We should keep a number of relevant points in mind when examining how Luther construes the theological task. First, the cycle of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio recapitulations the Incarnation and work of Christ. Much as the Word was incarnate through the coming of the Spirit, so too divine truth becomes incarnate in the mind and proclamation of the theologian through the coming of the Word and the Spirit through oratio and meditatio.
In Christ’s incarnation, the Holy Spirit enhypostically incorporated a human nature derived from Mary into the pre-existent Word, so that He might operate in the created world. So too (at least in Johann Gerhard’s account) the Spirit incorporates the pre-existent knowledge of the theologian in the theological task. Finally, Christ’s communication of the Word was tested by his suffering and death, and validated by his resurrection. So too, the interpreter must undergo the testing of his interpretation and application of Scripture within the arena of the kingdom of the world.
The incarnational nature of the theological method of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio also shows how theology can be historically contextual and culturally responsive, while at the same time be faithfully ground in the unchanging Word of God. The theologian’s act of faithfully translating the Word of God into the contemporary idiom is brought about only by the work of the Spirit. The Spirit himself incorporates the knowledge and thought-forms available to the interpreter in his context. Since the Word of God as revelation is embedded in history and the created order, the theologian may seek to clarify the Word by drawing on multiple contextualized disciplines and sources of knowledge that will clarify its meaning.
Likewise, the theologian’s presentation and proclamation of the translated Word of God ought to be subject to criticism and testing not only by the contemporary Church, but also by the tradition of the Church catholic throughout the ages. The contemporary theologian must also be responsive to the critique of other disciplines that may bear on the content of the Word of God, such as history or science. Through this opposition, the theologian will either come to the conclusion he is mistaken, and needs to return to the Word, or that he must bear the cross in standing up to the sinful world’s opposition. Either way, his response must draw on the unchanging Word. Yet, at the same time, he must be bound to the context within which he suffers opposition.
Seen light of the dual tasks of translation and testing, much of what has been wrong with theology in the history of the Church can be seen in a clearer light. On the one hand, theologians have often failed to faithfully translate the Word into the contemporary idiom. “Conservatives” often make the mistake of identifying the translation of a previous era as the only correct presentation for all time. They, therefore, attempt to simply repristinate an older idiom without change. This makes the mistake of identifying a particular culturally relative idiom with the truth present in the authoritative Bible itself. Likewise, “liberals” often treat the contemporary idiom as if it were divine truth itself and use it to place a limit upon what the Word of God can say and cannot say, thereby compromising the authority of the Christian revelation.
In terms of the second task of testing, conservative theologians have often been unwilling to respond to legitimate critiques from other theological traditions, or other sources of secular knowledge. Conversely, liberals too often compromise the Word of God in order to accommodate the sinful world’s opposition and escape the necessary task of bearing the cross.
From the draft manuscript for Lutheran Dogmatics: The Evangelical-Catholic Faith for an Age of Contested Truth (Lexham Press).
Image from “CTCR Bible studies on Justification,” LCMS Reporter, March 1, 2018, https://reporter.lcms.org/2018/ctcr-bible-study-justification/.