16. Scripture and exegesis.
The basis of all exegetical activity, whether we understand by it in general the unfolding of the content of Scripture1176) or in particular the explanation or the attempt to explain difficult passages,1177) is the fact that the whole Christian doctrine is revealed in such passages of Scripture to which access stands open to scholars and unlearned alike, which therefore need no exegesis in the sense of explaining obscurities. Without this, the Scriptures would not be a lamp to all Christians and a
of the Dorpat report in L. u. W. 1867, p. 257 ff. — From the modern-theological point of view, the nature and validity of the symbols is treated, e.g., by Nitzsch-Stephan under the section “Das Verhältnis des Protestantismus zur Tradition”, p. 282 ff. For modern theology, the terminology discussed above: norma, stated by Scripture, and norma normata, stated by the symbols of the Church, has no meaning at all. Because modern theology has abandoned Scripture as the infallible Word of God, it has in principle abandoned the distinction between Scripture and symbols and other religious writings. Scripture has degenerated into norma normata for them. Norma normans is for her the "Christian experience", the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject. If modern theologians, in their denial of the inspiration of Scripture and of satisfactio vicaria, wanted to be committed to the symbols of the Lutheran Church, this would have to be taken as a mockery, because the whole doctrinal content of the symbols is based on the fundamental doctrines mentioned. A very understandable article on the commitment to the symbols is found in RE. 2 XV, p. 86 f. The article, signed by Dr. von Burger †, agrees for the most part with Dr. Walther's paper. In particular, Burger opposes the theological professors who demand "freedom of teaching" in order to fight the confession of the church from here. Burger also refutes the senseless assertion that the obligation to the symbols includes a compulsion of conscience.
1176) The so-called enarratio, like Luther's Enarrationes in Genesin. Thus, in old orders for the examination of candidates for the ministry, it is said that it is to be investigated whether the candidate, in addition to a sure knowledge of all articles of Christian doctrine, also has the grace "to expose the Scriptures," which is "the gift and ability to teach others also," that is, the ability to present the doctrine of Scripture in the public ministry. This usage has also been preserved among our German-American Christian people when they say in reference to the sermon of their pastor, "Our pastor has a good exposition of Scripture." Cf. Walther, Pastorale, p. 63.
1177) In this narrower sense Quenstedt 1, 199 grasps the "interpretation of Scripture" when he says: Scripturae est, qua genuinus illius sensus, menti ac intentioni Spiritus Sancti conveniens in locis difficilioribus, dextre adhibitis mediis et regulis hermeneuticis, inquiritur et ostenditur.[“ It is the Scriptures, by which the true sense of that, suitable to the mind and intention of the Holy Spirit, is investigated and shown in the more difficult places, by rightly used means and hermeneutic rules.”]
435 ><w:t>The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 359-360]
light on their path, and not all Christians would be able to recognize their faith as correct from the Scriptures and to distinguish false teachers from the right ones in the light of the Scriptures and to avoid them. Therefore, the great teachers of the church, such as Augustine, Luther, Chemnitz, etc., have held to the God-ordained nature of Scripture, according to which Scripture presents the entire Christian doctrine in all its parts in such passages from which obscurities cannot be removed only with the help of exegesis. The evidence from Augustine, etc., was already given in the description of the clarity of Scripture (p. 391). Luther's admonition is also based on this nature of Scripture: "He who cannot understand the dark, let him stay with the light."1178) No one need fear that he will fall short of any doctrine of faith or life.
Good papists and bad Protestants have objected that the special gift of interpreting the Scriptures, which God gives to some Christians before others, is not used. The objection is not valid. The special gift of Scripture interpretation finds a wide sphere of activity in spite of the complete clarity of Scripture in the sense just described. First, it stands as Harleß puts it in his preface to Luther's exposition of the 17th chapter of the Gospel of St. John:1179) "Though the Word of God in itself needs no interpreting [exposition], yet our hard hearts and deaf ears stand in need of the voice of heralds and pastors in the wilderness. And this, again, not as if Christ's words were too high and too low, too dark and too mysterious for human senses, but because, as Luther rightly recognized, we men, in our cranky striving for false heights, slip over the divine simplicity of Christ's words like the blind or the dull." Therefore, the real task of the exegete is to hold the erratic human spirit to the simple word of Scripture and, where it has already deviated from it, to lead it back to the simple word of Scripture. As Luther says of all his writings, and especially of his exegetical writings, that their sole purpose is to lead back to the Scriptures, and indeed to lead back to the Scriptures in such a way that every Christian and
1178) St. L. V, 338.<w:t>1179) Leipzig 1857, p. V.
436 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 360-361]
every teacher stands with his faith on the bare word of Scripture, on the nuda Scriptura, minus "gloss". By "gloss", however, Luther does not merely mean the wrong exegesis, as has been thought, but every exposition, including the correct one. Therefore, as is well known, Luther repeatedly expresses the wish that all his books should perish, so that Christians would base their faith on the nuda Scriptura, without exposition, because all exposition is necessarily darker than the Scripture itself and therefore every exposition must be examined again to see whether it can stand before the clearer light of the Scripture. "There is no clearer book written on earth than the Holy Scriptures; they are to all other books as the sun is to all lights." 1180) Fortunately, Luther's wish that all his books would perish so that the nuda Scriptura would retain sole dominion did not come true. For his writings not only have the purpose, but are actually of such a nature, that they lead the fluttering human mind to the bare Scripture, without exposition, and thereby hold it fast, so that every Christian, and especially every Christian standing in a public teaching office, can speak with Luther: "The word they shall let stand." By this word Luther understands the nuda Scriptura. Such manuductio ad nudam Scripturam was not only needed in Luther's time. The church needs it at all times until the Last Day, because men at all times are and will be inclined "to slip over the divine simplicity of the words of the Scriptures in cranky striving for false heights like blind or dull-witted people." Thus our time also needs such exegetes — they need not be professional theologians in every case — who, by God's grace, possess four qualities in particular: 1. They hold the Scriptures to be God's own Word and treat them accordingly; 2. they hold the Scriptures to be clear according to the testimony of the Scriptures concerning themselves; 3. they let all their activity be absorbed in manuductio ad nudam Scripturam; 4. they expose the fraud that is present every time men, under the pretense of "exegesis," seek to shed the necessary light on the Scriptures through their human thoughts. As Zwingli asserted, "the very noblest words, concerning the eternal Godhead and the true humanity of Jesus Christ," had to be "sent through figures
1180) Luther on the 37th Psalm. St. L. V, 334.
437 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 361-362]
and tropes into the right sense, which is inviolable to the faith."1181) Modern theologians also claim that Scripture is to be "subordinated" to "faith" as the supreme principle in theology. By "faith" they understand the pious self-consciousness of the human individual doing theology.1182) This brings us to the abuse that has been committed in ancient and modern times with the interpretation of Scripture "according to faith" or "according to the analogy of faith". The exegete must clearly recognize this abuse, and in the exposure of this abuse he finds, on the other hand, his reason for being. To be sure, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the "analogy of faith." But the expression is used in a double, quite different sense and therefore also with quite different results. Understood in the right sense, it serves the exposition of Scripture; understood in the wrong sense, it serves the complete subversion of Scripture.
Luther and the old theologians who remained with him on the right path understand by the analogy of faith the clear passages of Scripture that do not need any exposition but shine in their own light. In the compilation of such scriptural passages we have the "analogy" or the "rule of faith." Thus the Apology1183) defines the rule of faith when it says, "Ceterum exempla (like the life of the Rechabites) iuxta regulam, hoc est, iuxta Scripturas certas et claras … interpretari convenit. [“Moreover, it is appropriate to interpret examples according to the rule, that is, according to certain and clear Scriptures.”] Luther reminds:1184) "Therefore it is to be known that Scripture without all gloss is the sun and all light, from which all teachers received their light, and not again." He teaches that both doctrine and argument must be done "with clear passages, as with a bare drawn sword, without all glosses and expositions." Such clear passages are the rule according to which every right teacher must interpret dark passages of Scripture as far as he is able. "The holy fathers," says Luther,1185) "have the way of interpreting Scripture that they take bright, clear passages and thus make the dark
1181) Thus Zwingli in his answer to Luther's writing "That these Words" etc. Zwingli's entire writing is printed in the St. Louis edition of Luther's works, St. L. XX, 1122 ff. The quoted words of Zwingli stand XX. 1196.
1182) Seeberg, Dogmengesch. 2 II, 289.<w:t>1183) M., p. 284, 60 [Trigl 441, 60 🔗].
1184) St. L. XVIII. 1293.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1185) St. L. XX. 856.
438 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 362-363]
wavering passages clear." Such "Bright, clear passages" are, of course, found in Scripture where Scripture deals with the individual doctrines, in the so-called sedes doctrinae. Quenstedt:1186) Observandum, quemlibet articulum fidei in Sacra Scriptura habere propriam suam et nativam sedem, ex qua debet iudicari. In this way, the principle remains: Scriptura ex Scriptura explicanda est. [“It must be observed that every article of faith in the Holy Scriptures has its proper and native seat, from which it must be judged.”] Luther:1187) "So Scripture is its own light. This is fine when Scripture interprets itself. Therefore, do not believe the Pope's lies and freely consider as dark what is not proven by clear passages of the Biblia. Thus we must first eliminate this error, because it is almost deeply entrenched, that the Scriptures are dark and must be illuminated by the teachings of men. Which is an excellent error and a blasphemy, and actually means to lead the Holy Spirit to the school, or to speak doctrines first."
A completely opposite concept of "faith" or of the "analogy of faith" is held by all those who do not let the "certae et clarae Scripturae", the "bright, clear sayings of Scripture", be the analogy or rule of faith, but understand by it a concept of faith which they have taken from their own thoughts, setting aside the bright, clear sayings, and which they then regard as the light by which the clear passages of Scripture, which need no exposition at all, are to be illuminated. Such exegetes were the sacramentarians. In order not to be overcome by the Scriptures, but to be able to keep their own thoughts about the Lord's Supper, they made the suggestion that Luther should refrain from the Scriptural passages that deal with the Lord's Supper and establish the doctrine of the Lord's Supper with them from John 6. Modern theologians put themselves in the same class of exegetes. In order not to be able to teach and rebuke from Scripture, but, undisturbed by Scripture, to make "pious self-consciousness" the source and norm of theology, they take refuge in the "whole of Scripture" under the leadership of Schleiermacher, or Hofmann. They try to discredit the drawing of Christian doctrines from the passages of Scripture which deal with these doctrines by the assertion that through this outdated method Scripture is transformed into a "collection of proofs of doctrine.
How Luther exposes this deception, which takes place under the appearance of the
1186) Syst. I, 349.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1187) St. L. XI, 2335 f.
439 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 363]
exposition of the Scriptures, completely eliminates the Scriptures. When the enthusiasts declared that they would like to argue with Luther from the Scriptures, but suggested that Luther should set aside the Scriptural words dealing with the Lord's Supper and argue with them from John 6 about the Lord's Supper, Luther gave this answer: "It is the arrogance and idle malice of the wicked devil who mocks us by such enthusiasts in this great matter that he pretends to want to be instructed by the Scriptures so far as to put the Scriptures out of the way beforehand or to make his conceit out of them. It is as if I were to strip a man of his weapons with cunning words, and in exchange give him painted weapons made of paper like his own, and then offer him defiance, so that he would strike me with them or defend himself against me. O that would be a bold hero to spit at!" The proposal of the enthusiasts to interpret the words of the Last Supper according to John 6 was more or less clearly based on the idea that the meaning of all scriptural passages, even the clear ones, could only be determined by comparison with other scriptural passages. Luther gives the following verdict on this exegetical method:1188) "In this way it will happen that no passage in Scripture is certain and clear, and such a mutual comparison of one passage with another will take place into infinity. ... To want to interpret clear and certain passages by comparing them with others is to mock the truth unworthily (nequiter veritatem illudere) and to bring darkness into the light (nebulas in lucem vehere). Likewise, if one wanted to interpret all passages by comparison with others, this would mean to throw the whole Scripture together in an infinite and uncertain, desolate heap (totam Scripturam in infinitum et incertum chaos confundere). Is this not clear enough? Without doubt you recognize very well that this is how it is." Thus resolutely does Luther hold to the divine institution of Holy Scriptures, according to which the whole Christian doctrine is revealed in such passages of Scripture as do not require "exposition" (in the sense of removing obscurities). Whoever does not accept this truth, but wants to establish the meaning of the clear passages dealing with the individual doctrines
1188) In a Latin letter to Carlstadt, which de Wette, Luthers Briefe etc.. III, 231-240, and the St. Louis edition, XX, 325 ff, in German translation (by Dr. Hoppe).
440 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 363-364]
by means of other passages, enters the path of endless comparison, thereby making the whole Scripture uncertain and dark and transforming it into an inextricable chaos. Luther leaves the rule standing: "One passage must be explained by another." But he adds: "namely, a doubtful and dark passage (locus ambiguus et obscurus) must be interpreted by a clear and certain one". Otherwise we have to do with the nonsensical exegetical method, according to which the light is to be illuminated by the darkness, the light is to be explained by the dark — an exegetical method, of course, which has been carefully cultivated by the false teachers of all times. After Luther said that nothing else stands in the dark passages of Scripture "than what is elsewhere in the clear passages," he continues: "And there come heretics to take the dark passages according to their own understanding, and thus fight against the clear passages and the foundation of faith. 1189)
All of Luther's sharp judgments contained in the foregoing apply even more strongly to modern theologians who want to interpret the whole of Scripture, and especially all clear passages of Scripture, according to the so-called "whole of Scripture. If anything is pure "human conceit," the very opposite of "Scripture," then it is this "whole of Scripture" that was brought onto the path by Schleiermacher and, especially through Hofmann's influence, also penetrated into the modern theology that calls itself Lutheran. This "whole of Scripture" is located entirely outside of Scripture. It is a product of the delusion that the Christian doctrine must be a whole or a system in the sense of human reason or human understanding, according to which, as a standard, the individual doctrines of Scripture are to be understood and cut to size. That with this exegetical method the whole of Christian truth is mocked and the whole of Scripture is turned into a desolate heap of rubble, we have before our eyes. That Schleiermacher threw the whole Christian doctrine overboard by means of the "whole of Scripture" is also admitted by modern theologians. But also in Hofmann's case the result is that he denies such fundamental doctrines as the inspiration of Scripture, the satisfactio vicaria, original sin, etc., and thus consequently the whole Christian doctrine, even if he
1189) St. L.V, 335.
441 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 364-365]
did not quite draw this consequence for himself. In short, by the exposition of Scripture according to the "whole of Scripture," Scripture is not its "own light," but the whole of Scripture, which Schleiermacher, Hofmann, etc..
Interpretation of Scripture in its double function, as enarratio of the content of Scripture and as removal of obscurities by means of the clear passages, is a very serious and sacred business. Scripture is the Word of God, to add to it and to detract from it is strictly forbidden to anyone.1190) Whoever wants to bring more light into dark passages than the Scriptures themselves offer in their clear passages, adds to the Word of God. And whoever makes clear passages unclear by drawing in dark passages, is dismissing the Word of God. Especially also to the exegete is the word:1191) εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ. What he cannot speak as the Word of God, let him leave unspoken. Where he is not sure that he is speaking God's Word, he should say so and — according to Luther's counsel — leave the passage uninterpreted. If the exegete wants to stay on the right track and leave the source of Christian doctrine unclouded, he must always remain mindful of the divine truth1192) that "Scripture is its own light", Scriptura sua radiat luce. He should not allow himself any exposition that is based on something outside of Scripture. This is true both with respect to the use of language and with respect to the historical circumstances of the text. As interesting and important as it is in the apologetic field to compare, for example, the New Testament Greek with the prehistoric Greek from Homer on and with the contemporaneous Greek in Philo and Josephus and on monuments, etc., it is ultimately and solely the use of language present in the New Testament itself that decides. We would violate the fundamental theorem: Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse, and introduce an uncertainty into the conception of the meaning of Scripture, if we wanted to ascribe a meaning to a word and a manner of speaking, which this word and this manner of speaking does not also have in Scripture itself. This is also generally acknowledged and is also very emphatically inculcated by our old theologians. They emphasize: Like Homer, Plato,
1190) Deut. 4:2.<w:t>1191) 1 Petr. 4:11.
1192) Ps. 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19.
442 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 365-366]
Aristotle, Athanasius, Jerome, etc., are to be understood according to the use of language peculiar to every writer, if we do not want to "insert" but "exposition," then this is also to be thoroughly noted with regard to Holy Scriptures. Compare, for example, in Quenstedt the passage: An Sacra Scriptura seipsam interpretetur. [“Holy Scripture to be interpreted by itself”]1193) The same applies with respect to the historical data and circumstances. All historical indications and circumstances of time, which are necessary for the understanding of the Scriptures until the Last Day, are contained in the Scriptures themselves. We must keep ourselves free from the abuses that have attached themselves in our time to the study of Old and New Testament contemporary history. Not long ago, at a conference of sectarian preachers meeting in St. Louis, a speaker occasionally claimed that a sure understanding of Scripture was especially impossible for the laity, because this understanding depended on the "historical background," with which, however, only specialists (experts) could be acquainted. There we would be back to the Roman fundamental article of the obscurity of Scripture, and instead of the Pope, the experts in Old and New Testament contemporary history would "sit over the eggs and become our idol," as Luther puts it. Against this it is to be noted: However, acquaintance with contemporary history, insofar as it is based on profane wrtings, historical monuments, etc., is not only interesting but also important in several respects. It gains importance for our apologetic activity, from which we cannot completely escape. We are able to point out that the historical etc. data of the Holy Scriptures do not belong to the area of fables, but are confirmed to a large part by profane history. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the sure understanding of the Scriptures does not depend in any way on the acquaintance with the profane-historical background, because the whole "historical background", which is necessary for the sure grasp of the meaning of the Scriptures, is given in the Scriptures themselves. We would also already go astray in the exegesis of Scripture if we wanted to supplement the historical background, which is given in Scripture itself, by profane historical things and would allow this supplement to have a somehow decisive influence
1193) Systema I, 199 sqq. Calov, Syst. Locorum Theol. I, 469 sqq.
443 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Holy Scriptures. [English ed. ~ 366-367]
on the exegesis. This would also be a violation of the truth that Scripture shines in its own light. We would also thereby introduce a moment of uncertainty into the interpretation of Scripture. For who vouches for us the correctness of the profane historical background, if it goes beyond the Scriptures? The Scripture is the only book in the world in which no historical errors occur. Admittedly, the grossest abuse of the history of the times is when we want to correct or put into doubt the historical data of the Scriptures on the basis of the "history of the times". We already pointed out in another context that modern theologians, who do not consider the Scriptures to be the Word of God, want to correct or doubt the historical data of the Scriptures based on the history of the times, which Josephus presents.
We conclude this section "Scripture and Exegesis" with Luther's recurring admonition never to substitute a human interpretation for the "text," that is, for the very words of Scripture. He says:1194) "With the text and from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures I have outwitted and outlived all my adversaries. ... For he who is well founded and practiced in the text becomes a good and excellent theologian, since a passage and text from the Bible is more valid than many scribes and glosses, which are not strong and round, and yet they do not help in the controversy." Further:1195) "Where the fathers teach something, they do not trust their doctrine, worry that it is too dark and uncertain, and run to the Scriptures, take a clear passage from it, so that they may enlighten their thing. … How should they have overcome the heretics, where they would have argued with their own glosses? They would have been thought fools and nonsensical; but since they led such clear passages, which need no glosses, that all reason was caught with them, the evil spirit itself with all heresies had to give way to them." Hence Luther's further admonition:1196) "It should be the first care of a theologian that he be well versed in the text, a bonus textualis, as it is called." He complains about the many "commentaries and books" by which "the dear Bible is buried and covered up, that one pays no attention to the text at all." From his own experience, he
1194) St. L. XX, 6. 7.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1195) St. L. XVIII. 1293.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1196) St. L. V. 456.
444 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of God. [English ed. ~ 367-371]
says:1197) "When I was young, I became accustomed to the Bible, read it often and became familiar with the text, so that I knew where every passage stood and could be found when it was addressed; thus I became a good textualist. Only then did I read the scribes. But in the end I had to put them all out of my sight and put them away, because I could not be satisfied with them in my conscience, and so I had to keep the Bible again; for it is much better to see with one's own eyes than with foreign ones. Thus Luther stood in his conscience with the exclusion of human exposition on the mere text of Scripture. The talk, much heard in our day, that all church fellowships stand on Scripture and differ only in the exposition of Scripture, is based on an error. The Roman Church does not stand on Scripture, but on the papal exposition of Scripture. The Reformed fellowships, insofar as they differ from the Lutheran Church, do not stand on Scripture, but on Zwingli's, Calvin's, etc. Scripture's exposition. The Lutheran Church, on the other hand, does not stand on an exposition of Scripture, but on Scripture itself. That this is not a mere assertion, it can demonstrate by way of induction against all the world's contradiction.