Near the end of the eighteenth century, a man by the name of Johann Phillip Gabler spoke about the subjects of historical interpretation and Biblical theology. He proposed that Biblical and dogmatic theology are different tasks. For Gabler, Biblical theology is the primary goal when interpreting Scripture. He described Biblical theology as first consisting of historical exposition that treats the Biblical statement within the author’s historical setting. After the historical context is understood, then the philosophically informed explanation of the statement is provided that determines the abiding Biblical truth.
As can be seen from Gabler, Scripture was not taken at face value to be true and abiding on its own right by itself. That determination is now supplied by the reader. Also, as part of this proposal, Gabler “borrowed from the classical and Biblical scholars Heyne and Eichorn, that people in more primitive stages of development expressed themselves in ways suited to their limited rational powers, namely in mythical images.”
If Gabler is correct, the Old Testament was to be considered inferior to the New Testament. The unity of the Two Testaments is in jeopardy because the OT is inferior to the NT simply because it was from an earlier era. As Gabler’s one time colleague Georg Lorenz Bauer would argue, “a separate theology would have to be written for each of them.” (Ben C. Ollenburger, The Flowering of Old Testament Theology, 5) This idea certainly goes against that of the early church interpreters and those of a more conventional Christian theistic worldview. The interpreters of the late eighteenth century relied much more on their rational mind than in trusting that the words of Scripture did record accurate accounts of history.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: Ruth was a gentile and as such cut off from God and His presence. When she married Naomi’s son Mahlon, Ruth became a Hebrew and one of God’s people. When Naomi’s husband died, her sons were her only means of support. When these sons in turn also died, she was a widow without sons — helpless in a society where having husbands and sons are key to survival. On top of that, she was in a foreign country, where no one cared about her. Yet all she could think about was her daughters-in-law. She tried to send them home to their families, but only one of them went back.
Because Ruth truly loved her Naomi and loved God, she refused. She would never leave her mother-in-law. Whatever would happen to Naomi, she would share her fate. So, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law went home to Naomi’s family — the Bethlehem in Judea. Does that town sound familiar?
While she was gathering the grain left in the field for the poor, she met a relative of her late husband. This man, Boaz, went out of his way to provide for Naomi and her daughter-in-law. He claimed the right to marry Ruth under the Levirate law — the nearest male relative marries a widow and their children become the legal heirs of the deceased man.
When he did this, Boaz showed the true, selfless character of a redeemer. God blessed this marriage with children. Their son Obed would later marry. Obed’s was the father of Jesse, whose son was King David. And so the self-giving nature of Ruth and Boaz was blessed. In this way, God put a gentile into the family tree of the Son of David — and his own Son — Jesus (Matthew 1:5, ).
The first and major shift of interpretation and worldview came during the seventeenth century. The question rested in that of knowledge and authority. Where does knowledge come from? And who has the authority speak on it? No longer did Scripture hold the authority as the medium of knowledge concerning the divine, rather a person’s own reason could seek out God and truth without a guide. Perhaps the first man to bring this to light was Benedict de Spinoza. Spinoza shows himself to be a rationalist and seminal figure of the Enlightenment. For Spinoza, reason, and not Scripture, holds the high place in man’s search for knowledge. As a matter of fact, Scripture is not a source of natural or speculative or historical knowledge. “Scripture only seeks to inculcate piety and obedience to God.” (Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, 42)
Notice the difference between Spinoza and Irenaeus or Luther. Spinoza’s worldview is light years away from the Christian theistic worldview. Christian theism was not thrown away entirely during these later centuries, however a couple of new worldviews came on the scene in rapid succession seeking to overthrow it, specifically deism and naturalism. Both of these could be put under the larger umbrella of rationalism. In both deism and naturalism, special revelation is, to a greater or lesser extent, denied. Knowledge is gained through human reason and scientific methods. As these two rationalistic worldviews came into vogue, the historical-critical method of interpretation rose along with them. It is difficult to determine what came first, the worldviews or the method. What can be seen is that many of the interpreters of the seventeenth century and later began to move away from the conventional Christian theistic worldview as described earlier.
Frei notes too that the literal sense moved further and further away from figurative interpretation. Literal sense would ultimately come to mean the opposite of a figural sense of Scripture. The literal sense would come to be equated to the single meaning of statements.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
When Luther came on the scene, he broke away from the fourfold meaning of Scripture. It is no mystery that Luther repudiated allegory and spoke favorably of typology. However, in practice, Luther still utilized allegory while interpreting Scripture passages. One only needs to read some of his commentaries to see that he does use allegory as part of his exegetical process. Go to his discussion about the doves on Noah’s ark for instance. Or pick up CPH’s two volume set: A Year in the Gospels with Martin Luther. There you will often see sections titled: Allegories.
So is Luther a hypocrite? No. As long as allegory agreed with the analogy of faith and gave comfort to troubled consciences, allegory was free to stand. This idea of allegory is not far removed from the way typology is commonly used in today’s context. Nor is it far from the middle of the road commentators from Alexandria, like Cyril. Though Luther speaks against Origen’s use of allegory, that it is not connected to the analogy of faith, Luther is thankful that Origen’s allegories are most often connected to morality. For Luther, these interpretations should always be compatible with and informed principally by Christ and to a lesser extent, the church. Luther praises Peter and Paul’s use of allegory concerning the flood (1 Pt 3) and the Red Sea (1 Cor 10) because it ‘serves to comfort hearts.
Luther appears to take what is good from the Alexandrian interpretative tradition and the best of Antioch and builds his own method. Luther asserts the historical account is the literal sense as well as the spiritual sense in his Genesis lectures, but understands allegory (or would modern scholars understand it as typology?) can work well and assist, as was shown above. Luther held to a Christology more along the lines of Cyril of Alexandria. Christological doctrine is born from exegesis of Scripture. As long as the allegory was connected to, illustrated the historical account, and agrees with the analogy of faith, allegory is permitted.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: The word Torah (תרה) found in the Old Testament is actually pretty difficult to translate because it carries so much theological weight.
So what can Torah mean? Well, you look at the first books of the bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy) that is called the Torah. It’s sometimes called the Law of Moses. Torah means Law.
But then you may be asking yourself, how is Law defined? That is a very good question. In Lutheran circles we understand the Law of God to have 3 uses. The second use is the most common because it is the one that accuses us of our sins. But the books of Moses are not just made up of that kind of Law. So we need a broader definition.
Torah means God’s Law in the sense that it is His Word. Understood in this way Torah is Law and Gospel. The Old Testament has both Law and Gospel throughout.
God’s Torah then is both Law and Gospel. It contains the 10 commandments and the all the purity laws of Leviticus, but it also has the Gospel that points us to Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. Think to Leviticus 16, Genesis 3:15, Numbers 21, to name a few.
So if God’s Torah is understood as God’s Word, then when Jesus who is called the Word of God incarnate, another way to say it is that Jesus is the Torah Incarnate. This idea comes through in the Gospel of John most prominently, and come to think of it in Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount. For Jesus in both John and Matthew states the Law and then explains it and further intensifies it. We only need to think about the sin of adultery, for instance.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: You might remember the Ebionites and those who followed Marcion from earlier posts. In this post I want to introduce the two theological schools that ruled the day and effectively have left marks on the way we interpret the Bible still today.
But why are they called schools? Don’t think of them so much as buildings but the way of thinking. The first is Alexandria. The other is Antioch. Both cities were centers of Christian thought. Paul and other apostles spent time in Antioch, and Alexandria was known throughout the world as another great center of learning.
So what was the difference between Antioch and Alexandria? Well, let’s look at Alexandria first. Alexandria was the melting pot of cultures. Greek philosophy was alive and well. Many theologians, Origen, for example, had a background in philosophy. If you were to read Origen’s writings that we have at our disposal you would see him interpreting the text not just literally but also philosophically or in an allegorical fashion. Words meant more than just the literal word for him and others that came after him in the Alexandria School. Now this is not always a bad thing, but we need to always be careful to always consider the literal text.
Antioch and the theologians there were of a different style. They interpreted scripture in a literal, historical sense. Antioch generally steered clear of the allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture. That being said, they did not always have a lot of opportunities to find Christ in the Old Testament.
Both schools had men fall of either side of the the proverbial horse. Origen allowed his mind to go too far. Some men in Antioch did not go far enough to find Christ in the text, and questioned some of the Old Testament’s use for the Christian. Again, we should be looking back to what Jesus says. The Scriptures are all about him. He fulfills what was said in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. If we keep that in mind, we ought to be able to see Christ not only in the New Testament but also the Old.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp St. Peter’s Lutheran Church La Grange, MO
Encore Post: If we think of a pendulum, it swings one way or the other. Let’s imagine the Ebionites to one extreme. At the other extreme would be the man named Marcion.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge we do not have any of Marcion’s own writings at our disposal. However, we have the early Church Fathers and their writings against his teachings. Ireaneaus of Lyon wrote against him in his work Against Heresies.
From Ireaneaus and some of the other Apostolic Fathers we learn that Marcion held to the idea that the the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New were not the same. Marcion saw the god of the Testament as a lesser Creator god who even was possibly evil. The god of the Old Testament was the Jewish God, and not the Father of the True Christ. The Old Testament may have prophesied about a Christ, but not the true one.
For Marcion, Jesus (the true Christ) came to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets. Marcion even went so far as to change the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew to make Jesus say, “I have not come to fulfill the law but to abolish it.” This is the exact opposite of what Jesus says He came to do.
Encore Post: As we begin digging into the history of Christianity and how the Old Testament came to be understood by Christians (Remember we hold to what Jesus said and how Jesus used the Old Testament, namely that He is the fulfillment of it), we first come across the group that we know as the Ebionites or as we know them from Galatians, the Judaizers.
The question presented to Christians, especially of Jewish background was how the law of Moses was supposed to be understood. Should the Christian follow it still? To what extent?
If we remember the laws of Moses come in three varieties: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. Some of the Ebionites did not force these laws on everyone else, but from Galatians 2 we hear of a pretty vocal group. This group appeared to hold to all three varieties of the laws of Moses. They certainly held to the moral and ceremonial.
Jesus himself dealt with some of this during his earthly ministry. Paul and his companions certainly did. The first council of the church (Acts 15) dealt with the question of the ceremonial law.
We need to be aware of the trappings of what the Ebionites taught, especially about the Old Testament and the law contained therein. While the Ebionites wanted to maintain the laws of Moses in their entirety, the next push came from a man named Marcion who wanted to do the exact opposite. We will talk more about him next.
Rev. Jacob Hercamp
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church
La Grange, MO
Encore Post: This is the beginning of some wandering deeper into the Old Testament. As I stated before I love the Old Testament, so much I earned my Master’s of Sacred Theology in Old Testament Exegesis.
In my reading for such a degree, I was always confronted in one way or another with the question: “What is the Old Testament? And how are Christians supposed to read it?”
Many a theologian has asked those questions. Especially since the Old Testament is the sacred text for the Jewish religion as well as Christianity. How can the same books be read and people come to a different conclusion? How ought the Old Testament be understood? The obvious answer to that question for us is to follow in the way of Jesus, and how He read and understood the Old Testament.
But we humans and our sinful nature try to do it on our own, and that leads us into trouble. We will try to highlight some of those along the way as we see and learn how the greatest exegete, Jesus, explains and interprets the Old Testament showing us that He is the fulfillment of it (John 5:37-40; John 6:44-48; John 8:48-59; Luke 24:26-27; Luke 24:44-48).
Rev. Jacob Hercamp
St. Peter’s Lutheran Church
La Grange, MO
The following is a post seen on social media following the overturning of Roe v. Wade & Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A friend and opponent in the abortion debate, who is agnostic/non-Christian shared it with me seeking commentary. I obliged them. So, here is the commentary. My responses are included inline. [You may identify my remarks by the brackets containing them]. The author of the original post is unknown to me at the time of this writing.
The Post:
A headline on one of my Facebook friends’ posts yesterday was “Today’s Supreme Court decision was a MAJOR win for God.”
A win for God?
[No, it’s a win for morality. Moralism for the sake of morality in the secular realm isn’t for God.]
I immediately thought, does he think our God is so feeble that he needs a panel of nine men and women to affirm him and bestow favor on him?
[No, He isn’t. No, He doesn’t. And, they didn’t affirm Him. SCOTUS affirmed the rights of all people to be secure in their person from death by murder as enumerated in the Constitution. The poor precedent didn’t stand scrutiny in its discovery of unenumerated rights that superseded the life of a unique human being in the womb.]
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion, yesterday’s decision has proven to be a terrible day for God and His church. Why? Because so many of the people that make up His church are deciding to act anything but Christlike.
Scripture says, “They will know you are my disciples by your love.” By your love. Not your memes, not your posturing, not your gloating, not your politics, but by your love.
[That’s out of context and a poor translation in any case. A better on says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Does Jesus say other things about this “love?” Yeah, He sure does. He says a lot more.
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)
Was Jesus diminishing the commandments here? No, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17) In the rest of chapter five, He expands the commandments beyond their perceived limits. Hatred is the same as murder. Lust in the heart is the same as adultery. This is our understanding of and the way we teach all of the commandments (Matthew 5:17-48).
Love begins with the love of the Lord and His commandments. Then, love moves to my neighbor. No one can love his neighbor while encouraging his neighbor to commit sin like murder.]
On the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, so many in the church began waiving victory flags for Jesus, while the enemy was using your actions to turn more and more people off to God.
This wasn’t a win for the church.
[Meh, it’s a win for babies, who were being murdered. More of them may live now. Murder is always evil. Not murdering is always good.]
In fact, I believe history will show that this decision was a tipping point for the downfall of church attendance and effectiveness. No one on the opposite side of the decision felt the love, compassion, and ministry of Jesus yesterday. No one.
[This guy doesn’t want to see the church or Christians’ love for people. He wants us to be indifferent to sin. He wants us to encourage our neighbor in their separation from God. That would be the end of the church and the Christian faith.]
Let me be blunt.
If you are a Christian who believes in a God who will condemn people to hell for not believing in Him and you’re choosing to spew hate and vile towards people you disagree with, then you, my friend, have more blood on your hands than any person who chose to get an abortion.
[Acceptance ≠ Love. Acceptance/encouragement of sin = actual hatred, and not the imaginary kind dreamt up by an unbelieving world. But, actual, genuine hatred for your fellow man. The kind of hatred that gleefully of indifferently watches my neighbor hurtle themselves toward perdition.
We believe that we separate ourselves from the love of God by our sin. Only forgiveness received by faith, which turns us from sin, can remedy this.]
It’s time for the separation of church and hate.
[No one can love his neighbor while encouraging his neighbor to commit sin. The world has redefined love by the definition: acceptance and exaltation. Accepting, exalting, and encouraging sin, which separates people from God is not love. That’s indifferent hatred. A hatred that doesn’t mind my neighbor going to hell, separated from the Lord by their beloved sins.]
The church is the richest organization in the world. We have more money than Apple, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. If we really cared about babies, we could do something about it.
[False! The tech billionaires are extraordinarily wealthy individuals, and their international corporations are wealthy to a degree we can’t fathom. They are also quite miserly in their charitable donations.
It’s possible that the Roman Catholic Church may be a very wealthy organization. All other Christian churches organizations pale in comparison. My parent organization, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, with her 2.9 million members is quite poor comparatively. Others are significantly smaller still. I’d love to see a dollar by dollar comparison of monies taken in vs. those spend for the good of people. Between charitable organizations run by individual congregations, small groups of them, and their parent organizations as well as money sent into use outside of themselves, there isn’t a comparison in the secular sphere.
I will leave the graft, waste, and fraud in government, the wealthiest organization yet mentioned, for others to address.]
I am hoping when I attend church on Sunday there is a line around the corner for the church to volunteer to adopt and foster. That’s what you do when you really care about babies.
[There is. The state is the only thing preventing even more. The legally mandated goal of CPS and every foster agency – working to reunite families of birth – directly opposed to best interests of the children in their care. This genetic priority further wounds prospective and current foster parents in a much lesser way than the children themselves.]
I hope there are special offerings taken on Sunday to raise money for diapers, formula, babysitting, and therapy, because that’s what you do when you really care about babies.
[We don’t need special offerings. It’s baked into the cultural bread of every church. We don’t talk about it much. Because, it’s just business as usual.]
I hope every church that offers preschool will now do so at no charge, because that’s what you do when you really care about babies.
[Nah, the best place for babies is with their mothers. Daycare/preschool raised babies/toddlers do less well than kiddos with mom at home. We offer the service and help folks make ends meet. But, we also encourage and assist in the best situation for every child: mom & dad, married for life, raising their kids. We work hard to uplift and strengthen families, because that’s the very best thing for babies. We do that because we love babies, toddlers, children, and their parents.]
Where is the love and compassion for women?
[Right alongside the compassion for the children, about 50% of whom will also grow to be women. Even if there were a complete absence of care or support for mothers, that would never justified murdering their babies. But, that premise is faulty. It assumes a counterfactual situation and condemns us Christians based upon an imaginary sin.]
Where is the Christ-like behavior?
[Which Christ do you want us to emulate? Jesus, who dared the crowds to throw their stones, if they were without sin? Jesus, who called the Syrophoenician woman a dog? Jesus, who became angry with His disciples for keeping the infants away? Jesus, who flipped over tables and chased the money changers with a whip? Jesus, who forgave sin AND commanded sinners to go forth and sin no more? Jesus, who lived a perfect, sinless life, died for our sins, rose again to life on the third day, and ascended to the right hand of the father?
They are all the same Jesus.
I’m not Jesus. Neither are you. Let’s let Jesus be Jesus and Jesus us in the way that He Jesuses.]
Where is the empathetic understanding that this decision, even if you agree with it, has placed real fear in the hearts of so many?
[Love can never encourage its neighbor in sin. I cannot encourage my neighbor toward hell.]
Church, remember why you exist. It’s not so you can consistently get your way politically. It’s so you can introduce people to a God who loves and cares for them. It’s time to confuse people on where you stand politically and give them the unconditional grace that God gave to you.
[No sir, this is the commission, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
Go back, read it all again, teach it, and do it. The Law & The Gospel Condemnation & Forgiveness]
You only have ONE LIFE. You might as well MAKE IT COUNT.
[No, we have eternal life to live. Jesus counts for us, dying for our sin to deliver us from it and into eternal life. Some don’t want that and love sin. There is eternal damnation for those having no need of forgiveness. As a result, and we can only live our lives to the glory of God. Speaking out against sin and preaching forgiveness in Christ Alone. “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel… For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:15-16, 21)
I suspect this will fall on deaf ears. The writer, who may be a part of a Christian church, clearly knows very little about the work of the church or the life and teachings of Jesus. His goal seemed to be eliciting a shamed backpedaling apology.
In the law of God I delight. And, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins. I preach Christ and Him crucified for sinners who are perishing, but God grants hearing, faith, and growth.
I am not ashamed of the Gospel.]
Rev. Jason M. Kaspar Sole Pastor Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool La Grange, TX and Mission planting pastoral team: Epiphany Lutheran Church Bastrop, TX
