—who use the historical-critical method. And their root error—their root error in every case—is that they insist on principle that Scripture must be approached like any other purely human, historically conditioned book. Listen to just one more Lutheran historical critic on this matter. He says, “The historicality of the Bible, that is the conditioned character of its contents, a conditionedness which makes them dependent upon all kinds of human limitations and situations in precisely the same way as the legacies of all sorts of historical traditions is an assumption of modern criticism throughout.” Our St. Louis faculty in its recent confession really says the same thing. In a different way, more palatably perhaps, but the same thing. And I’m quoting, “Basically all techniques associated with the historical-critical methodologies, such as source analysis, form history, and redaction history, are legitimated by the fact that God chose to use as his written word human documents written by human beings in human language.” That’s the end of the quote. The illogic, the naivete of this assertion is outweighed really only by the tragic consequences of such a position for theology in our church.
3. The Question of Consistency
Many arguments have been used in our Synod in favor of the historical-critical methodology. Let me just examine some of them with you. I think you’ve heard most of them yourselves.
First of all, it’s argued that the historical-critical method is better than our older approach to Scripture because it makes the fullest use of all the tools available to scholarly exegesis. This argument, I believe, is pure propaganda. Conservative exegetes today who reject the historical-critical method use all the scholarly tools helpful to their work. Lexicons, archaeological finds, extra-biblical historical data, and the like. What they object to is not scholarship or tools but to an unscholarly, sub-Christian method of using the tools of scholarship.
Another argument goes like this. In and of itself, so-called historical-critical methodology is neutral. This argument sounds very humble, perhaps even innocuous, but it is utterly false, I believe. The presuppositions underlying the method which I mentioned earlier make the historical critical method anything but neutral. I might add that all historical-critical scholars outside of our Synod agree with me on this point. Gerhard Ebeling, for instance, says and I quote, “It leads only to obscuring the nature of the problem when the historical-critical method is held to be a purely formal scientific technique entirely free of presuppositions.” But we’re told we can use the method with Lutheran presuppositions. Nonsense. If you take away the radical, sub-Christian presuppositions of the method and replace them with the Lutheran presuppositions regarding law and gospel, the Christocentricity of Scripture, the power of the Word, the divine origin, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture—if you do that, then you’ve destroyed the historical-critical method entirely.
Third, it’s argued that the historical-critical method enables us to understand better what God says to us through the Scriptures. This claim is false and incredible. At best the historical-critical method ignores the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. How then can such a method help us to understand better what God says to us in Scripture?
Finally, it is argued that the historical-critical method is used in the service of the gospel and somehow helps us better to find the gospel in Scripture and use it. This claim is absurd. How can a method which ignores or rejects the divine origin and authority of Scripture—which is our only source of the gospel—help us better to understand the gospel as God’s Word of reconciliation and pardon to us? I would insist that, in fact, the historical-critical method does the very opposite of what its champions claim for it. It hinders us from getting to the gospel of Scripture and undermines the gospel itself by undermining confidence in the only divinely authoritative source we have for the gospel today, the sacred Scripture.
Let there be no mistake about this. A method which at any point can cast doubt on the authenticity of the words and discourses and even the miracles and saving acts of our Lord will never enhance the preaching of the gospel in our church. It is for the sake of the gospel, therefore, that I would urge every Lutheran teacher, pastor, and layman to avoid the historical-critical method as such. As the great heresy of our day. For the gospel itself is at stake. The heart of the gospel is Christ, our prophet, priest, and king. And He was no higher critic. He bowed to the written word of the Old Testament. Through His ministry the Scriptures ruled supreme. He in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead drew all His doctrine from Scripture alone. And when He taught or quoted or applied Scripture there’s never evasion, hesitation, qualification. He simply says, “It is written,” and then what follows is unconditionally true and authoritative.
We today honor our Savior by emulating His confidence in the divine origin and message of Scripture. Not by using a method which assumes the Scriptures are merely human writings which teach contradictory theologies and contain errors. And as followers of Christ saved by Him and committed utterly to His gospel of reconciliation as revealed in Scripture, we will never, never tamper with that divine Word of Holy Writ.
Robert Preus
New Orleans ’73 / Issues
TC-381, No. 1, 99-9266
Concordia Publishing House, 1973
Transcription: M. L. F. Freiberg Sr.
Christian News 