The study of the text and meditation on the same.
§ 1
The preacher must make every effort to reach the right understanding of the chosen text. Since this cannot happen without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, he must begin with heartfelt prayer for the same.
Note 1
The right understanding of the text is the first demand that must be made on the preacher. The knowledge or understanding of the text offers him the right material for the sermon; for he should not preach what occurs to him, but what the text contains and is derived from it. The most important requirements of a sermon are that it contains God's word pure and clear (Deut. 4:2; Rom. 12:8), that the word of God is applied correctly (Rom. 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), that the law and the gospel are not mixed but separated (2 Timothy 2:15). These requirements can only be met by a preacher if he thoroughly familiarizes himself with his text each time and tries to penetrate it in order to recognize what teaching it contains. If the word of the Lord John 5:39: "Search the Scriptures" (actually: search the Scriptures) already applies to every ordinary Christian, how much more to a preacher who is supposed to teach others and interpret the Scriptures to them. How can he preach God's word purely and loudly if he himself does not understand the word of God, which he has before him as text and is supposed to interpret; how can he make the right application of this word to his listeners if he does not know whether it contains law or gospel, doctrine or refutation, exhortation or punishment, or comfort? Ezk. 3, 17 God says:
"Son of man, I have set you as a watchman over the house of Israel; you shall hear the word from my mouth." This mouth of God is nothing else than the holy scripture and specifically the text that is always avai lable for the sermon. But as little as a preacher will explain it to a listener of his sermon, If someone does not pay attention to it, he cannot claim that he has heard the word of his God from his text if he has not given it his full attention and has not studied it. Rather, as soon as he has his sermon text before him, he too must say, "Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth." And if he has heard in this way and has allowed the Holy Spirit to open his understanding of the word, then he will also be able to give what he has heard and learned to his listeners and make them understand.
Let us still speak about Luther. He writes: "Knowledge is twofold, one of words, the other of things. Whoever does not have the knowledge of things, the knowledge of words will not help him. According to an old saying, one is accustomed to say: What one does not understand and know well, he will not be able to speak well about. Our time has brought many such examples to light. For many very learned and eloquent people pretend exceedingly foolish and ridiculous things, because they dare not speak of such things which they have not understood..... But he who knows and understands the matter teaches rightly and strikes the heart, whether he is eloquent and not finished in words. So Cato did it before Cicero when he spoke in council, even though he brought up such thin gs roughly and without ornament and adornment, which were not suitable for anyone's mind and no one thought of them.
Now this is not to be interpreted or understood as if I were rejecting grammar, which is quite necessary; but this much I say: If a man does not study the things in Scripture as well as grammar, he will never become a good teacher. For as he said, speech should follow a teacher or preacher and grow out of the heart and not in the mouth." (I, p. 998 f.) Furthermore writes Fr. G. Rambach: "Apar t from these cases (of necessity), however, it always remains punishable if a teacher, either out of laziness, out of supposed edification, or out of an overabundance of household business, appears without preparation and spouts confused... We are told by Pericles, that great orator of Greece, that when he was to appear and speak in court or before state assemblies, he invoked the gods to show him mercy, that he should not present anything that was not useful to the state and worthy of the Republic of Athens. What then is not the duty of a Christian teacher who has to speak in matters concerning the kingdom of God and the eternal salvation of men? He must invoke God, the giver of all good gifts, to give him grace for the direction of his duty; which prayer, however, would amount to a mockery of God if he were to neglect what is incumbent upon him in this."
Note 2
For the right understanding of the text, however, not only diligence, scholarship and the like are necessary. A preacher may be equipped with a rich knowledge of languages, philosophy, history, etc., but he cannot reach the right understanding of the divine word with these (2 Corinthians 3:5). The understanding of the word, which is spoken by the Holy Spirit, can only be attained through the enlightenment of the same. For it depends not only on the grammatical, but also on the meaning laid down in the text by the Holy Spirit. Therefore Luther writes: "First of all, you should know that the Holy Scriptures are such a book that makes wisdom of all other books into foolishness, because none of them deals with eternal life without this alone. Therefore you shoul d despair of your mind and understanding, for you will not attain it with them, but with such presumption you will throw yourself and others with you from heaven (as happened to Lucifer) into the abyss of hells, but kneel down in your closet and pray to God with right humility and earnestness that he may give you his Holy Spirit through his dear Son, who will enlighten you, guide you and give you understanding.
As you see that David always asks in the above (119th) Psalm: Teach me, Lord, instruct me, guide me, show me, and the word much more, if he knows the text of Moses and other more books well, also hears and reads daily, nor does he want to have the right master of the Scriptures himself, so that he does not fall in with reason and become his own master. For there are riffraff spirits who make themselves believe that the Scriptures are subject to them, and can easily be obtained with their reason, as if they were Marcolfus or Aesopus' fables, since they are not allowed to live by the Holy Spirit.".... "Therefore let this be the first care, that he who wants to study the holy Scriptures may know his text well, and know this beginning first of all, that one should not dispute about God's things, philosophize, or judge by human reason and wisdom, strive for it and think about it. For if one should act in these matters with human reason and such speeches as seem to be equal to the truth, I could just as easily falsify and misinterpret all the articles of faith as Arius, the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists. But in the holy Scriptures alone one should hear, believe, and conclude with certainty in one's heart that God is true, however much the doctrine of faith, of which God speaks in his words, may seem to human reason to be foolish and inconsistent.
Furthermore: "Here then Peter attacks the false teaching. Since you know (he says) that we have the Word of God, stand firm on it, and do not be deceived by other false teachers, even though they come and claim that they also have the Holy Spirit. For this you shall know first (for the other he will say afterwards), 'that no prophecy in the Scriptures is done by your own interpretation'; so judge yourselves, and do not think that you will interpret the Scriptures by your own reason and wisdom. Hereby all the fathers' own interpretation of Scripture is laid down and struck down, and it is forbidden to build on such an interpretation. If Jerome or Augustine or any of the fathers have interpreted it themselves, we do not want them. Peter has forbidden, you shall not interpret it yourself: Let the Holy Spirit interpret it himself, or let it remain uninterpreted. If then one of the holy fathers can prove that he has his interpretation from Scripture, which proves that it should be interpreted in this way, then it is right: if not, then I should not believe him.
So Peter attacks even the bravest and best teachers; therefore we must be sure that no one is to be believed, even if he presents the Scriptures as he himself interprets and interprets them. For no right understanding can be made by one's own interpretation. Here all teachers and fathers, as many as there are, who have interpreted the Scriptures, have failed. When they interpret the saying of Christ, Matth. 16, 18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," as referring to the pope, this is a human, self -invented interpretation; therefore one should not believe them. For they cannot prove from the Scriptures that Peter is called the pope.
But this we can prove, that the rock is Christ, and faith, as Paul says. This interpretation is correct. For of this we are sure that it was not devised by men, but drawn from the Word of God. Now those things which are written and preached in the prophets (says Peter) were not invented by men, nor were they devised by men, but were spoken by holy, godly men by the Holy Spirit."
§ 2
After the prayer has been performed, the text to be treated is to be looked at with care in order to find the grammatical meaning that presents itself first.
Note 1
One distinguishes between the grammatical and logical sense. The grammatical sense (sensus litterae) is that which the words present in their actual and original meaning, The logical sense (sensus literalis), on the other hand, is the sense that the Holy Spirit first intended in the words inspired by him, whether the words are actually or figuratively understood. The logical sense (sensus literalis), on the other hand, is that which the Holy Spirit has first intended in the words inspired by him, whether the words are to be understood actually or figuratively. By the logical sense one understands therefore that, what the author wants to have understood under his words.
Examples: Luc. 13, 32 the Lord says: "Go and tell the same fox", namely Herod,
v. 31. The purely grammatical sense of these words is: Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee,
is a yapping, four-footed animal; the logical sense, however: Herod is a man similar to the fox in cunning and wickedness. - Gen. 49, 14 says: "Isaschar will be a legged (= bony, strong) donkey." The grammatical sense is: Isaschar is a dumb, brute animal; but the logical one: Isaschar is strong, but boastless, not magnanimous and serviceable to others. - Marc. 9, 42-48 would, according to the grammatical sense, command the mutilation of the members of the body, but according to the logical sense, the destruction of the sinful lust in the members of the old man is commanded. - Is. 11, 6 -9 it is prophesied that "the wolves shall dwell with the lambs, and the pardels with the goats" etc. These words are understood by the coarse chiliastes in their grammatical sense; the logical sense, intended by the Holy Spirit, is that after conversion the enemies of the church will live peacefully in it with the believers. Cf.
Matth. 19, 12 and others. But if the grammatical sense in the above and similar passages is not the one intended by the Holy Spirit, it must by no means be disregarded, because he who violates the grammatical sense also sins against the logical sense, for he who does not even understand the grammatical m eaning of the words will find out much less their actual, logical sense, since this can only be found with attention to the point of comparison. The grammatical sense is always the basis of the logical one. Luther therefore writes: "One must badly let Aaron remain Aaron in a simple sense, unless the spirit itself interprets it differently, which then is a new scriptural sense, as St.
Paul to the Ebräern ch. 9 and 10 makes Aaron Christ". (XVIII, P. 1601).
Note 2
In order to determine the grammatical meaning, Quenstedt gives the following instruction: "With the biblical text that is to be interpreted in the sermon, he (the preacher) makes himself thoroughly acquainted and reads it in private study not only in translations but also in the sources, compares it with Greek or Hebrew concordances,.... diligently consider its sum and division and diligently use and look up commentators and commentators, especially orthodox ones. - Since the text is the preacher's rule and guide, according to which he must direct the whole course of his sermon, the source from which he must draw his arguments, and the basis on which the whole treatise must be based, therefore one who wishes to preach 1. looks carefully at the text which he undertakes to explain to others, and reads it over and over again. 2.
because the holy scripture does not depend on reading, but on understanding,.... He should make an exact and careful study of the in dividual words and phrases and thoroughly consider their meanings, so that he may learn to understand the true and proper meaning of the text and the scopus at which it is aimed. For by the words the things are designated, they are their characteristics, and ignorance of the words and the diction is followed by ignorance of the things, which latter produces not only simple errors, but also dangerous heresies. 2. logically, i.e. he judges the connection or disjunction of the words and sentences, determines the main theme, investigates the subject and predicate, etc." Chemnitz counts to the grammatical research that the preacher has to pay attention with great diligence: "a) to the words and idioms, both in the translation and in the authentic text, b) to idiotisms of language, c) to emphases, d) to parallel passages, e) to wrong explanations of the adversaries, who shamefully twist words and idioms.
§ 3
The thorough research of the text, however, can only be done in such a way that, furthermore, the circumstances of the same are taken into consideration with diligence.
Note 1
Before one can investigate the logical sense of the words, one must know: who is speaking in the text, to whom, about what, at what time, in what place; what prompts the speech, what the purpose of it is, etc., since these circumstances facilitate the understanding of the text, indeed often make it possible in the first place. It is therefore to be observed:
1. to the person who speaks. In the gospels and epistles, the person speaking
is known from the beginning, because in the gospels, either the Lord or the evangelist speaks, in the epistles, either the Lord or the evangelist speaks. the epistles of the apostle who wrote them; if the words of other persons are mentioned, they are named each time. It is different with free texts. With these, one often has to first determine the person whose words are given in the text. This can be done partly from the context, partly from parallel passages. If the person is not named or is doubtful, then the determination of the speaker can only be done by paying attention to the characteristics that are attributed to him, or by consulting parallel passages.
Examples: The question is: who is speaking in the 22nd Psalm, David or the Messiah? The context gives an answer to this question, because v. 17-19 there are descriptions, which can only be related to the Messiah. Fu rthermore: who is speaking in the 18th Psalm? The apostle gives the answer in the parallel passage Hebr. 2, 13, where he puts the words in the third verse of this Psalm into Christ's mouth. Likewise, the words of Hebr. 2, 12 prove that Christ speaks in the 22nd Psalm, which are presented as spoken by Him.
2. the person who is spoken of. If this person is not mentioned in the text, he/she must
be found either from the context or from the parallels. Examples: Is. 42, 1 ff. is spoken of a servant of God. The word "servant" is a very general term that can be used by many persons. The commentators are therefore not at all unanimous about who is meant by the word "servant". Some want to understand the king Cyrus, others the prophet Isaiah, still others the apostle Paul. The decision can only be given by the predicates, which are attached to this "servant". Because 1, according to v. 1, he was supposed to "bring the law to the Gentiles", that is, to be a teacher or prophet, it could not be Cyrus; because 2, according to verses 1 and 6, he was supposed to teach not only the Jews but also the Gentiles, it cannot be Isaiah; because 3, he is "given to the covenant among the people", it cannot be Paul either. For though Paul held the teaching office, brought the law among the Gentiles, and calls himself a servant of Christ, yet he is not "given for a covenant among the people." Therefore, only Christ can be meant by the words "my servant," to whom alone all these predicates can be attached. Also from parallel passages it is clear that the one who is called "servant" in Isa. 42, 1. ff. is none other than Christ, because Matth. 3, 17, and 12, 17 -23 report that the prophecy of the prophet was fulfilled through Christ. - Matth. 8, 12 says the Lord: "But the children of the kingdom are cast out into the outer darkness." Which are these children of the empire? Answer: the Jews. For as the word "but" indicates, these "children of the kingdom" are opposed to others, namely to those who, according to v.
11, "will come from the morning and from the evening and will sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." But these are according to Mal. 1, 11: ("From the going forth of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be magnified among the Gentiles") the Gentiles. That only the Jews can be meant is also clear from the fact that the Lord was prompted to speak v. 12 by the faith of the Gentile centurion of Capernaum. We can see this from Matth. 21, 43, where the Lord says to the chief priests and elders: "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to the Gentiles."
3. the person to whom the speech is made. This can also be recognized from the
context and the parallels. Examples: John 20:28 Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" To whom did Thomas address these words? According to Theodore v. Mopsvestia and the Socinians, even more recent commentators have described these words not as addressed to the risen Lord, but as an astonished exclamation addressed to God. This, however, is first recognized as false by the "spoke to him," then also from the fact that Christ accepts these words of Thomas as a confession of faith in his person, in that he speaks to him in v. 29: "Because you have seen me, Thomas, you believe." -
4. the thing that is spoken of in the text. Whoever wants to determine this has to
look above all at the attributes that occur in the text before he can understand and explain the words. If the matter cannot be determined with certainty from the text itself, then the parallel passages must be consulted, which are often clearer. "This is the peculia rity of the whole of Holy Scripture," says Luther, "that it interprets itself by means of passages and oerters held together everywhere, and by its rule of faith alone it wants to be understood. And this is above all the surest way to investigate the meaning of the Scriptures, if you are able to come to an understanding from the juxtaposition and perception of many sayings.
5. the place where the event reported in the text took place. Even if this is not
necessary in all texts, in many it serves for a better understanding, which is why the place is not infrequently mentioned. Examples: Joh. 1,28: "This happened at Bethabara, beyond the Jordan, when John baptized." The evangelist, in referring here to the Oct, without doubt indicate that the Anabaptist did not make his glorious confession in secret, but in a public place, before a larger assembly. For "Bethabara" - Furthhausen indicates that there was a Furth, a place of transition, and thus a constant traffic took place. The Berleb. Bible notes: "Bethabara was a real public place, where there was a crossing over the Jordan and therefore always a gathering of people crossing over and over. - Joh.
2, 11: "Now this is the first sign that Jesus did, which took place in Cana in Galilee. The indication that this first miracle of the Lord happened in Galilee is a reference to the prophecy Isa. 8, 23; 9, 1; because: "Galilee was already much intended in the prophets, and that the same was determined, that in this despised little country the light should be great." (B. B.) For more examples see Joh. 19, 13 (where the double naming of the place indicates the solemnity of the action); Matth. 4, 14-16 and others.
6. to the time when what the text is about happened.
Examples: Joh. 11, 17 ff. the s tory of the raising of Lazarus. If we consider that the Lord performed this glorious miracle only a few days before His royal entry into Jerusalem, a new perspective opens up when we look at it. - Luc. 21, 25-36, Ev. on the 2nd Sunday of Advent. This proph ecy of the Lord about the last day happened in the first days of the Passion Week. As the Lord revealed His omnipotence by raising Lazarus, so by this prophecy His omniscience, and both immediately before His suffering! This teaches us that not a man but the Son of God suffered and died for us etc. Not infrequently, knowledge of the time in which the epistles were written helps us to better understand the texts. Let us take the epistle on the 23rd Sunday of Trinity, Phil. 3, 17- 21, in which the apostle presents himself as an example to the Christians of Philippi, writing:
"Follow me, brethren, and see them that walk as ye have us for an example. The apostle wrote this epistle in about the 11th year after the foundation of the church at Philippi, in the 27th year of his apostleship, and in the 62nd year after the birth of Christ. If the apostle had administered his ministry with such exemplary faithfulness during such a long period of time, and had not allowed himself to be shaken by persecutions or imprisonment, etc., the Philippians had to recognize in him all the more a shining example.
7. at the instigation of the text.
In the case of evangelical texts, the inducement can be seen from the harmony of the Gospels. A comparison of the The reports that the individual evangelists give about what is contained in the text soon reveal what prompted the Lord to his speeches and works, or the evangelist to his report. Examples: In the Ev. on Sunday. Estomihi, Luc. 18, 31 -43, Christ announces His imminent suffering to the disciples. If we ask why He is doing this, we get the answer Joh. 11, 1 -15. The Lord had received the news that His friend Lazarus was dangerously ill; therefore He started the journey to Jerusalem to wake up the now dead man, although His disciples tried to hold Him back in anticipation of the danger that threatened Him. Knowing that this journey would be his last, he announced his coming suffering to the disciples for the fifth time on the way, in order to prepare them for it. - Sometimes the reason can be recognized from the immediately preceding. In the Gospel on the Sunday of Septuagesimae, Matth. 20, 1 -16, there is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. The Lord was prompted by Peter's question in chapters 19 and 27: "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have in return?" - The Gospel of the 25th Sunday after Trinity contains Christ's prophecy of the Last Day. It was prompted by the questio n of the disciples, v. 3: "Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your future and the end of the world?" The prophecy in the Gospel is the answer to this question.
In the case of apostolic texts, one must first try to be certain of the cause that prompted the apostle to write the whole epistle from which the text is taken; from this, the particular reason for the words of the text will then easily emerge. Examples: What prompted the apostle to the words in the ep. on the 24th Sunday A.D., Col. 1, 9-14, is evident from the occasion of the whole epistle, which Cap. 1, 7 and 8 and Cap. 2, 1 and 4: namely the report of Epaphras about the condition of the church in Colosse, the prayer war that the apostle fought for the churches in which he personally had not been, and the dangers that threatened from false teachers. The reason for the letter to the Galatians was that false apostles had appeared in the churches there, who tried to falsify the gospel preached by the apostle by mixing it with the law, as this is clearly stated in Cap.
1, 7; 3, 1; 4, 17; 5, 10; 6, 12. This is the reason for the epistles on the New Year's Day, Cap. 3, 23-29; on Sunday after Christmas, Cap. 4, 1-7; on Sunday. Laetare, Cap. 4, 21-31.
8. on the scopus. This is usually recognized from the circumstances of the time and
the occasion. Examples: The parable of the laborers in the vineyard is the answer to Peter's question, Matth. 19,27, "What do we get for it?" with which Peter betrayed pride and greed for reward. The purpose of the parable, therefore, is to teach Peter that in the kingdom of God, only grace prevails, so that in the kingdom, everyone must practice humility and beware of pride and arrogance. The occasion of the Gospel on the 2nd Sunday A.D. Trinit. (Luc. 14, 16-24) is the exclamation of a man sitting at the table, b. 15: "Blessed is he who eats bread in the kingdom of God. This word leads the Lord to the similitude of the great supper. The purpose of this is to show that mere wishing is not enough, but that most people are prevented from coming to the kingdom of God by their earthly mind. The Scopus of the Ep. on Sunday. Quinquagesimä is to show that love is more glorious and more excellent than the special gifts of grace, of which the Corinthians boasted so much and caused discord. That this is the Scopus is shown by the whole letter, but especially by the 12th Cap. -. The Christians in Thessalonica had the erroneous opinion that the last day must already come in their time and that the believers who had not experienced it were to be mourned. As a result of this error, they were sad and did not want to work anymore, because they thought that it would be in vain. The scopus of the whole first letter is therefore: To fight this error of the Thessalonians and to instruct them in the right doctrine and holy walk. With this scopus of the letter harmonizes the scopus of the epistle on the 26th Sunday after Trinity, Cap. 4, 13-18, as the final verse clearly shows.
9. on the affect (the mood) from which the words in the text flow. Only when the
preacher puts himself as much as possible into the mood of the person speaking in the text will he understand the weight of the words. It is not only the mouth that speaks, but also the eyes, the whole face through the facial expressions, even the whole body through the movements, especially when the speaker is violently excited. Examples: Ev. on the 10th Sunday after Trinity, Luc. 19, 41-48. Not only the tears, but also the form of the speech show that the Lord was not only filled with great pain, but also with heartfelt love at the sight of the city of Jerusalem, when He prophesied the downfall of the city and the people in such moving words. - Ev. on the 2nd Sunday of Epiphany, Joh.
2, 1-11. The words of the Lord: "Woman, what have I to do with you, my hour has not yet come", flow indeed from a loving affection of the Lord for his mother, but nevertheless also out of earnest zeal for the honor of his office, in which Mary wanted to intervene. - Ep. on sund. By the figure of speech of the exclamation, the apostle indicates his mood, namely the highest admiration and worship of the wisdom etc. of God. of God. - Ep. on the 3rd Sunday d. Adv., 1 Corinth. 4, 1-6. The content and form of the words of this epistle show that the apostle is not speaking out of a desire for glory, but out of heartfelt humility. 10) On the context. "Since the knowledge of the things contained in the text often depends on the diligent comparison and consideration of the context, or of that which encloses the text on both sides, i.e., of what precedes and follows it, the minister of the Word should carefully consider what is the context of the text to be explained in the sermon, what immediately precedes it and what follows it. In doing so, one must not only pay attention to one or the other verse, but sometimes read through several verses, even often a whole chapter or even several chapters... The ancient Hebrews said about the reading of the context or the comparison of the preceding and the following with the text: "Whoever does not pay attention to what is written before and after in the law, dishonors the words of the Almighty God. (Quenstedt.)
Examples: Isa. 14:12 we read, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O bea utiful morning star." Some interpreters have wanted to understand the devil by "morning star." But the context clearly shows that the king of Babylon is meant. Cf. the examples given under 1, which also belong here. In many texts, the connecting particles already point to the context, which therefore must not be disregarded. Thus, in the epistle on the 2nd Sunday of the. Adv., Rom. 15, 4 -13, the particle "but" (because); in the epistle on the 1st Sunday of the. Adv., Rom. 13, 11-14, the word "such" (Kai τούτο εϊδότε<ή) refers back to the previous. Finally, we would like to show by an example how the consideration of all mentioned circumstances serves the understanding of the text. We choose the passage Isa. 40, 1 -5, which reads: "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.
Speak kindly to Jerusalem and preach to her that her knighthood is ended, for her iniquity is forgiven, for she has received double from the hand of the Lord for all her sin. It is the voice of a preacher in the wilderness: Prepare the way for the Lord, make a level path for our God on the field. Let every place be made high, and every mountain and hill be made low; and let that which is uneven be made level, and that which is crooked be made bad. For the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord speaketh. We want to get to know for the understanding of this text:
1. the person who speaks . This is Isaiah; but he introduces other persons
speaking, and these are: God Himself b. 1 and 2, then John the Baptist, v. 3- 5, as is evident from the context and the parallel passages. Cf. Mal. 3, 1; Matth. 11, 10; 3, 3; Joh. 1, 13.
2. the person who is spoken of . According to v. 3 and 5 this is the Lord, the
Messiah, about which the context and the parallel passages Mal. 3, 1; Joh. 1, 14 leave no doubt.
3. the persons to whom it is spoken. With the words: "Comfort, comfort my people"
these are designated, namely the preachers of the divine word.
4. the thing spoken of. This is expressed in the words v. 5: "For the glory of the
Lord shall be revealed." This revelation of the glory of the Lord is to be the content of the sermon and the means by which the people are to be comforted in their affliction. 5 The place where Isaiah was when he prophesied. According to Isa. 38 and 39, this was most likely Jerusalem. 6 The time in which Isaiah preached and specifically sounded the present prophecy. According to chapter 1, Isaiah lived under the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, that is, from 759-699, and this prophecy he received, as the context shows, at the time of Hezekiah, not long before the Babylonian captivity. 7 The reason for the prophecy. We recognize it from the text itself: it was the sadness and misery in which the faithful Israelites found themselves.
8. the scopus. This one was, as the words: "Comfort, comfort" show, to comfort
the faithful among the people.
9. the affect, or the mood of the prophet. The predominant mood was: intimate
love for the peop le, then compassion for them and joy over the imminent glorious salvation through the Messiah. Hence the abrupt beginning of this prophecy with the words, "Comfort, comfort my people."
10. the context. Such a context is not to be found here, since a comple tely new
section begins with the text. However, points 5 and 6 show how far the context comes into consideration here, too. Whoever analyzes the text in this way or in a similar way, depending on the nature of the text, will not find it difficult to find the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit.
§ 4
If one has made oneself sufficiently familiar with the circumstances of the text, then the logical, i.e. the sense intended by the Holy Spirit, is to be determined now.
Note 1
The grammatical sense is not the logical sense intended by the Holy Spirit in every passage of Scripture, as the examples given in § 2, note 1 have shown. 1 have shown. But every scripture contains a logical sense,' whether the words are to be taken in the ir proper or figurative meaning. For if no rational man utters sounds without wanting to express a certain meaning with them, it would be blasphemous to assume that the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the holy people of God, did not want to express a certain meaning in any part of the Scriptures. No, the words in every passage of Scripture are, as it were, the shells in which the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit is enclosed as the core. Empty shells, meaningless words are not found in the holy scriptures. It is therefore necessary to find and determine this, for only in this way does one arrive at the right understanding of the text, at the recognition of the divine truth laid down in it. "That I have otherwise admonished and warned," says Luther, "I will again warn and again admonish that the Christian reader take the greatest pains to seek the meaning indicated by the letter, which alone is the whole essence of faith and Christian theology, which alone exists even in tribulation and fear and overcomes the gates of hell together with sin and death and leads captive to the praise and glory of God.
But as certain as in every scriptural passage an actual, certain sense is expressed, it is also certain that every passage can have and has only one actual, original sense. The Holy Spirit has spoken in human form and manner in the Scriptures, because otherwise he could not have been understood by men at all. But as people express only a simple meaning with simple words, if they mean it otherwise honestly and sincerely, so the Holy Spirit has even more connected with his words a simple meaning or expressed in the same. It was only a deplorable aberration, if the great Origines would have interpreted the holy scriptures by He wanted to honor the divine word by attributing to each word of the holy Scriptures a threefold sense, the literal, tropical and pneumatic or mystical sense, and by designating the investigation of the latter as the real task of interpretation. Thus the door was opened to arbitrariness in the explanation of the divine word, human opinions took the place of the simple literal sense of Scripture; Scripture actually ceased to be the foundation of faith. Unfortunately, Origines found only too many followers in this, even among the great teachers of the ancient church, as we see in the three great Cappadocians, in Chrysostom, Ambrose and others. This allegorical interpretation of Scripture came to dominate more and more even in the Western Church. Only isolated voices rose against it. At the time of Louis the Pious, Chr. Druthmar, monk at Altcorbie, was the only one who pointed out that above all the grammatical-historical meaning of the holy scriptures must be brought to understanding. In the Roman Church, the scholastics endeavored to attribute to the words of Scripture, as much as this is contrary to the nature of all human speech, an allegorical, moral, and anagogical sense in addition to the logical one, the difference between which was expressed in the words: "Litera gesta docet; quid credas, allegoria; Moralis, quid agas; quid speres anagogia." *) Luther resolutely opposed this playing with the divine word by pointing out that the Holy Spirit had spoken in a simple and understandable way, and that his word could therefore only have a simple meaning. In fact, Luther proved himself to be the reformer in this respect as well, in that he brought a healthy interpretation of Scripture to recognition and validity. Let us hear him himself! He writes:
"And in the theological schools this is a very well -known rule, that the Scriptures are to be understood in four way s: first, according to history or the letter; secondly, according to example and the doctrine of good morals; thirdly, according to the heavenly understanding; fourthly, according to allegory or secret interpretation. And though I am content that every man should be right in his own mind and understanding, yet let our diligence be chiefly directed, if we would rightly do the Scriptures, that we may have a simple, righteous, and certain historical understanding. For to interpret the Scriptures in more ways a nd understandings, I consider not only dangerous and *) I.e.: The letter teaches what has happened; what you should believe the allegory;
The moral (sense) what thou shalt do; what thou shalt hope the anagogy." useless to teach, but it also diminishes and weakens the name and reputation of Scripture, which is to remain on one certain mind and opinion for and for." Furthermore: "Augustin plays his game with allegories or secret interpretations, which do nothing to the matter. The others are also not at one with each other. One has interpreted that it should be called 'bed', the other 'staff', since the points are also not the same. But we follow the understanding which is the most simple and which rhymes best with the Scripture and the example of David. The others follow the example of king Ahasuerus in the book of Esther. And I don't presume to be a judge of which mind is the best. But I would very much like to have only one interpretation, for I have no desire at all for such texts, which are so diverse and unequal; indeed, I am very hostile to all equivocation, that is, since words have more than one understanding. And one should endeavor, as much as is always possible, to take and grasp from the words of the text a right simple understanding, which rhymes finely with the grammar; and if we have the same, then there is no harm after that, whether one also wants to search for figures and secret interpretations in the text."
Finally: "The Holy Spirit is the most simple writer and speaker that is in heaven and on earth, therefore also his words cannot have more than a most simple sense, which we call the written or literal sense of tongues. But since things, by their simple words, mean simple things, something more and other things, and thus one thing means another, then the words are over and the tongues cease. And so do all other things that are not mentioned in the Scriptures, since all God's works and creatures are living signs and words of God, as Augustine says, a nd all teachers. But for this reason it should not be said that the Scriptures or the Word of God have no meaning.
The fact that a painted picture means a living man, without word and scripture, should not make you say that the word picture has two senses: a written one, which means the picture; a spiritual one, which means the living man. So, although the things described in the Scriptures mean something more, let not the Scriptures therefore have two senses, but let them keep the one to which the words re fer, and then give the spirits of the walkers leave to hunt and seek, apart from the words, the manifold interpretations of the things indicated; but that they may watch, and not drive themselves away nor stumble, as happened to the Gemsesteigern, as also happened to Origines. It is much safer to stick to the words and simple mind, there is the right pasture and dwelling place of all spirits".
Note 2
The necessity of determining the logical sense, of course, demands that in all those passages of Scripture we depart from the actual, original, meaning of the words in which the grammatical sense is not at the same time the logical sense. Here, however, the following rules are to be observed:
1. the true, original meaning, or grammatical sense of the words is to be
recorded in all passages of sacred Scripture in which the fundamental articles of Christian doctrine are given, the so -called sedes doctrinae. Such passages in which a fundamental article is revealed to us are: Joh. 1 and Hebr. 1 (of the person of Christ); Rom. 3 u. 4; Eph. 2 and Gal. 2 u. 3 (of justification); 2. Timoth. 3, 16. 17 and 2. Pet. 1, 19 -21 (of the holy scripture); 1. Corinth. 11, 23 f f; Marc. 14, 22 ff; Luc. 22, 19 ff (of the holy supper) etc. If the Holy Spirit did not speak in actual words in such passages, we would not be able to be absolutely certain of our faith.
2. the grammatical sense is to be departed from only where there is a) a clear
parallel passage. b) analogy demands faith, c) clear sight demands. Examples of a): Matth. 16 v. 6, the Lord says to his disciples, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The figurative expression "leaven" is explained in the clearer passage v. 12: "Then they understood that He had not said to beware of the l eaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. - Isa. 51 v. 1 says, "Hearken unto me, ye that pursue after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock from whence ye are hewn." These latter words find their explanation imm ediately in the following verse, "Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah, of whom ye were born." See also Luc.
6, 20 compare with Matth. 5, 3; Luc. 11, 20 compare with Matth. 22, 28. "The gospel," Luther writes, "interprets the prophets correctly, therefore one must interpret such a figure from the gospel and not follow the mere letter alone" (Vol. XX, p. 2123). Examples to b): Rom. 9, 18 Paul writes: "So then he has mercy on whom he wills and rejects whom he wills." An interpretation of these words that make God the author of sin, as given by Calvin, would violate the analogy of faith, namely the holiness of God (Ps. 5, 5; Is. 6, 3). Likewise the other interpretation of the passage Proverbs 16:4, "The Lord watches over all things for His own sake, even over the ungodly in the evil day," which is popular with Calvin, reads:
"Solomon teaches that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown by Him (God), but that the ungodly were created according to His purpose, that they should perish." (Comment. in Epist. I, 126.) Examples to c): The clear appearance requires another than the pure grammatical sense, if the predicate cannot be assigned in any way to the subject taken in its actual meaning. Thus Gen. 49, 14: "Issachar will be a legged ass"; Luc. 10, 3: "Behold I send you as lambs in the midst of wolves." Cf. Matth. 8, 22; 1 Corinth. 3, 13. However, the grammatical sense must not be set aside, because it seems to be ridiculous to reason. If this were the case, many doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, of the divinity of Christ, etc., would fall. Therefore Luther writes: "I want to stand with the holy father Abraham and all Christians on the saying Rom. 4, 21: What God speaks, that He is able t o do' (Ps. 51:6) and I will not first ask my reason how it rhymes, or whether it is possible that I may receive His body and blood verbally, and then, as a judge of God, interpret His words according to my own conceit. No, I will not rhapsodize; he has said it, I will leave it at that; if he deceives me, I am blessedly deceived. He has never lied, nor can he lie. But the fanciers are public liars, invented by me and by themselves; they must also lie continually, because they trust their conceit more than the word of God. And whoever does not want to do this and does not stand on this or similar sayings - to him I faithfully advise that he leave the holy scriptures and the articles of the Christian faith alone, because with subtle interpretations the longer the more he is condemned and it is better for him to remain a damned heathen than to become a damned Christian." (B. 20, S. 22, 14.)
It is generally unreasonable for reason to judge doctrines of faith, i.e., purely spiritual, heavenly things, on the basis of its own principles. For reason can judge only about sensible things, but not about such things, which by their nature lie far beyond its sphere. She If it does so, it enters a field of which it knows nothing. Thus theological principles cannot be refuted by philosophical ones, and vice versa. If, for example, the philosopher sets up against the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh the principle: "No individual, once destroyed, can return in the same form or essence," or against the doctrine of the Trinity: "One cannot be three"; or if Arius sets up against the unity of essence of the Son with the Father the principle: "He that is born is later than he that bore him."
§ 5
In the study of the text, attention must be paid, first, to the truths contained in the text itself and, second, to the arguments added to the truths.
Note 1
Luther writes: "There are two main pieces of Christian doctrine: faith and love (as St. Paul also writes and indicates everywhere), so that I do not know how to preach anything else. And of his sermons he says: "I have thus taught that my doctrine is first and foremost based on the knowledge of Christ, that is, on right, pure faith and true love." With this Luther pointed out the twofold main purpose of the Holy Scriptures, which is to teach and to exhort, or: to bring people to faith and to move them to love, to holy walk. The teaching is directed to the mind, the exhortation to the will of the hearer. But because error stands in the way of pure doctrine, and vice stands in the way of the practice of it, there is a second, twofold purpose, namely, to refute error and to punish vice. This fourfold purpose of the holy scripture is given by Paul in the words 2. Timoth. 3, 16: "All scripture inspired of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for correction in righteousness.
Since all who want to live godly must suffer persecution in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:12), have to endure inner and outer temptations and therefore need comfort, the giving of this is also given as a purpose of Scripture, as the apostle Romans 15:4 writes: "What was written before was written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." In view of this fivefold purpose and use of the holy Scriptures, the truths contained in them have been divided into five categories and named after the words used by the apostle in the passages cited in the basic text, namely:
1. didascal;
2. elenchtic;
3. paedeutic;
4. epanorthotic;
5. paracletic.
G. Bauer writes about this: "In most longer texts, many and various divine truths
occur, which must be selected by a preacher, so that he can then judge which of them is most useful for his sermon. At the bottom of the invention of various matters in a tex t must lie that divine truth which is intended by the Holy Spirit directly or indirectly either in the words or in the things. From this, by a correct deduction, other divine truths are extracted, which are called Consectaria or Porismata. All those truths are further modified in five different ways and presented either didascally or elenchtically or paedeutically or epanorthotically [2 Tim. 3:16] or paracleteically [Rom. 15:4]; from which, finally, such a quantity of truths presents itself to the preacher that he cannot lack the supply to always present something else for edification, even over the text that has already been dealt with many times."
Note 2
Each of these five genera of truths comprehends several species in itself, which may be briefly indicated for a closer understanding. However, it is to be noted in advance that not all texts (even some shorter ones) contain exclusively only one of these sp ecies, but rather often include several of them. We name the texts themselves according to the type of doctrine that is predominantly found in them.
I. Didascalic, or instructional texts. These include:
1. pure doctrinal presentations that state a doctrine sometimes directly, e.g.,
Ev. on the 3rd Chr., Joh. 1, 1 -14 (doctrine of the person of Christ), sometimes indirectly in the form of an astonishment, e.g., Joh. 3, 1'6, or a thanksgiving, Ep. on the 18th Sunday n. Trinit., 1. Corinth. 1, 4-9.
2. instructive stories and parables ; e.g.: Ev. on the 1st Sunday of the. Adv.,
Matth. 21, 1 -9 (teaching that Christ is a king etc.); Ev. on 11. Sunday n. Trinit., Luc. 18, 9-14 (teaching of justification).
3. prophecies in which a certain doctrine is given; e.g.: Ev. on the 2nd Sunday
of the. Adv., Luc. 21, 25-33 (doctrine of the last day). II. misleading texts, i.e., those that contain the refutation and punishment of an error. Among these are: 1. accusations; e.g.: Gal. 3, 1 ("O you ignorant Galatians" etc.); Joh. 3, 10 ("Are you a master in Israel" etc.); Luc. 24, 25 ("O fools and slow of heart" etc.). Also such texts in which the refutation takes place in the form of scolding belong here.
2. defenses of truth against error, doubts and objections; e.g.: Rom. 11, 1 -5,
(consistency of God's choice): Matth. 1 2, 1-8; Joh. 5, 1 ff. (defense of the teaching that Christ is Lord over the Sabbath). III. paedeutic texts, which urge a truly Christian sense and walk, good works. These include: 1st commandments; e.g.: Ep. on 2nd Sunday n. Epiph., Rom. 12, 11 ff.
2. exhortations that are partly direct, as in the epistle on Sunday. Jubilate, 1.
Pet. 2, 11-20, or in the form of a counsel, like Rev. Joh. 3, 18 ("I counsel you to buy gold from me" etc.); or in the form of a request, like 1. Thess. 5, 12 ("But we also ask" etc.).
3. recommendations with introduction and emphasis of the benefit that flows
from the recommended; e.g. Ps. 1, 1; Rom. 5, 3 -5 ("tribulation brings patience" etc.). IV. Epanorthotic texts, which punish the vices and all ungodly things, partly directly like 1. Corinth. 5,2 ("You are puffed up" etc.); partly indirectly in the form:
1. of forbidding; e.g.: Eph. 4, 29 ("Let no idle talk" etc.):
2. of admonishing; e.g.: Rom. 14, 13 ("Therefore let us no longer judge one
another" etc.); Matth. 3, 9 ("Think not that" etc.);
3. the threat; e.g.: Rom. 8, 13 ("For if you live according to the flesh" etc.); 1.
Corinth. 16, 22 ("If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ" etc.).
V. Paraclete texts, i.e. those that contain consolation, partly directly like Matth. 5, 11
("Blessed are you when men revile you for my sake" etc.); partly indirectly:
1. by witnessing compassion ; e.g.: Is. 54, 11 ("You wretch, over whom all
weathers pass" etc.);
2. by promises of grace and help ; e.g.: 1. Corinth. 10, 13 ("None but human
temptation has yet entered you" etc.);
3. by a wish; e.g.: Hebr. 13, 20. 21 ("The God of peace make you ready" etc.);
1. Pet. 5, 10 ("The God of all grace" etc.).
"These are," says Rambach, "the same famous quinque genera dicendi" (five genera of speech), of which in most compendiis homileticis biel confuse praecepta (confused prescriptions) are given, thereby making this matter very intricate."
Note 3
"The arguments that are added in the texts are divided into two categories, namely, evidential and explanatory. Through these, the truths contained in the texts are supported by the sacred writers themselves.
I. Proving arguments or motivations, are those that reinforce the truths of the text.
Examples: 1. Pet. 5, 8 the apostle exhorts to spiritual sobriety and watchfulness. To this exhortation he adds the words: "For your adversary the devil.... whom he devours," thus giving the reason that should move Christians to comply with this admonition. - The Gospel on the 15th Sunday of Trinity, Matth. 6, 24 -34, contains Christ's warning against anxious worries about food and clothing and at the same time the reasons why the believers should not give room to them. These are:
1. God's fatherly care, v. 25 -30; 2. the futility of worry, v. 27; 3. the example of the
Gentiles, v. 32; 4. the foolishness of worry, v. 34. - 1 Timothy 6:6 -10, the apostle exhorts to frugality and adds as reasons for this 1. because we will bring nothing out of this world; 2. because the desire for riches is very dangerous. With regard to these arguments, it should be noted that they are sometim es prefixed to the truths to be proved, sometimes added, and sometimes taken from other passages of Scripture in the form of quotations. For example, the argument in 1 Corinthians 6:20 precedes: "You were bought with great price, so praise God in your body and in your spirit. - Likewise 1 Corinthians 6:15; Epistle on the 1st Sunday of Advent, Romans 13:13. Adv., Rom. 13, 11 ff. - The argument is followed in the words Eph. 5, 16: "Send yourselves into the time, because it is evil time." Further Rom. 12, 19: "Do not avenge yourselves, my beloved, but give place to wrath, for it is written" etc. - Taken from "other scriptures, Rom. 14,
10. 11: "We will all be presented before the judgment seat of Christ, according to the
It is written, "As surely as I live," etc. - Cf. the epistle on the 2nd Sunday of Advent, Romans 15:4-13. Adv., Rom. 15, 4-13. Finally, it should be noted that these arguments are partly openly expressed, partly hidden. They are clearly expressed in the text when the proof is connected to the truth in question with a causal particle such as 'because', 'because' and the like, such as Gal. 3, 10: "Those who deal with the work of the law are under the curse, for it is written: Cursed," etc.-Hidden they are when they are either added without a causal particle, or contained in the emphasis (the emphasis) of a word. As an example of how the arguments, without being connected with the thing to be proved by a causal particle, lie hidden in the text, may serve the epistle on the 17th Sunday a. Trinit., Eph.4, 1-6. In this epistle the apostle exhorts: "Be diligent to keep unity in the Spirit through the bond of peace", v. 3. In the three following verses we now find listed in an asyndetic way the motives which should cause us to strive for unity in the Spirit.
These motives are given in three tripartite compilations, namely: one body, one spirit, one hope of profession, v. 4; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, v. 5, and: one God and Father, over, through, and in all." While these motivations emerge clearly, they stand unconnected to the truth they support. - An example of how the arguments lie in the emphasis, or emphasis, which the words have, is furnished by the saying Eph. 5:11: "Have not fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." The apostle warns against all fellowship nnt with sin. Each of the three words: 'unfruitful', 'works', 'darkness' are emphatic, and therefore with each of them a reason is given why we should have no fellowship with the works of darkness, namely, 1. because they are 'works', i.e., deeds that require effort, exertion, etc.; 2. because they are 'unfruitful'.
2. because they are "unfruitful" works, which bring no profit or benefit; 3. because
they are works of "darkness," both as to th eir origin and their exit, for they spring from darkness and lead into eternal darkness. If they are of such a threefold nature, how could a Christian have any fellowship with them? Similar sayings see 2. Corinth. 5, 21 ("sin", "righteousness"); Ep. on Sunday. Septuagesimä, 1. Corinth. 9, 24 ff; 1. Pet. 1, 4 ("incorruptible", "undefiled", "unfading"). II. explanatory arguments, i.e. those proofs which illustrate the truths or objects contained in the text. These can be taken from:
1. from something similar, like Matth. 24, 27 ("For like lightning goeth forth from
the exit" etc.). - Isa. 55, 10. 11 ("As the rain and the snow fall from heaven.... so shall the word that proceedeth out of my mouth be" etc.).
2. the opposite, as Rom. 6, 19 ("Just as you have given your members to the
service of uncleanness.... so now also give your members to the service of righteousness" etc.).
3. from objections like Rom. 6, 1 ("What shall we say to this? Shall we
persevere in sin" etc.); Cf. Rom. 7, 7, etc.
4. from examples , like Rom. 4, where the apostle explains the doctrine of
justification by grace through the examples of the justification of Abraham and David. - Jacobi 5, 16. 17 (power of believing prayer proven by the example of Elijah). The metaphors that occur in the text also belong to this class of explanatory arguments. For since a metaphor is nothing more than a contracted, abbreviated simile, it has the nature of an explanatory argument. As an example take Matth. 3, 10 ("The axe is already laid to the root of the trees" etc.). In these words we have a double simile: 1. the Jewish church is compared to a tree, namely to a barren tree, and 2. the divine judgments are compared to an axe that cuts down the tree so that it is thrown into the fire.
§ 6
For the correct research of the text, certain aids are also ne cessary and applicable. These are a closer knowledge of the analogy of the faith, the faith and morals The first part of the book is about the doctrine, the parallelism of the Scriptures and, finally, spiritual experience.
Note 1
Rom. 12, 7 the apostle writes: "If someone has prophecy, let it be similar to faith." To these words Luther remarks: "Prophecy is of two kinds; one that tells of things to come, as all the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles had. The other is interpretation of the Scriptures, as. Cor. 13 says: He who knows is greater than he who speaks with tongues. But because the gospel is the last sermon and prophecy before the last day, in which it is evidently foretold what is to come, I think that S. Paul i s speaking here in no other way than of prophecy, as he says in 1 Corinthians 15, namely, by interpreting the Scriptures. Even that, when he says that prophecy should be similar to faith, he undoubtedly means the Christian faith, which was the case at that time. The interpretation of Scripture should therefore be similar to faith, in other words, it should be done according to the analogy of faith. In what this analogy of faith consists, M. Chemnitz says in the following words: " The analogy of faith, however, is when the noblest articles of Christian doctrine are summarized, which are certain, firm and clear" (Loc.
Theol. II, p. 154). This analogy of faith is therefore, according to the above apostolic statement, the norm according to which the explanation of sacred Scripture is done in all obscure and doubtful passages, which therefore every preacher must also have well in mind. To this analogy of faith belong especially the following four pieces:
1. the connection in which the articles of faith stand . For the articles of the
Christian faith do not stand side by side without connection, but are joined to one another, or interlocked, like the beams in a building, none of which may be torn out without damaging the whole structure. They hang together like the links of a chain, from which no link can be removed without breaking the chain itself. Thus, for example, the doctrine of the atonement of Christ is intimately connected with the doctrine of the sinful state of the natural man and the punitive justice of God, which demands atonement in order to be able to forgive guilt. Whoever denies one of these doctrines also denies the other.
2. the order of divine truths . Each doctrine is in its proper place in the divine
order of salvation. The doctrine of free will, for example, does not belong to the state before conversion, for in that state the will is much more enslaved and imprisoned under the power of the devil, but to the state after conversion, in which the will is freed from the bondage of sin.
3. the mutual relation which these truths have to each other . For example,
Christ's atonement and our justification are interrelated because justification is the bestowal of Christ's atonement or merit.
4. the glorious symmetry of the doctrines of faith, which is manifested in the
fact that all the doctrines of Scripture have for their ultimate end the blessedness of men and the glory of God. Cf. the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans.
Note 2
A thorough knowledge of the doctrine of faith and morals (dogmatics and ethics) is also necessary for a proper understanding of the text. Whoever lacks this, can certainly reach an external understanding of the words, but not of the things and truths conta ined in them. "How can one," writes Rambach, "preach e.c. of regeneration, if one has no right concept of it ex theologia thetica (doctrine of faith). How can one preach about the denial of oneself, if one has no right concept of it ex theologia morali" (moral teaching).
Note 3
Spiritual experience is no less necessary. Practical truths that have such a profound effect on the life of the Christian can only be properly understood by those who have experienced them themselves. For example, how can one understand the words of the Lord, Matth. 5, 6: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled" and preach about them, if he himself has never felt the hunger and thirst for righteousness? How can he call the weary and burdened to Christ, if he himself does not know what it means to be weary and burdened! At the most, when he has to preach about such words of the Holy Scripture, he will adorn himself with foreign feathers and babble about it like a parrot. Therefore Luther writes: "Thirdly, there is tentatio, challenge, which is the touchstone, which teaches you not only to know and understand, but also to experience how right, how true, how sweet, how lovely, how powerful, how comforting God's word is, wisdom above all wisdom. Therefore, you see how David in the aforementioned (119th) Psalm so often complains about all kinds of enemies, evil princes or tyrants, about false spirits and mobs that he has to suffer because he meditates, that is, deals with God's word (as I said) in all kinds of ways. For as soon as God's word goes out through you, the devil will visit you, make you a right doctor, and teach you through his temptation to seek and love God's word...... When you have come here, hope confidently that you have begun to become a right theologian, who may teach not only the young, imperfect Christians, but also the growing and perfect ones; for Christ's church has all kinds of Christians in it, young, old, weak, sick, healthy, strong, fresh, lazy, foolish, wise, etc.". etc." (E. A., B. 1, p. 70 f.)
Note 4
The parallelism of the holy scripture. The individual doctrines are presented and treated in several places in the holy scriptures, sometimes from this, sometimes from another point of view. These passages are now to be c ompared diligently and carefully, in order to arrive at the right understanding of the teachings themselves and their scope etc.. Luther emphasizes how necessary this is when he writes: "If they say that the Fathers, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome and others have illuminated the Scriptures, they are lying; for they have not illuminated them, but have made the Scriptures clear with their own light and have held one saying to another, so that one has made the other finely bright and clear. So the Scripture is its own light. That is fine, when the Scripture interprets itself." (B. 15, p. 422 f.) How necessary, therefore, the knowledge of the parallelism of Scripture is, needs no proof.
§ 7
In the study of the text, the work of others is often of great service, and the preacher may therefore make use of it; but this must be done wisely and cautiously.
Note 1
The works of others that a preacher can easily consult when researching the text are threefold, namely: commentaries, sermon books and dogmatics. What
1. As far as commentaries are concerned, those that give more detailed
interpretations of the individual books of the Holy Scriptures are of course to be recommended in the first place. At the top are Luther's commentaries on entire books or parts of them, such as his commentary on the first book of Moses, the epistle to the Galatians, the first Peter, and so on. No matter how often Luther's commentaries have been reproached for not being more precise in their treatment of the text, for being in part too prolix, etc., no one can justifiably deny that Luther has by far better captured the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit than all the newer commentators with their entire scientific apparatus. A man like Luther, who had read and immersed himself so completely in the Holy Scriptures that they were, as it were, the element in which he lived, the air which he breathed; who was so completely animated by the spirit which speaks in the Scriptures: met, so to speak, the right meaning of his own accord and could not give an interpretation which was at odds with the doctrine of Scripture as such. Next, deserve to be ment ioned before others: The Gospel Harmony by Chemnitz, Leyser and Gerhard (published in German translation by the Preachers' Conference in Fort Wayne, Ind.), the interpretation of the Psalms by Joach. Mörlin, Apostolic Light and Law by Joach. Lange, etc. Excellent services are rendered by Furthermore, the " Weimarische" Bible with its more edifying no tes; then the "Hirschberger", because it gives a more literal translation of the basic text in many places.
2 Among the sermon books or postils, Luther's indisputably take the first place. As modestly as Luther himself judged his writings, that he did not hesitate to declare: "Would to God, I had the several part of my books back home", so he said of his postilion: "my very best book, which, I have ever made..., which also the papists like to have" *) (B. 30, p. 148), and also the later time has confirmed this judgment. Particularly recommended are also the postils of Dr. C. F. W. Walther, Heinrich Müller, Val. Herberger, Erd. Neumeister, Joh. Jac. Rambach, Heshusius. Of dogmatic works are to be mentioned: the " Concordia" (best editions by Müller and the Concordia publishing house in St. Louis, Mo.), Luther's works (especially his pamphlets against the Romans, Reformed and the enthusiasts), the Examen Conc. (German by Nigrinus) by M. Chemnitz and his "Loci"; Joh. Con. Dietrich's Institutiones Cat. (German by Dr. W. Notz).
- May here still be given the hint: Not many, but good works are to be used. Whoever, for example, would have only Luther's house and church postilion in his possession, would use only these, would not merely read, but would study (for Luther wants to be studied), would, as many examples show, be a far better preacher than if he used dozens of newer postilions.
Note 2
Rambach writes about the wise and careful use of foreign works: "But if this use of other people's labor is to be done wisely, the following rules must be observed: 1 One must not resort to other work until one has tried one's strength in one's own meditation and has tried how far one can come by one's own reflection. If one immediately falls upon a postilla and writes out whole passages from it or immediately makes a commentary on the text and translates the Latin exegesis into German, then one is a parrot who chats after the words of others without certainty and conviction. But if one first meditates oneself before consulting others, one has a multiple advantage.
*) G. Bauer calls Luther's postils "inexhaustible treasure troves of homiletic wisdom". Benefit from it. For if 1) one finds in them the very thoughts and views that one has had oneself, then one is confirm ed by them. If they have 2) different views, which can nevertheless be combined with our thoughts, then one can enrich one's meditations thereby. If, however, they have 3) opposing views, which are contrary to our thoughts, then one has the opportunity to consider both opinions with their reasons, and to choose the one which has the most and most important reasons for itself, whereby the judicium is then very much exercised. "2. one must choose from the work of others only that which is best and most useful, and accept nothing that one has not first examined." (Rambach is talking here about the use of commentaries filled with critical and philosophical scholarship. One should be quite careful in the public use in the sermon).
"3. one must not accept anything from the works of others that one has not first tested, 1 Thess. 5, 12: 'Test all things and keep what is good.'" (Authorities - no matter how good a sound they may have - Rambach wants to teach - are not to apply. The Word of God is norma et regula.) "4. one must use the work of others in such a way that one is not guilty of plagiarism. (Here Rambach shares an extraordinary curiosity. Want to hear it: "I have been told of a studioso who had acquired forty to fifty postilles and preached bravely in the villages. When he had to preach a sermon, he would lay all forty of them on a long table, one after the other, and write the first sentence from the first postilla, the second sentence from the second, and so on. This must have connected beautifully.") "5. one must only get advice from other good books, thereby excite one's mind to better reflection, and if one borrows something from others, let it become flesh and blood through one's own meditation."
The following words of Grotefend should also be noted: "On this occasion I cannot suppress the thought that a good foundation of knowledge must be laid for such meditation, for he who does not possess this will stare at such a passage, he will look for a connection and find none; everything will remain dark to him, and he will blame the barrenness of the passage or of the rules given. It follows, then, that a preacher must necessarily study, and that his study must not consist in a comfortable reading of scriptures and The main thing is not to read books, but to think about them constantly, and reading should only provide the opportunity for this. It is better to read a book ten times with constant reflection than ten books in the same time. This also shows how indispensable good exegesis is in order to be able to meditate usefully on a text, and as long as a preacher lives, the study of exegesis must not be dispensed with. It is only a useful study of exegesis that seeks to penetrate the meaning and spirit of the sacred writings, and does not search for how this or that one might have interpreted the passage. It is precisely this scrolling around according to authorities that kills all one's own spirit and never lead s into the spirit and the context of the sacred writings. In studying exegesis, one must look more for the principles of the art of interpretation than for the individual interpretations themselves, so that one may learn to see with one's own eyes."
We add: This chasing after authorities cannot make anyone divinely certain. Instead of becoming certain through diligent research from the Scriptures and through the Scriptures themselves, one relies on the interpretations of others and is satisfied if one can cite one, two or three authorities for oneself. The certainty obtained in this way is purely human, i.e., it is based on human interpretation, wisdom, reputation, etc., but not on the word of divine Scripture. One cannot say: this is what Scripture teaches, but this is what this and that theologian says. This is not according to Scripture and is also not Lutheran. The Lord instructs us in Joh. 5, 39 (cf. Luc. 24, 28-27; Jos. 1, 8; Ps. 1, 2. 3; 119 and others), and the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see if this was true (Ap. 17, 11). Luther, however, declared at the end of the first part of his postilion that it was his greatest wish that every Christian should himself take before him the plain Scriptures and the plain Word of God: "Therefore, into i t, into it, dear Christians!" he cries, "and let my interpretation and that of all teachers be only a scaffolding for the right building, that we ourselves may grasp the plain Word of God, taste it, and abide in it, for God alone dwells in Zion. In another place he writes: "One should not need the teaching of the fathers any further than to come to the Scriptures as they came, and then remain with the Scriptures alone" (B.
27, p. 247). The "fathers" should lead to the Scriptures and into the Scriptures, not out of them and away from them.