Of the interpretation of the dispositional text.
§ 1
The correct interpretation of the text is done according to the hermeneutical rules in such a way that both the actual meaning of the words and the nature of the things denoted in them are presented accurately, clearly, thoroughly and properly for the edification of the listeners.
Note 1
However necessary and important the work of disposition may be, it has not yet produced a finished speech or sermon, but rather only a draft or outline of the sermon, just as a painter creates the outline of a painting in his sketch. This draft or outline must now be further developed, the sketch must be perfected into a real painting through further painting. This must now be done partly by interpretation, explanation, and partly by application of the sermon text. The form er is to be dealt with in this chapter. The interpretation of the text, however, may not be done arbitrarily, just like the disposition, but must be done according to certain rules, some of which are clearly given in the holy scripture itself. (Jos. 1, 8, Is. 8, 19 ff.; Rom. 12, 7; 2. Timoth.
2, 15.) The interpretation of the holy scripture, i.e. to explain the meaning of the words and the nature of the things expressed in them, requires the knowledge of the hermeneutical rules and the ability to apply them. The hermeneutical rules therefore do not belong, as we well know, in a homiletical textbook; but if we nevertheless leave the most important of them here, we consider this justified by 'the purpose which this manual is primarily intended to serve and by special circumstances. Nor will it require any further justification why we have occupied the following rules with quotations from Luther's writings, but it should suffice to refer to Cap. Ill, § 4, p. 53.
The main hermeneutical rules to be considered for preaching are as follows: 1st rule. The grammatical sense is not always and everywhere the logical one. Cf. Cap. 3, § 2, p. 42 ff. 2nd rule. The grammatical sense, especially in substantial, essential things, must always be recorded in those scriptural passages in which an article of faith is set forth, which therefore form the doctrinal seat (sedes doctrinae) of the same. Cf. p. 55. Luther: "Scripture is not the spirit, of which they slander that the spirit alone must do it, that Scripture is a dead letter and cannot give life. This means that although the letter itself does not give life, it must be present and heard or received, and the Holy Spirit must work through it in the heart, and the heart must preserve itself through the word and in the word in faith against the devil and all temptation;
or, if it fails to do so, it must soon lose Christ and the Spirit altogether. Therefore do not boast much of the Spirit, if you do not have the manifest, outward word: for it will certainly not be a good Spirit, but the sorrowful devil from hell. For the Holy Spirit has put his wisdom and counsel and all mysteries into the Word and revealed them in the Scriptures, so that no one has to excuse himself, nor to seek and search for anything else, and there is nothing higher or better to learn or to attain than what the Scriptures teach about Jesus Christ, Son of God, our Savior, w ho died for us and rose from the dead". (Vlll, p. 1177.) The same: "We cannot pass by the words, we must, as I always say, let the Scriptures remain in a simple sense, as the words give, and not make a gloss. For it does not behoove us to interpret God's word as we will; we must not direct it, but let ourselves be directed by it, and give it glory that it is better set than we can make it. Therefore we must let it stand." (Ill, p. 100.)
Rule 3 The grammatical sense is to be abandoned where the analogy of faith calls for a tropical interpretation. Luther: "I have often sa id that whoever wants to study the Holy Scriptures should always make sure that he sticks to the simple words as much as he can, and should never deviate from them unless some article of faith forces him to understand them differently than the words say. For we must not be sure that no more simple speech has come on earth than that which God has spoken". (Ill., p. 23.) 4th rule. The grammatical sense is not to be held fast, if a clear parallel makes a tropical explanation necessary. Luther: "The gospel interprets the prophets correctly, therefore one must interpret such figures from the gospel and not follow the mere letter alone; because the text itself forces a different understanding, because the words read. For the prophets themselves testify that Christ shall die: therefore he shall never reign in the flesh. Item, they say: the Christians are to be comforted spiritually. But no man shall be comforted, except he that is in anguish and distress: therefore shall Christians not be worldly lords: as he saith Isaiah 61, He hath sent me to preach to the afflicted, to deliver them that are bound, to open them that are bound, to preach a pleasant year unto the Lord." Item, they prophesy how the true church must suffer persecution. Item, that Christ's kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom. All this cannot and may not be interpreted to the worldly kingdom." (XX, P. 1704.)
Dannhauer: "The holy scripture is like the sky, in which the sun always shines, from which the darker stars receive their light. And if any passage (of Scripture) lacks any light, it is one whose meaning contributes nothing to the substance of faith." (Theol. did. pol. P I, p. 199.) 5th Rule. The grammatical sense may not be held if the appearance requires a tropical interpretation. Luther: "But here perhaps the other group will boast and say: Hereby you will confirm the Oecollompadii sign, because he, according to such teaching Horatii, also makes a new word and trope from the common, and says: "my body" is called here "my body's sign". To this is soon answered: that the Grammatici, as well as all Christian teachers, forbid that one should never depart from the common old interpretation of a wo rd, and adopt a new interpretation, unless the text and the understanding compel, or are proved by force from other places of Scripture;
otherwise one would never retain a certain text, understanding, speech, or language. As when Christ says, "John is Elias"; here the text and faith compel that Elias must be a new word, because it is certain that John is not Elias. is nor can be the old Elijah. Item, "Christ is a rock", again forces the text itself and the belief that "rock" here is a new word, because Christ is not nor can be a natural rock". (XX, P. 909.) The same: "We are to keep it thus, that we are not to allow a patched sequence or twisted, faded sayings in some sayings of the Scriptures, where the circumstances of the words do not force this; unless the understanding would not rhyme at all after the simple words". (XVIII, P. 227.)
6th rule. Every passage of scripture allows for a logical sense. Luther: "In the Scriptures, one should strive and see everywhere that one may have a certain and simple understanding of history, which, if someone changes or departs from it, he knows that he has departed from the Scriptures and is following an uncertain and doubtful understanding. (I, P. 1435.) The same: "One should interpret the histories, as they are at them, selb st, because they are not without understanding, however badly and lowly they may be regarded." (I, P. 2076.) 7th rule. Every passage of scripture has only one logical meaning. For Luther's words on this, see Cap. Ill, § 4, p. 54.
8th rule. The interpreter of the Scriptures must take care not to insert his own meaning into a passage, but to interpret the meaning contained therein. Luther: "Such thoughts certainly have a pretty appearance before reason, if one wants to give in to them, to interpret the words of Paul and Christ according to their will. But this is not called Chr istian teaching, if I carry a meaning into the Scriptures and then draw the Scriptures upon it, but again, if I first have the Scriptures clear and then draw my meaning upon them. For who can in good conscience suffer that Christ's word, when he says, "This is my body, which is given for you," should be thus interpreted? This is the fellowship of my body, which is given for you? For this is said without scripture, and much another thing and saying is, my body, and my body's fellowship.
The interpreter of sacred Scripture must not allow himself to be seduced by reason or by the Church, by so-called tradition or by the Pope, by "inner light" or by "new revelations" or by " theological science", to put a d ifferent meaning into the words of sacred Scripture which he is to interpret. Wherever this happens, Scripture is no longer the norma et regula fidei, but is pushed aside and human wit and dreams are elevated to the throne in its place. "Yes according to t he law and testimony; if they will not say this, they will not have the dawn"; Isa. 8, 20. Luther: "Take heed therefore, let reason and wit depart, which in vain is anxious how flesh and blood may be there, and because it comprehendeth it not, will not believe it. Take hold of the word when Christ says, "Receive, this is my body, this is my blood." It is not necessary to be so offensive to God's words that someone, without clear Scripture, wants to give a word a different interpretation than its natural interpretation is, as these do, who freely, without Scripture, force the little word "is" to mean as much as the little word "means," and make such a nose at this saying of Christ, "this is my body," should apply as much as "this means my body," etc. But we want and should remain simple in Christ's words, who will not deceive us, and will not strike back such error with any other sword than that Christ does not say, "This means my body," but "This is my body.
For if one were to allow such an outrage in one pla ce, that one would want to say without reason of the Scriptures that the little word "is" means as much as the little word "means", then one could also not defend in any other place, and the whole Scripture would come to nothing, since there would be no re ason why such an outrage would be valid in one place and not in all places. Thus, to say that "Mary is a virgin and the mother of God" is to say that Mary is a virgin and the mother of God. Item, Christ is God and man, that is, Christ means God and man. Item, Rom. 1, 16: "The gospel is God's power" etc. Behold, what an abominable being this would become! Therefore, if such an outrage is not to be suffered in any other place, it is not to be suffered here that Christ's body is signified by bread, because the words bright, dry and clear stand there: 'This is my body', unless one brings forth certain bright sayings, that here the little word 'is' is to signify." (XIX, P. 1312.)
9th rule. Only the logical sense (intended by the Holy Spirit) is conclusive. Luther: "Figures and interpretations are not enough to establish faith; it must first be established with clear Scripture, understood simply according to the sound and opinion of the words. And then, after such words and foundation of faith, such interpretations of history are to be built upon faith and thereby water and strengthen it." (XI, P. 360.) The same: "For my part, I have always had a disgust for allegories from the time when I began to follow the histor ical understanding, and I have also not used any, unless the text itself would have brought them with it, or the interpretation could have been drawn from the New Testament. Although it was quite difficult for me to abandon the allegories, which I had long used and was now accustomed to, I saw that they were futile speculations and, as it were, a foam of the holy Scriptures. (I, P.
428.) The same: "It is the historical mind that alone can teach something thorough and true." (I, P. 429.) 10th rule The mystical sense is not evidential unless it is indicated by the Holy Spirit Himself. Mystical is usually called the sense that is intended by the Holy Spirit not first and directly through the words (whether these are taken actually or figuratively), but through the things. This mystical sense is again divided by some into the allegorical, typical and parabolic. If a story that really happened and is reported in the Scriptures is related to a mystery or a spiritual doctrine according to the intention of the Holy Spirit, this is the allegorical sense of the story. When under external things or prophetic visions hidden things, whether present or future, are presented, and especially when things of the Old Testament that have happened prefigure and shadow those of the New Testament, then the typical sense of the Old Testament passage is given. If something is told as having happened and is referred to something else, spiritual, in order to designate this with it, then this is called the parabolic sense. (J. S. Glassius, Philol. sac., p. 406.)
That the typical meaning is only conclusive if it is given by the Holy Spirit himself is evident from itself. For who can be sure that the interpretation he has given to such a passage, the meaning he thinks he has found in it, is undoubtedly the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit? Who could, for example, from the How could the story of the serpent in the wilderness prove that justification is only through faith in Christ, if this is not taught by the Scriptures themselves (John 3:15)? Who could conclude from Deut. 17:5 (Whom I shall choose, that is, the rod, the rod shall grow) that a virgin should give birth? Therefore Luther writes: "Mere allegories, which do not rhyme with any part of the histories, nor paint and decorate them, should be badly rejected as useless dreams. Now al most such allegories, which Origines and those who followed him have used. For where can one prove from the Scriptures that by the paradise the heaven and by the trees the angels are signified?
Are these not very foolish and useless thoughts? Whoever wants to use allegories for this reason should build their foundation from history. For this is like a dialectica, which gives a thorough and true account of things. Again, allegories, like rhetorica, should badly decorate and paint histories; for they serve an d count for nothing as proof." (I, P. 429.) 11th rule. In the explanation of the parables, above all, close attention must be paid to the scopus and the analogy of faith. A simile is the application of a literal thing to something similar. The difference between simile and metaphor is that in the latter the meaning is taken from the words, which are not actually but figuratively understood; in the latter, however, what is signified by the same must not be taken from the words, but from the thing itself as it is told. Thus we have Joh. 6, 48 -51 (I am the bread of life etc.) a metaphor;
Luc. 16 however the parables of the unjust steward and of the rich man and poor Lazarus. The simile is perfect when it is accompanied by the explanation, like the simile of the sower; imperfect when the explanation is missing, like Matth. 13, 44 - 46, while the immediately following one in v. 47 and 48 is perfect, since v. 49 and 50 the explanation is given. In his sermon on the Gospel on Sunday, Luther says that in interpreting the parables, attention should be paid above all to the scopus. Sept. (Matth. 20, 1, 16): "Therefore, one must not look at this parable in all its parts, but rather pay attention to the main part, what he wants with it; do not pay attention to what is called a penny or a penny, not to what is the first or last hour, but to what the householder has in mind and wants, how he wants his goods to be esteemed higher, even alone, more than all works and merit. Just as in The parable of the unjust steward, Luc. 16, 5. sqq, The whole parable is not held up to us, that we also should deceive our lord; but only the prudence of that steward, that he provided for himself so well and wisely, and invented his best, though to his lord's hurt, Who then would long search there and preach of the debtors what the register, oil, corn, and measure mean, would come from the right opinion, and follow his poetry, which would be of no use anywhere. For such parables are not said for the reason that all pieces are to be kept for that reason." (11, p. 80 f.)
However, in the interpretation of the parables the secondary things must not be disregarded, must not be regarded as mere embellishments of the whole, on which nothing matters at all. We see this in the parables of the sower, of the t ares among the wheat, etc., to which the Lord himself added an exact interpretation of the individual images, as has been shown on p. 173; we also see this in Luther, who, for example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, knew how to interpret the image o f the oil and wine, the inn, etc. aptly enough. S. E. A., B. 14, p. 33. We therefore quite agree with Dr. de Valenti's words: "So now, in the example of the Lord, it has become not only the right, but even the duty, to hold the individual images of the parables in high esteem.... Yes indeed! a popular teacher would ill understand his advantage if he wanted to limit himself in the pulpit, or even in the nursery, merely to the main idea of a parable, and deprive himself of the most delicious teaching materia l by eliminating the secondary images." (Die Parabeln des Herr, Basel, 1741, p. 12.) Of course, the analogy of faith according to the words Rom. 12:8: "If anyone has prophecy" (the interpretation of Scripture, if it is of the right kind, is also always prophetic), "let it be similar to faith," must be the guideline of interpretation in the interpretation of the individual images in the parables. He who does not heed this will go astray, "following his poetry."
12th rule. In explaining the Scriptures, it is not enough to show which is probable, but it must be shown which is undoubtedly the meaning of them. Luther: "In order that one may see how far they fall short of the truth, they are not only guilty of proving from Scripture that the body is so much as a sign of the body, and the essence so much as an interpretation, but also of one more thing. If they were to prove this in one place of Scripture, which is not possible, they are nevertheless also guilty of proving that it must also be so here in the Lord's Supper, that the body is the sign of the body. And it would be of no use at all if the whole of Scripture were to contain the same sign of the body in other places, and if it were not also to contain it in this place of the Lord's Supper. For now we are not primarily arguing whether the Scriptures call it a sign of the body, but whether it is so called in this place of the Lord's Supper. Consciences want to be sure and certain in this matter." (XX, P. 976.)
Note 2
The sermon, which rightly deserves this name, must flow from the underlying passage of the divine word, the text, and be built up from it. The text must supply the material, or the content of it; only if this is really the case can it be called a sermon at all, according to the text and the Scriptures. The means by which the material is obtained from the text is the interpretation of it. Let us remember: the interpretation of the text, and the correct, appropriate interpretation at that. Not an object that is only related to the text, that is only distantly related to it, and that has no basis in the text itself, may be treated. If one wants to treat such a subject, one should choose another text in which it is really given, and if no text can be found for it, it does not belong in the pulpit. "The text," writes Hüffel (Wesen und Beruf des ev.- christlichen Geistlichen, 4th ed., p. 312), "should not merely cause, but it should be the sole basic thought of the preacher, so that he does not speak from himself, but that the text speaks through the preacher. Furthermore, to use the text properly does not mean to bring every part and every subdivision of the sermon into a certain agreement with the text, so that one basically preaches oneself, but uses the text to testify to the truth. This error often afflicts even the better preachers, because they have not yet learned to renounce their own wisdom with respect to the text. Finally, to use the text properly does not mean either to pass over the main moments of the text or to bring out of the text more than it really contains. The first error arises easily in longer texts and in the pericopes; the second error develops when one plays with thoughts and words and does not actually make anything significant moments into something essential." - How many a sermon lacks real textual interpretation! If it is closed with the Amen, one has heard a great deal about the text, a great deal that is not at all in the text, but very little or nothing at all from the text. Of preachers of this kind Spurgeon said crudely but truly: "Some brethren are finished with the text as soon as they have read it aloud. After they have done all honor to this particular passage by reading it, they do not see why they should dwell on it any longer.
They take off their hats, so to speak, to this passage of Scripture and then go on to seek out fresh climes and new pastures. Why do these people take a text at all? Why do they impose this constraint on their glorious freedom? Why do they make the scripture the mounting block by means of which they swing themselves on their unbridled Pegasus? Truly, the inspired Word of God has not been given to bootstraps, by means of which a babbler is to put on his seven -league boots, in which he leaps from the South Po le to the North Pole!" This was certainly not Luther's way, but his sermons confirm his words: "I take care in my sermons that I take a saying for myself, I stick to it; and that I thus show it to the people and cross it out, so that they can say: that is what the sermon has been about." (Cf. Quenstedt in Homil. Mag., B. 2, p. 311.) Only through the right interpretation and use of the text do the sermons receive the doctrinal content which makes them truly edible and nourishing for the listeners, real bread is presented in them which satisfies them;
without this they easily become clouds without rain, at which the listeners pine away with thirst, even if they pass over their heads as in a storm. The interpretation of the text is twofold. One, the historical-grammatical, or philological, has the task of determining the logical meaning of the words, the other, the theological, of developing the things contained in the words. It is self -evident that there cannot be a theological interpretation without the philological one, but rather that the latter is based on it, but also that the purely philological interpretation, as followed by almost all recent exegetes in their commentaries, is not sufficient for the sermon, and in fact does not belong in the pulpit at all. The purpose of preaching is edification, and this can never be achieved by dry, boring exegesis that is unfruitful for the edification of the listeners. For the sermon, we need a truly Luther an interpretation, i.e., one that, like Luther's, not only develops the pure doctrine in all things, but also develops it and makes it understandable to the listeners. One only has to compare Luther's commentaries with those of the newer, scientific exegetes, such as Meyer, Weiß, etc. With the latter, there is almost exclusively a discussion of the language, the individual words and particles, a citing of versions and interpretations of others and a refutation of the same, often only a bickering about opinions that is as tiring as it is unfruitful; with Luther, there is no quibbling over words, but what a wealth of theological matters, of doctrines and useful applications.
He did not produce "new darknesses and frogs and gnats" in his commentaries, but because in his heart this one article, the faith in Christ, reigned, from him, through him and to him all his Luther's theological thinking flowed day and night, as he himself confessed in his preface to the second edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, so everything in them is instructive and comforting, fresh and lively, he has brought to light in them from the shaft of the divine word a wealth of theological material that is not to be found in any other commentaries. Therefore, whoever wants to have a model of theological interpretation, should take Luther's commentaries bef ore him, study them, practice in them, educate himself with them, and he will not lack the right material for the content of his sermons.
Now the question arises: which text must the interpretation be based on? The answer is: the text of Luther's translation. The text of the revised Bible published in our time cannot be taken into consideration at all, because we do not want to and cannot unjustly rob our Lutheran Christian people, our Lutheran congregations, of Luther's unsurpassable translation and offer them a bad one instead. Since our Lutheran Bible is in exclusive use everywhere in our congregations, schools and families and, God willing, should remain so, the preacher must also base his interpretation on it. If he is familiar with the basic text, then he consults it diligently in his study room, uses exegesis bibles, such as the Weimarer and Hirschberger, which in many places give a more literal translation, as well as commentaries, but he is careful not to deviate from the wording of Luther's translation in the sermon or even to try to improve it before the congregation. He will not do better than Luther did, and with his arrogance will only cause mischief. It will probably remain for all times with the statement of the grammarian Clajus: "I am absolutely convinced that the Holy Spirit, who spoke Hebrew through Moses and the other prophets, and Greek through the apostles, has also spoken good German through his chosen instrument Luther. Those who believe themselves called upon to improve Luther's translation, "may (to speak with Palmer) conscientiously examine beforehand in each individual case whether the better thing they want to give is also in truth the better thing; whether something that is itself still undetermined does not already seem all too ce rtain to them; whether their own translation of a passage does not perhaps seem to them to be especially comfortable and correct because it is their own, whether they do not in general place far too great a value on a discovery that they have made.... The people know no other word of God than their Bible; the distinction between the basic text and the translation is completely foreign to them;
if now the preacher, even if it were in the best opinion, would make the existing trust of the congregation in their German Bible waver, then he would not have withdrawn this trust from Luther, but from the Bible itself." And with Claus Harms: "One deprives the people of much if one takes away their faith in the correctness of the translation and teaches them to say: If this is not correct and this is not correct and this is not correct, then everything is w rong. Above the individual deficiencies, one should not forget that Luther's translation is in itself an excellent interpretation of the Bible.
Note 3
The interpretation or explanation of the text must, first of all, be precise, in such a way that it grasps those concepts which the Holy Spirit has clothed in the words of the text and expresses them in a suitable and generally understandable manner. The logical meaning, intended by the Holy Spirit, must be explored and explained. "The text," writes Hüffel, "must be understood exegetically correctly. But it will only be understood and treated in the sense in which it was written down, to which understanding we are guided partly by the correct sense of the words, partly by the context, partly by the spirit of Holy Scripture (the surest basis of all biblical hermeneutics in general), and to which treatment our destiny as Protestant clergymen obliges us. As far as the first point is concerned, namely the correct understanding, this is the work of science, especially of exegesis; but as far as the last point is concerned, namely the appropriate treatment of the text, we must add the following. It may be acceptable to some exegetes, who, according to their spirit, are completely outside the Church and the Christian life, (?) if they twist biblical passages with cunning art in order to bring out the meaning that pleases them; but to the man who teaches in the name and on behalf of the Church, who has been solemnly bound to reproduce the pure, unconsecrated teaching of the Gospel, such falsehood can never be permitted."
Secondly, the explanation must be clear, for an unclear, dark explanation is no explanation at all; thirdly, it must be thorough, so that the true meaning of the Holy Spirit is convincingly presented to the listeners, especially in dark and difficult passages. But this thoroughness must not be carried too far. The explanation must not go too far, nor must it be so subtle that the preacher forgets the main point and leads the listeners to all kinds of side issues. "Whoever wants to teach and comfort with fruit and benefit," says Luther, "should look at the main thing he wants to say about? Finally, the explanation should be done in such a way that the right order is maintained; "it must namely," as Ramb ach expresses it, "be arranged according to the guidance of an exact logical analysis, which is, as it were, the thread to which one must adhere in the explanation of the text."
Note 4
The final purpose of all text explanation must always be the edification of the listeners. If every Christian in his whole conduct according to Rom. 14, 19 (Therefore let us strive after that which serves.... for the betterment [τα της όΜομης-edification] among ourselves) the edification How much more so the preacher in the most important of his official duties, the sermon. As a co-worker in the building of God, 1 Corinth. 3, 9, as a wise master builder (ως σοφός άρχπίχτων) v. 10, it is his proper task to build up the body of Christ on his part ( sla όιχοδομην του σώματος τού Χρίστου), Eph. 4, 12, i.e., to promote the saving work of God within the Christian community in the individual as well as in the whole. Therefore, whatever is obstructive to this purpose must be omitted. Therefore Hüffel says: "What is most important in all these rules, however, can only be found if the use of the text... is truly edifying and practical. What is the use of all homiletic arts if the mind is not enlightened, the heart not stirred, and the will not improved? We admire many a homiletic product, but when we lo ok at it more closely, it is only foam and empty verbiage; the reviewers give praise to the ingenuity of the invention, the strict logical order and the successful execution, but the congregation thirsting for salvation has gone away empty - handed. The main thing is and always will be the practical moment in the treatment of the texts, and if you do not work in the true Christian sense, then spare your arts." Yes: "if we are not instructive preachers and do not give real nourishment to the congregation, we may do great things in pleasing poetry and do splendidly in the petty trade of second - hand bubbles, but we will then resemble the old emperor Nero, who preached while Rome burned, and who sent ships to Alexandria to fetch sand for the stage, while the peopl e died for lack of grain.... It is truly much better to offer the people masses of unprepared truths in raw material, like pieces of meat with bones and everything else on it...., than to present to them on a china plate, with polite bow and delicate hand, a delicious piece of garnish, decorated with the parsley of poetry and seasoned with the sauce of ornamentation." (Spurgeon.)
Let us go into this important point in more detail by trying to answer the question: by what means is this edification of the ch urch really achieved? The answer is: through the Word of God. There is no other means, for the Lord has not given His church any other. God's Word and only God's Word must be taught and preached in order to edify. In particular, however, the Edification achieved through enlightenment of the mind, movement of the heart and determination of the will. First, then, by the enlightenment of the mind, and that by means of knowledge (γνωσιν), for every sermon must first aim at this, to promote the knowledge of the listeners. That is why Paul prays in Phil. 1, 9, that the love of the Philippians "will abound more and more in all knowledge and experience", that the Colossians will be filled "with the knowledge of His will", Cap. 1, 9, and grow "in the knowledge of God" v. 11; because only the truth of the divine word, which is really and clearly recognized, can produce lasting effects. Sermons that lack positive doctrinal content, that only assail the emotions, can only cause excitement that quickly fades away, but can never edify. But the richer our love is in knowledge, the more conscious, pure, effective and constant it is; the more we know God according to His will and His works, the richer this knowledge is in scope, depth and clarity, the stronger, livelier and more active our faith and our love will be. "Only to clearly conceived ideas," says Hüffel, "a deep feeling attaches itself like a living striving, and if one wanted to answer us: those feelings that are deepest often have no clearly recognized object at all, this is not true; the object itself is recognized, but admittedly not yet brought into a complete logical concept." Thus:
without true cognition there is no enlightenment of the understanding. The Christian knowledge in question here has for its content the truth revealed in God's Word, the salvation of God (Cf. Luc. 1, 77 δούναι γνωσιν σωτηρίας τω λαω). Therefore Luther: "This is the right knowledge, if you believe and know that God and Christ is your God and your Christ, which the devil and the false Christians cannot believe. Thus knowledge is nothing other than righteous Christian faith. For if you know God and Christ in this way, you will also rely on Him with all your heart and trust Him in fort une and misfortune, in life and death" (IX, 837). And in another place: "The Christian knowledge of God is this: when I hear that the human race has fallen so deeply into sin that no one can keep the commandments of God, nor will anyone keep them; that we must condemn ourselves from God's righteous judgment unless the Son of God comes and takes on human nature and takes us upon his neck and drowns our sins in his blood, so that whoever believes in him may be saved. No human reason knows anything about this, nor is there a word about it in all the books of lawyers and wise men, not even in the Law of Moses. - The other knowledge of God comes from the gospel. As all the world by nature is an abomination in the sight of God, and is eternally condemned under the wrath of God and the devil.
The Son of God, who is in the arms of the Father, became man, died, and rose again from the dead, and put away sin, death, and the devil. This is the right and thorough knowledge, way and thought of God, which is called the knowledge of grace and truth, the evangelical knowledge of God" (VII, 1621). See also the words in the explanation of the 3rd article: "The Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with His gifts." If this knowledge, as Luther says, comes from the Gospel, then the ser mons must above all be doctrinal sermons; in them certain doctrines of the Word of God must be treated as clearly and comprehensibly as possible and brought to the understanding of the listener. Above all, the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the doctrine of God, of Christ, of redemption, reconciliation, justification, of the means of grace, of sin, repentance, faith, etc.; the doctrine of sanctification, in short: the doctrine of faith and morals must be treated in detail in all its parts. In this way, the congregations are promoted in their knowledge, and the right growth in it takes place, for which, of course, proofs and reasons must be given, above all from God's Word. More details about this will be found in the 6th and 7th paragraphs. Concerning the promotion of knowledge, we also refer to a word of Reinhard in his "Confessions" p. 145 f.; it reads:
"First of all, I would like to point out that teaching and instruction have always been regarded, and rightly so, as one of the main purposes of preaching, and for this reason preachers have been called teachers of the gospel. Whoever wants to banish instruction from the pulpit and to have everything reduced to awakening and stirring, robs the office of preaching of a large part of its usefulness, especially with the large crowd, which lacks almost all opportunity to correct and expand its knowledge of religion, if it is not in the church and further guided by the preacher. Then I have to deny that the religious feeling can be awakened in a whole some way and a fruitful emotion and uplifting can be produced, if one does not want to take the way through the mind to the heart, if one does not want to start everywhere from convincing instruction. One will not want to stir by appealing to the imagination and trying to inflame it; in this way one would ignite nothing but a wild fire, which would bring no benefit to true piety, but could certainly harm it. If a pious emotion is to be wholesome and ameliorating, and an elevation of the spirit sensible and fruitful, it must be based on wholesome truths that have been vividly imagined and felt.
arousing, moving and inspiring lecture is not even conceivable without teachings that prepare and cause the movements of the heart." In explaining the text, however, all criticisms, all disputes about different readings of the text, all rambling narratives of ancient usages, etc., to which the text may refer, must be carefully avoided, for they do not promote ed ification but rather hinder it. It is indeed bad when a preacher wastes time convincing his listeners that the end of the Lord's Prayer is probably not authentic, but that the passage 1 John 5:7 is genuine despite all denials, and so on.But it is a sacrile ge if he tries to prove, with all his ingenuity and erudition, that this and that which is reported in Scripture did not happen in a miraculous but in a very natural way, or that Scripture contains something erroneous in this and that point. As if it were of such great importance to enlighten the listeners about what the scholars argue about and cannot agree on, even disagree with each other. People who have been bought with the blood of Christ have come to be instructed about the way to salvation, those who have been challenged have come to get new weapons for their fight, the desolate have come to thirst for the water of life, the weak have come to be strengthened, but the servant of Christ (?), to whom the command to preach the Gospel has become, makes for them, as much as there is in him, the rocky ground on which they stand, a sandy ground disappearing under their feet, and wants to satisfy the hungry with the chaff of scholars' stuff instead of the living bread from heaven. Beautiful shepherds, who lead the herd entrusted to them into the stubble fields of the falsely famous science and into the desert of their doubts, instead of pasturing them on the green pastures of the gospel!
§ 2
The interpreter does well if he first summarizes the basic idea of th e text in a main sentence and then points out the secondary ideas that are found in the text in a proper order.
Note 1
When interpreting or explaining the text, the most important thing is to be completely clear about the basic idea, i.e. what the text is actually about. If this does not succeed, the interpretation can only be a mistaken one. Finding this basic idea is dif ficult in many texts, e.g. in the epistle on Sonnt. Quinq. (1 Corinth. 13) and the parables of the Lord. Take the Gospel on the 9th Sunday of Trinity. (Luc. 16, 1 -9, about the unjust steward). This gospel is without a doubt one of the most difficult texts to treat. The basic idea of this gospel is the doctrine of the right use of earthly goods, as the Lord reveals with the closing words: "And I say unto you, make friends with the unrighteous mamon," etc.
The Lord obviously borrows from this gospel, but it is not the same. For the Lord evidently borrows an example from this sinful world, which deals so unjustly and faithlessly with earthly goods, in order to use the same as an analogue for his kingdom; he wants to teach us that as the children of this world do with mammon, so the children of light, the Christians, should also do in a good and higher sense. So Luther also gives this as the basic idea when he says in the first sermon on this Gospel: "Therefore the teaching of today's Gospel is primarily that one should not be stingy, but should use the good rightly and make friends with it, which God has bestowed." The main sentence, in which this basic idea is summarized, would thus read: 'We Christians should make right use of earthly goods.' From this basic idea, however, secondary ideas arise of their own accord, such as are clearly present in this simile, e.g., what dangers the first step on an evil path entails; for the unfaithfulness of the steward led to the open betrayal of his m aster, to his removal from office, and so on.
Rambach gives the following examples: Rom. 8, 13: 'If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if you die through the spirit of the flesh, you will live,' Here is the main idea: Paul shows) the differ ent outcome of the walk according to the spirit and according to the flesh. From this the theme can be formed: " The different outcome of the walk of men"; 1. the outcome of the walk according to the flesh; 2. the outcome of the walk according to the spirit. In the first part there are two secondary thoughts; the first is: justified souls shall kill the business of the flesh; the other is: he who kills them shall live. Rom. 2, 4. 5: Do you despise the riches of His goodness, patience and longsuffering? Do you not know that God's goodness leads you to repentance? But you, according to your hardened and impenitent heart, heap wrath upon yourself for the day of wrath and the revelation of God's righteous judgment.' Here is the main idea: the contempt of God's goodness draws God's wrath after it; and so the subject would be: "The sorrowful consequence of God's goodness despised." (Better: What terrible consequences the contempt of God's goodness entails). The secondary ideas given here would be the following in the first part of the saying: a) In God there is a wealth of goodness; b) This wealth of goodness is bestowed on the sinner for the purpose of making him repent.
c) but the sinner does not consider this purpose, which is why he despises it d). In the second part there are the secondary thoughts: a) The heart of the one who despises the goodness of God offered to him becomes more and more hardened; b) thereby he accumulates a treasure of anger, and c) this treasure, revealed on the day of judgment, will be poured out on him. Such a decomposition or dissection of the content is, of course, only possible with shorter texts; with longer ones, it would lead too far. In the case of the former, however, it is highly recommended for full comprehension, especially if they are to be treated analytically and for the most exhaustive treatment possible.
§ 3
Since every statement consists of a subject and a predicate, every part of it that is somehow unclear must be explained as far as understanding requires.
Note 1
What is demanded in this paragraph seems to be so self-evident that any further reference to it could appear to be completely superfluous. And yet this is not the case; for in how many sermons, especially of the beginners, is this lacking in one way or the other; in one way, by not explaining things, concepts, etc., which are in themselves obscure or not known to the common man, but are assumed to be clear or known, or are not sufficiently explained; in the other way, by giving explanations about generally known subjects that are far too lengthy, whereby the sermon then not only goes unnecessarily into length and breadth and detracts from the subject, but also loses interest for the listener. Even a man like Reinhard is guilty of this latter error in his "Confessions," p. 153, when he writes: "The same remark applies to the first part of the seventh sermon of the cited volume (from 1799); for what is the use of the extensive explanations about nature, the genres and the origin of pious feelings? Since everyone knows what is to be understood by pious feelings in general, could not the most necessary be said briefly in a few periods? In the eleventh sermon of the second volume, the explanation of how God designates the inner value of creatures by external characteristics is likewise much too circumstantial and school -like, and one will soon feel, when reading it, that all this, without prejudice to thoroughness, could have been said much more naturally and briefly." This shows how necessary a hint regarding the explanations on both sides is.
Explanations can be taken in a broader and narrower sense. I n the broader sense, they have to do with such things of Christian knowledge, with important "doctrines of faith and morals", which are either completely unknown to the audience, or are only partially or insufficiently known, and to bring them to full unde rstanding through generally understandable presentation and description. This is absolutely necessary, so that the listeners are promoted in the knowledge. The explanations in the narrower sense are given by developing and explaining difficult concepts, which is also absolutely necessary for the growth of the community in knowledge. But these explanations are seldom given in the form of definitions, which are not explanations for the common man, because they remain incomprehensible to him, but in the form of paraphrases and explanations, through parables and images. The holy scripture itself, especially the Old Testament, gives an inexhaustible abundance of examples. - For a better understanding we add two exemplary explanations by Dr. Walther from his Epistel-Postille:
"What, then, is daily renewal? It is the continuation of the work of grace which the Holy Spirit has begun in a soul in justification by faith. It is the heartfelt diligence of a believing Christian to daily put off more and more the old man, that is, to get rid more and more of all error and to weaken more and more the sin in him, to curb it and to put it to death. It is the daily earnest effort of a child of God to put on more and more the new man, that is, to grow in all doctrine and knowledge and spiritual wisdom and experience, and to become more and more like the image of Jesus Christ in thought, word, deed and work, and to be transfigured into it.
This daily renewal of the Christian happens in this life still in great weakness, because also the born -again Christians have to fight with a still great corruption in themselves; but they fight against it and do not let it rule in them. Faithless people and hypocritical hearts also say that they are trying to become better and more godly every day, but they still let sin rule over them. Such a miserable hypocritical pretense is not the daily renewal of true Christians. When they wake up in the morning, this is really their first serious and heartfelt concern, which they present to God in prayer: "Oh, I wish I could be completely faithful today! This concern accompanies them to their work, this concern accompanies them to company and to solitude; and when evening comes, they look back on the day that has passed, with a broken heart they ask God to forgive all their faults, and sigh and plead for mercy and forgiveness through Christ, until they are comforted and can give themselves over to rest. There are enough Hypocrites who console themselves with the fact that they once had living experiences of divine grace, although they now pursue godliness with a dead heart like a trade; with true Christians Jesus Christ, the sun of righteousness, has not only once risen in the heart, nor has it completely set in it again, but shines daily in their souls with its heavenly, shining and warming rays. True Christians not only have daily new experiences of their sin, but also daily new experiences of the kindness of God and the power of His grace. Every day they repent anew, love anew, fight and overcome anew."
"Send yourselves into the time!" With this the holy apostle calls to you: O souls, when you hear God's voice in your heart, when God's word once proves its power to you, when you learn from it that it is not right with you, when it awakens your conscience that you feel your sins, and r ecognize with unrest of your heart that you do not yet have a gracious God in heaven; and if now, through the action of the Holy Spirit, a secret groaning and longing arises in you for grace, for mercy, for help for your souls, for deliverance from sin and for eternal bliss: oh, then send you, send you in time; then it is said: Today, today, when you hear God's voice, do not harden your hearts; then wait for no other convenient time, then the convenient time has come, seize it then, throw yourselves before God with your sorrow without hesitation, confess your sin to him and seize the grace offered to you in Christ in the Gospel, then the matter is done. But then only deal faithfully with the little spark of faith now kindled in your heart, remain in the use of the word and in the practice of prayer, and your now weak faith will soon become stronger and stronger, and nothing will be able to snatch you out of the hands of your merciful God.
Yes, yes, my dears, that is to send oneself right into the time, that is to seize the opportune time; when one recognizes one's misery from God's word, then immediately humble oneself, and immediately seek grace and accept grace; when God once knocks, immediately open to him; when God calls in the heart, immediately listen and follow. Oh, it is a great mercy when one is once found by God's word, recognizes his misery with restlessness of heart and asks for mercy! These are hours of gracious visitations of the Lord, who wants to bring our souls around and save them from all their ruin."
Note 2
Before we go into the details, let us take a look at the comprehensive suggestions that Reinhard makes for the treatment of historical texts in his "Confessions," p. 117 f., should be taken into account. Reinhard writes: "In a historical text, in my opinion, everything depends on the fact that one puts oneself completely on the scene of the story, visualizes the events with all their circumstances as vividly as possible, and lets everything happen in front of one's eyes. Therefore, one must consider each story in i ts connection with the preceding and following events; one must imagine the time and place where everything happened as precisely as possible; one must investigate the causes and inducements that each fact had; one must remember the simultaneous events and successes that are either connected with what one has before one, or give it light; one must finally, as the laws of correct historical interpretation require, understand everything in the spirit and sense of the time in which the narrated fact belongs.
If one now, after these general preparations, directs one's attention to the acting persons, one looks at the opinions, attitudes, desires and needs which they express; one observes the manners and the character which they reveal; one searches for the impressions and consequences which every word, every utterance, every step of the acting persons produces; one finally surveys the effect which such a success has had, in general and as a whole: then it is almost impossible that one should not come up with something which deserves further consideration and elaboration. (Cf. Cap. 3, Z 3, p. 44ff.). Now, in explaining the subject, consider the following in detail:
If the subject is a thing, and indeed a thing known in itself and often occurring in life, e.g., house, bread, water, sun, etc., then of course an explanation of it is not to be given first: House, bread, water, sun, etc., it goes without saying that an explanation of it is not necessary, as happened around the middle of the 18th century, when the mathematical method of demonstration of the philosopher Wolf in Halle was transferred to theology, and the people heard countless definitions from the pulpits, e.g. about the saying Matth. 8, 1 (But when Jefus came down from the mountain, the people followed him): A mountain is such an exalted place, etc.; going is as much as, etc.; a people is a certain multitude of people, etc. As if the people had not known what a people, a mountain, walking, etc. was! It is different, of course, when the thing is unknown and needs an explanation from old, no longer known customs. E.g. Jos.
17, 16. 18 ( iron chariots for all Cananites). Here, however, the explanation must be given that these iron chariots were war chariots, which were either made entirely of Iron consisted, or strongly with iron were shod, or certain with sickles (and scythes) were occupied. (Cf. Winer Reallex. 2, 771.) Without this explanation, the passage would remain incomprehensible. (2) If the subject is a person, not everything that can be said about that person may be said, but only as much as relates to the predicate, which i s usually easy to discern from the wording of the subject. Where would it lead, for example, if someone, after Gal. 3:13, dealt with the topic: "Redemption through Christ from the curse of the law," and then wanted to deal with the whole article about Chri st, His person, His threefold ministry, and His status. The wording of the subject shows him that he only has to include in the article that part of Christ's person that relates to the predicate:
"he has redeemed us," namely, that a God-human person was required for this, who according to human nature could be placed under the law and take its curse upon himself, but according to divine nature was able to bear the curse and transform it into a blessing. If the subject is a place, the location of the place must be described briefly from ancient geography, without all prolixity. For example, if it is about the saying Matth. 11, 23 (And you Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, you will be pushed down to hell), the subject Capernaum is to be briefly noted that it was a city in Galilee, which was located at the Jordan near the Sea of Galilee at the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, that the Lord had made it "His city" (Matth. 4, 13; 9, 1), performed more miracles there than in any other place and thereby raised it up to heaven.
If the subject is a time, it must be explained from the chronology. E.g. Dan. 9, 24-27 (Seventy weeks are appointed for your people and for your holy city, etc.). Here no ordinary but yearly weeks (each week is seven years) are to be understood, so that therefore the 70 weeks cover 490 years. These 70 weeks began with the 20th year of Artaxerxis Longomannus and were over with the 4th year after the death of Christ, because in the middle of the last week prophesies Daniel, Christ will be cut off from the land of the living. (Cf. Luther E. A., B. 32, p. 19S f., and B. 29, p. 70 ff.). If the subject is an action, its true nature is to be described. E.g. Ecclesiastes 3, 4 (Dancing has its time). Here dancing is the subject. What kind of dancing is meant? Not the French, worldly dance, but a jumping and leaping for joy, through which the joyfulness of the heart manifests itself outwardly.
Thus "David danced before the Lord with all his might," 2 Sam. 2:14, 16; cf. Jer. 31:4; Luc. 7:32. If the subject is a theological concept, be it from the doctrine of faith or morals, then a short but clear description is to be given; but only no mataphysical definition with indication of the genus, the specific difference, the material, formal cause, and so on. Reinhard rightly remarks, "that one makes all main concepts clear by definitions when working out a sermon, is indeed necessary; otherwise one is not powerful of one's material and cannot speak with the necessary definiteness. But this logical preliminary work does not belong in the sermon itself, where everything must be presented with comprehensible clarity without pedantic dissection." Definitions do not belong in the pulpit at al l, except perhaps for a few exceptions, but paraphrases are to be given in their place. E.G.: The word Joh. 8, 32 is to be explained: "The truth will make you free." Here the subject -truth' needs an explanation in order to be understood, but only not by definition, but by paraphrase: "This truth, which they were to know, stood before them in visible and tangible form, in Christ Himself, as He says of Himself in another place: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Christ himself is the truth and his word, which he proclaimed and which we have in the holy Scriptures.
The gospel which Christ, the King of truth brought down from heaven, that is the eternal and saving truth." ( Luther: The Truth is Nothing Other Than the Gospel of Christ Jesus, VIII, p. 901.) (7) If the subject is expressed in figurative terms, one must seek out the similarity between the thing signified and the thing signifying it, i.e., search for the characteristics inherent in the object used as a picture, and wisely apply them to the thing signified. As an example, consider the words of the Baptist John 1:29: "Behold, the Lamb of God, which bareth the sin of the world." In this saying the subject 'Lamb of God' is given in figurative expression; 'Lamb' is the signifying, Christ the signified object. What similarity is there between a natural lamb and Christ? I find out when I look for the characteristics of a lamb. These are that 1. the lamb is patient and innocent, or a gentle animal. It does no harm to anyone, but suffers everythin g patiently and allows itself to be taken without screaming and resisting; 2. that it proves to be very useful by giving everything it has, wool, milk, etc., to people for clothing and food; 3. that it is an obedient animal which willingly governed by the rod and voice of his Lord. These qualities are found in Christ and are spoken of in the ho ly scriptures. The first in the well -known passage Is. 53,
7. 9; the second Matth. 20, 28; the third Phil. 2, 8. In this way the image becomes
vivid and fully understandable to the listener. (Cf. Luther's words, B. 39, p. 69: "But one cannot understand this comforting and lovely picture any better, unless one goes into the creature... and learns diligently from it what the nature and quality of a natural sheep is..... Whoever pays attention to this will not only easily understand this and other parables in Scripture about the shepherd and the sheep, but they will also be sweet and comforting to him beyond measure" etc.).
Note 3
The predicate must be explained more thoroughly than the subject, as the nature of the predicate demands it of itself. Let us take as an example the word Joh. 8, 32: "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." The explanation of the predicate: The explanation of the predicate 'will make you free' must show from what the truth makes us free, namely from sin, death, the devil, hell and all evil, how it makes us free from these enemies and evils, what a glorious freedom this is, etc., as Luther briefly indicates in the words: "This is the freedom of the disciples of Christ who keep his word, that they themse lves may be free and safe from the devil, from sin, from death and from all evil. This may be and be called liberty, being sure and certain of eternal blessedness, having here and there a good cheerful conscience;
this may be and be called a noble, highborn, rich, and great lord." (B. 52, p. 356.) - In particular, note the following. If the predicate is expressed in actual words, it must be made clear, as Rambach says, "from the part of the teaching from which it is taken. E.G.: 1. Joh. 4, 16: God is love, the word love must be explained from moral theology. Joh. 4, 24: God is a spirit, the word spirit must be explained from pneumatology, but the explanation must be arranged in such a way that it is also comprehensible to unlearned listeners; because the pul pit is not the place where one should subtly philosophize about the nature of the spirit. (2) If the predicate is expressed in figurative words, the explanation must be done in the same way as for a figuratively expressed subject, i.e., the similarity must be sought. For example, the word of the Lord John 15:1, " I am a true vine," is to be explained in such a way that the essential characteristics of the vine are shown and demonstrated in Christ as a spiritual vine. Luther gives the essential characteristic s of the Vine and at the same time its application to Christ in the words: "This is a very comforting image and a fine, lovely prosopopeia (representation of something impersonal as a person), so that it represents to the eyes, n ot a useless, unfruitful tree, but the dear vine, which may not be delicious to look at, but still bears much fruit and gives the sweetest, sweetest juice; And he interprets all the suffering that shall befall both him and them, that it is nothing else than the diligent work and maintenance that a vinedresser or winegrower does on his vine and vines, so that it may increase well and bear much." (B. 49, p. 251 f.)
Luc. 1, 69 says: " He has raised up among us a horn of salvation. " To explain this statement, the meanings of the word "horn" must be looked up. Horn is now 1. in Scripture image of power and strength, e.g. Ezek. 34, 21; Mich. 4, 13; Jer. 48, 25; 2. it is a symbol of majesty and glory, Rev. 17, 12; 3. a picture of abund ance, because horns were used to store oil and other precious liquids, 1 Sam. 16, 1; 1 Kings 1, 39. Now if Christ is called a horn of salvation here and Rev. 5, 6 is described as a lamb with seven horns, we recognize that 1. great power and strength; 2. majesty and glory (Matth. 25, 31); 3. a great abundance of gifts of grace (Joh. 1, 16; Eph. 4, 10, 11; Ps.
68, 19) are attributed to Him. If both subject and predicate are expressed figuratively, then all the more care and caution is needed to make the expla nation quite clear. For example, when the apostle Rom. 6, 6 writes: ' our old man is crucified together with Christ '. In this statement, subject (our old man) and predicate (crucified) are figurative. The old man is the original sinful corruption that came into human nature through the fall of Adam. "The old man," says Luther, "is called not only the body, or the gross sinful works which the body commits with the outward five senses, but the whole tree with all its fruit, that is, the whole man as he was born of Adam, with body and soul, will, reason and understanding, which is still in unbelief, contempt of God and disobedience, both inwardly and outwardly. He is not called old because of his years; for he may well be a fresh, strong, young man without faith and spirit, who does not respect God, is stingy and pompous... but because he is still unconverted and has not become anything else at all, except as he came in sin from Adam. This is both a child of one day, and a man of eighty years." (XII, p. 1008.) - The predicate contains a twofold: 1. Christ is crucified; 2. our The old man is crucified with Christ. Between the crucifixion of Christ and that of the old man there is the following similarity: a) As a crucified man is deprived of all freedom, so also original sin is deprived of its dominion and freedom in this crucifixion;
b) As a crucified man is publicly presented to others in disgust, so also the old man is to be detested and all fellowship with him is to be avoided; c) As a crucified man still lives for a time, but slowly dies, so also the old man remains in the Christian, but he must be brought more and more to die. (Cf. Luther op. cit.) § Since additions are often attached to the subject or predicate, their explanation must also be diligently considered.
Annotation
If, as is often the case, there are additions in a statement, then one must first be clear about what they belong to. Thus, in the statement of the apostle 2 Corinth. 7, 10: "Divine sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, which no man repenteth of" (~ γάρ κατά θεόν λύπη μετάνοιαν εις σωτηρίαν άμεταμέλητον κατεργάζεται) the question arises, whether the addition άμεταμίλητον-unrepentant, belonged to μετάνοιαν, repentance, change of mind, or to σωτηρίαν, blessedness. Luther took this addition to belong, and therefo re translated it, "a repentance which no one repents," i.e., the divine sorrow works an unrepented repentance. Then in this saying there would be an antanaklasis, i.e.: a repetition of the same word in the opposite meaning.
Meanwhile the very position of άμεταμέλητον after σωτηρίαν shows that it is to be drawn to this latter word, thus to be translated: 'The divine sadness works a repentance to unrepentant blessedness' i.e.: this divine sadness works a repentance or penitence to a blessedness which is not subject to repentance. Rom. 1, 17 Paul writes: "The righteous will live by his faith" ( ο δε δίκαιος & πίστεως ζήσεται). The addition, from faith (έζ πίστεως) could in itself be drawn both to the subject, 'the righteous,' and to the predicate, 'shall live.' In the former case it would read: 'the righteous by faith shall live'; in the latter: "the righteous will live by faith".
The context, however, decides the relation to the predicate, as Luther translated: "the righteous will live by faith". In some cases it is not possible to determine with absolute certainty whether the addition belongs to the subject or predicate. For example, when it says Luc. 11, 17 is: "one house falls over the other" (χαιοίζο? έ "1 οΊχον πίπτει), the addition is understood by some as belonging to the subject, by others as belonging to the predicate. Thus Rambach remarks on this passage: "Here the question arises: where does the addition belong? Luther has related it to the predicate and gives it: Luther refers it to the predicate and gives it as 'one house falling over another'; but the addition is rather to be referred to the subject, in this way: "A house that rebels against a house falls away," i.e., if a family suffers from internal disunity, it cannot exist. That it must be explained in this way is indicated by Marc. 3, 25: 'and if a house is at odds with itself among itself, it cannot stand.'" We cannot agree with this view of Rambach. For even if the same statement is found in both passages, the idea is diffe rent, as it is expressed in Luther's translation.
Luther has quite rightly taken the addition literally: "house falls on house" to refer to the predicate in the sense: a collapsing building falls on the one next to it and thus also brings it down. The purpose of these additions, however, is to get to know the subject or the predicate more closely, depending on its nature; namely, either to distinguish the subject and predicate from others, or to put the excellence or finally the reprehensibility of the thing in question in the light. A few examples will make this clear. 2 Corinth. 4, 4 we read: "In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers," etc. Here the subject 'God' has the addition: 'of this world' and is distinguished from the true God by the same. - Phil. 4, 7 says: "The peace of God, which is higher than all reason" etc.
The addition 'of God' describes this peace as one that God Himself gives and distinguishes it from the peace of the world. - Rom. 10, 3 the apostle writes: "They (the Jews) do not recognize the righteousness that is before God." (αγνοούνται γ&ρ rfv τοϋ θεού δικαιοσύνην = for they do not recognize the righteousness of God), and distinguishes by the addition.of God' the 'righteousness' predicated here from the human. The latter, which men themselves strive to establish, is void and therefore reprehensible before God; the latter is wrought by God himself and is valid before him, as Luther, explaining immediately, translated it. When John the Baptist, Joh. 1, 29, says: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God", the addition of "God" not only distinguishes the subject "Lamb" from the paschal lamb of the Old Testament, but also indicates its excellence, which consists in the fact that it is the sacrificial lamb which, according to God's eternal counsel, takes the sin of the world, i.e.
the burden of sin and the punishment of sin of the whole world, upon itself, suffers and atones for it, and thereby frees the world from it. redeemed; the Lamb of God in the most actual and highest sense. - Revel. 12:9 we read: "And there was cast out the great dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." In this saying we find four different designations of the adversary of Christ and His Church: "the great dragon," "the old serpent," "the devil," and "Satanas," by which the nature and efficacy of this enemy is described as fully as possible. The first designation "the great dragon" serves to denote the great power and cruelty of the enemy, Ezek. 29, 3; Jer. 51, 34;
the second, in view of Gen. 3, 1 -5, 2 Corinth. 11, 3, points to the great cunning (Luther: "Great power and much cunning is his cruel armor," etc.); the third and fourth denote the fierce enmity with which he is filled against the faithful. For -devil', actually the evader, he is called as the accuser of the believers, Zech. 3, 1; Rev. 12, 10; 'Satan', the adversary, i.e.: the one who "deceives the whole world", Matth. 4, 10; Rev. 20, 3. 8. 10, and incites them to fight against the kingdom of God. These four additions therefore represent the adversary in his detestable form. Rambach still remarks concerning these additions: "To the additions also belong the epithets, which are:
a) Exegetical ones, which explain the nature and character of the thing, e.g. 1 Pet. 1, 18: "Know that you have not been redeemed with perishable silver or gold from your vain walk after the fatherly manner." Here the word 'walk' has two exegetical epithets; it is called 1. a 'vain' walk, because it lacks all true goods, and because it was a corrupt and sinful walk; 2. a walk 'after the fatherly manner', partly in a broader sense, insofar as it is 'propagated' from Adam with original sin, partly in a narrower sense, since the elders of the Jews are understood, but not the pious, but the ungodly, after whose example they judged themselves. b) Diacritics, which distinguish one thing that has the same name from another.
For example, Joh. 1, 18 Christ is called the "only begotten" Son of God to distinguish Him from the other children of grace. Rom. 12, 1 the worship of the Christians is called a "reasonable worship", in contrast to the unreasonable worship of the pagans and the worship of the Old Testament, which consisted of the slaughter of unreasonable animals. c) They can also be exegetical and diacritical at the same time. For example, since Christ is called the "true God" in 1 John 5:20, the epithet "true" 1. is a "true" epithet. The first is exegetical, a) in a metaphysical sense, because Christ possesses all the attributes that belong to the nature of God; b) in a moral sense, because His teachings, promises and threats are true; 2. a diacritical sense, because He is thereby distinguished both from the lying God of this world and from others who are called gods. 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.
§ 5
To fully explain a statement, it is not enough to state the thing denoted by the subject and predicate, but the connection of the subject with the predicate must also be proved.
Annotation
The statements at all are either affirmative (affirmative), or negative (negative). In the case of affirmative statements, it must be shown why the predicate is attached to the subject. Let us take the word 1 John 5:12 as an example: "He who has the Son of God has life. Why is it said here that he who has the Son of God has life? What is the connection between the subject ("he who has the Son of God") and the predicate ("he who has life")? The answer is: Such that the predicate is already given with the subject, because the essential, eternal Son of God is life (cf. Jn 1:4: "In Him was life"), is the origin of spiritual and eternal life, Jn 11:25. 26; therefore he who has the Son of God also has eternal life, thinking "such life is in His Son", v. 11.
The eternal life, of which the Christian becomes a part through faith, is one with the life that is in Christ. - Rom. 6, 7 Paul writes: "He who has died is justified from sin." We have here in "he who died" the subject, and in "he who is justified from sin" the predicate. Whoever has died' is not, as Rambach says specifically of the death of execution, "Whoever has suffered death for his crimes, which has been dictated to him ex sententia judicis," but rather is to be understood generally of physical death: He who has died (bodily) is justified from sin," i.e., he is actually absolved from sin, inasmuch as he, being dead, no longer serves sin, but is freed from its power by death. Cf. Luther on the passage: "This is said of all the dead. Whoever has died has paid for his sin and is allowed to He no longer dies because of it, for he no longer does evil works and sins. Thus, when sin in man is killed by the Spirit, and the body also, or the flesh with its sinful lusts, dies and ceases, man is now completely free from sin.
(A. IV, p. 152.) - 2 Thess. 2, 11 we read: "Therefore to them" (namely to those who have not accepted the love of truth, v. 10) "God will send strong errors, so that they will believe the lie. How can it be said of God that he, the holy and rig hteous, sends powerful errors to the despisers of his word, since these errors are something evil in themselves? To transform the active sending of God into a mere passive allowance on his part, as has been done by many interpreters of older and more recen t times, is nothing but a wordless rationalization and a very disrespectful attempt to master and school the Holy Spirit, as if he had not "thoughtfully set his words. No, God sends powerful errors to the despisers of his truth according to his righteous j udgment and thereby exercises retribution on the despisers. He punishes sin by sin and thereby proves himself to be the holy and just God. Luther therefore correctly remarks on these words: "God 's fierce wrath for the world's ingratitude and contempt of the divine word has been so horribly kindled that because they did not want to accept the dear truth for salvation, they had to believe lies for their eternal damnation. (V. II, P. 531.)
In the case of negative statements, one must show why what is contained in the predicate cannot be stated by the subject, but must necessarily be denied by it. The statement of the apostle Rom. 13, 10 can serve as an example: "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Why is it said of love (Subject) that it does no harm to its neig hbor? (Predicate). The reason for this statement lies in the nature of love. For "love," says Luther, "is the head, fountain and common virtue of all virtues. Love feeds, waters, clothes, comforts, asks, solves, helps and saves. What shall we say? Behold, he gives himself with body and life, with goods and honor, with all his strength, within and without, for the need and benefit of his neighbor, both enemy and friend, retaining nothing, lest it serve the other" (E. A. B. 8, p. 65). But if love is of such a nature that it can only do good to its neighbor, it cannot possibly do evil to him, to make him miserable and unhappy, to ruin him.
§ 6
If emphatic words occur in a statement, or if compound terms are contained in it, then these must also be developed and broken down into their parts.
Note 1
The emphasis of a word consists in the fact that with the basic thought of the same a secondary thought is connected, by which the word gains a special emphasis or special meaning. If such an emphatic expression or word is found in a statement, it must als o be clarified for the sake of its special meaning. Paul used such an emphatic expression in Gal. 3, 13: "But Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law" etc. The basic text reads, Χριατός ήμόί έξηγόρασεν £x της χατάρας τοΰ νόμου, i.e., "Christ hath redeemed or ransomed us (as captives were ransomed) from the curse of the law." Instead of the simple word 'deliver,' therefore, the apostle has used the emphatic 'ransomed,' in which there is connected with the fundamental idea of deliverance a secondary idea, by which two things are expressed, namely, 1. the manner of deliverance, which was effected by ransom, in that Christ gave Himself for us (Tit. 2:14; Eph. 5:25) or His blood as a ransom or equivalent for us (1 Pet. 1:18, 19), in order to bring us to Himself. 2. the right that Christ acquired through this redemption by means of redemption. For if he has bought us with his blood, we are his property, his servants, he our lord, whom alone we are bound to serve, but who can also do with us as he pleases. (S. Tit. 2, 14; explanation of the 2nd article: "I believe...Lord...that I may be His own " etc.). Peter uses a similar emphatic expression in 1 Ep. 1, 18: "Know that you have not been redeemed with perishable silver or gold from your vain walk," etc. 'Redeemed,' in the basic text: ίλυτρώ^τε, i.e., 'set free by a ransom, ransomed from bondage under a hostile power.' Cf. Luther, vol. 51, p. 366 f.
Rambach writes about emphasis: "Apart from the proper meaning, attention must be paid to the emphasis of the words and this must be examined with diligence.. The proper meaning of a word is the basic thought, which is usually connected with a word by usage and habit; the emphatic, however, is the secondary thought, which is sometimes added and combined with the basic thought, therefore such a word gets a special emphasis because of the abundance of thoughts. So Luc. 19, 41 the word εχλαυσε is more emphatic. as ϊδάχρυν Joh. 11, 35, because with the basic thought (since it is so much as shedding tears) still the thought is connected, how this happens, how the tears flowed out of the eyes of Christ, namely under many sobs and anxious movements of the breast.
This emphasis, however, is derived from various sources, primarily grammatical, rhetorical, and critical.
I. From grammatical sources. There arise all kinds of emphases with single words:
a) From the etymology or derivation of the word. In the case of simp le words, one must go back to the root word from which they originate, which often communicates to its derived words, in addition to the main idea, a secondary idea. For example, Romans 12:9, χΜώμενοι comes from όλλα, glue, and thus means: to be glued to the good; there, with the basic idea, namely, of clinging, is at the same time connected the secondary idea of the manner, which teaches how this clinging is constituted, namely, it is the firmest and most tenacious clinging. In compound words, an emphasis sometimes arises from the parts that form the word. Rom. 8, 19 the word άποχαραδοχία is found, a compound of ~~~, χάρα, head, and δοχάω, I expect. The basic idea is expectation, but not just any expectation, but the most eager expectation, such as is the expectation of those who expect something with their heads stretched forward and their eyes attentive. (The meaning of the word, which Luther translated as 'the anxious waiting of the creature', is therefore: the most tense expectation, whereby the head involuntarily bends forward. Cf.
Phil. 1, 20, where Luther translates the word: 'as I wait at last' and thus gave this expectation the secondary term of endurance). b) From various grammatical changes of the noun or predicate. As when a noun is substituted for an adjective, the plural for the singular, or the singular for the plural; also when all kinds of changes of persons, modes, tenses, etc. occur. Ephes. 5, 5 says: "You were formerly ~~~~~~, darkness." Here the noun stands emphatically for the adjective, consequently a judgment about the greatness of that darkness is connected with the basic idea, namely: you would have been as dark as the darkness itself, so that not even a spark of divine light would have been i n your mind. (Cf. 2 Corinth. 5, 21, 'sin,' - righteousness,' Gal. 3, 13, 'curse,' etc.) -Luc. 1, 45: ραχαρία η πίστευσασα, blessed is she in faith; hitherto Elizabeth had the Mariam but now she addressed her husband (?): blessed is she, namely Mary. (This example might not be tenable, rather the beatitude takes the form of a general sentence, because it becomes a prophetic speech).
2. from rhetorical sources, namely from tropes and figures . Here, however, one
must look at the speaker's affect, which links new secondary ideas with the words. Accordingly, the following occur here: a) Tropes that serve not only for the adornment but also for the weight of the speech. Rom. 13, 14 Paul writes: "Draw near to the Lord. Jesus Christ"; this is much more emphatic than if he had said, "Unite yourselves wi th Christ"; for he is compared to a garment that covers, protects and adorns a person. - 2 Corinthians 11:19: "Ye gladly put away fools, because ye are wise." Here is an irony that has the secondary thought of reproach, because they let themselves be thought wise, since they set a bad example of their wisdom in that they could get along so well with fools, since otherwise wise people have no pleasure in fools.
b) Figures. 2 Corinthians 6:2 is a beautiful anaphora: "Now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation. It serves not only as an ornament to the speech, but also as an emphasis; for since Paul prefixes the particle 'now' to every comma, he wants to encourage the believers all the more to make good use of the present time. - Rom. 11, 13: "O what depth!" An emphatic exclamation, which is much more emphatic than when he said, "It is a great depth," because the secondary thought of extraordinary admiration is added.
3. from critical sources flow also sometimes emphases, namely:
a) From the use of a word in the sacred and profane writers, since one must pay attention to the objects of which the word is used elsewhere, both in the sacred Scriptures and in other writers. E.g. Phil. 4, 7: "The peace of God φρουρήσει = protect your hearts." This word is used elsewhere of a garrison of soldiers placed in a city, either to keep the rebellious citizens in check or to protect the city against external enemies; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:32. From this it is clear enough that it is a military word, as also φρουρώ means a military garrison. This perception gives this saying a great emphasis. Furthermore 1. Pet. 5, 5 is found the word αντιτάσσεται, which Luther The word was translated as 'resists'. According to the use of this word by professional writers, it is a word used i n war and means to form a battle array against the enemy, so that the right wing of the army opposes the enemy's left wing and vice versa, from which the emphasis of the word can be seen.
b) From the allusion to an ancient, sacred or profane use. 1 Pet. 2, 24 reads, "Who our sin άνήνεγκεν Μ. τό ξόλον = carried up on the wood." It is seen here to refer to an ancient use in sacrifice, since the altar was raised from the ground, so that it was necessary to ascend by a stairway, hence the priest had to carry the sacrifice up and place it on the wood. - Likewise 1 Corinth. 9, 24: "Run therefore, καταλάβητε = that ye may seize it." In those fighting games of the Greeks, the conquerors themselves had to seize the crown that hung on high and snatch it to themselves with their hands, but not until it had been awarded to them by the judges. By this allusion the word gets a new secondary thought, consequently also a greater emphasis.
These are the most distinguished sources of the emphases. But for this emphasiological scrutinium an enlightened mind is required. Most of them flow from affect; but the holy affects of the men of God no profane man can understand. So also great wisdom belongs to it, because in general many excesses are committed in this matter, which cannot be avoided without wise moderation."
Note 2
If a word occurs in a statement that contains a compound term, the parts of which the term is composed must be singled out and explained individually. A compound term is the term of a thing whose parts can be clearly identified. For example, the concept of a house, kingdom, marriage, citizen, etc., is a composite one that consists of several different parts. If such concepts occur, they must be anatomized and explained according to their individual parts. Examples: Matth. 4^17, the Lord says, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." In this statement, the word "kingdom of heaven" is a compound term. In order to get a proper idea of what the kingdom of heaven is, I must break this concept down into its sub-concepts, and I find 1. the concept of the king, as the most noble person in the kingdom; 2. the concept of the under-holders, who are under the authority of the king; 3. the concept of the king, as the most noble person in the kingdom.
The concept of the bonds that bind the subjects to the king in his kingdom; these are partly laws that the citizens must obey, partly privileges that they enjoy. In explaining what the kingdom of heaven is, it is not eno ugh to stop at the general concept, namely, that it is the Christian church with all its goods and benefits, which Christ has acquired for it, but the concept must be broken down and considered according to the individual parts, namely, 1. the king, Christ, who, as God and man, has acquired this kingdom for himself by his blood, governs it by his spirit, and protects it against all enemies; 2. the subjects of this king, namely, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom, the people of the kingdom. The subjects of this king, namely all true believers from all nati ons called by the gospel, born again, etc.; 3. The bonds that enclose Christ, the king, and the believers, his subjects, which are partly healing laws, especially the law of faith (Rom. 3, 27) and love (Matth. 22, 36-40); partly the great benefits and privileges of the subjects, above all those of justification, sanctification and glorification. Luther: "Here one should first learn what the word 'kingdom of heaven' means, namely that it does not mean a kingdom on earth, but a kingdom in heaven, where God alone is King within. This is what we call the Christian church, which is here on earth.... So that in plain German the 'kingdom of heaven' means just as much as the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of the gospel and of faith.
For where the gospel is, there is Christ. Where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit and His kingdom, the true kingdom of heaven; and all who have the word and sacrament and believe, and abide in Christ through faith, are heavenly princes and children of God.... In such a kingdom we have life in hope and, according to the word and faith, are clean from sins and free from death and hell, without any lack of the old and rotten flesh." (B. 5, p. 178, cf. 14, p. 198 f.) From these words of Luther it is evident how he divided the term 'kingdom of heaven' into its parts and explained it. - Rev. 2, 26 the Lord says: "He who overcomes" etc.. This 'overcoming' is a compound term, which consists of three different terms. These are: 1. the concept of the enemies, namely Satan, the world and the flesh, which are connected with each other and must be overcome; 2. the concept of the struggle, because without struggle there is no victory or overcoming. To this fight belong the weapons the fighter has to use and the right use of these weapons (Ephes. 6, 11 ff.); 3. the concept of victory, that the enemy is defeated, his power is destroyed etc. - Some words express only a simple concept, but this often has different relations, according to which the same is to be considered. Thus it is said Rev. 2, 16:
"This says he who has the sharp, two -edged sword." This sword (the word of God, Is. 49, 2; Eph. 6, 17; Ebr. 4, 12) is called 'two -edged', either because it is directed against the enemies of Christ and His believers inside and outside the church' (s. Cap. 2, 15. 16 and 19, 15. 21), or because it kills and makes alive (Is. 11, 4; 2. Corinth. 2, 16), strikes the proud down, raises the humble. Luther: "The sun always shines, even though the blind do not see it, and the word of God is always healing, even though it is a poison and a stench of death to the wicked. (A. II, p. 90.) When it is further said that Christ has this sword, this 'having' can also be thought of according to different relations, namely that Christ has the same either at His side, in the scabbard (Ps. 45, 4), or in His mouth (Rev. 1, 16), or also in His hand (Joh. 5, 13), whereby the differences in the use of the sword are designated.
§ 7
After the statement contained in the text has been sufficiently explained, the proving arguments added to corroborate the statement must also be considered. That both the proving and the explanatory arguments are to be sought in the text in order to arrive at the necessary understanding of it has already been shown in Cap. 3, § 4, pp. 60 -62; here they come into consideration, as far as the interpretation of the text is concerned. The statement contained in the text is to be proven as true, the listener is to be convinced of its truth. In this way, the mind of the listener is to be enlightened, their knowledge promoted. We let Hüffell speak about this first, who writes: "Another means to enlighten the mind and to promote Christian knowledge are reasons and proofs. Reason is called the moment on which a truth is based, and the more numerous and concise these moments are, the more the truth is emphasized. To prove means to make something certain and that with reasons.
Now it is true that strict proof in Christian matters is not possible to the extent that complete evidence emerges; but the preacher goes as far as he can and only endeavors to emphasize his reasons as strongly as possible, or, in order to grasp the present subject at its root, he only endeavors to advance reasons for those empty declamations which are so frequent. Every matter about which the preacher speaks must be justified as clearly and strongly as possible; let every preacher memorize this principle and he will appear quite differently. At the same time, do not fear that the lectures will be thereby, as one is wont to say, become dry; Christian truth is never dry.
Now, as to the manner of reasons which the Christian preacher has to make use of, we call first the Scriptural proofs, or the deductions of truth from the Word of God. We place these first because they are based first of all on divine revelation, and are therefore certain, and because they also have a peculiar power over the believing mind. A simple Bible verse grips and overwhel ms wonderfully; even the not yet enlightened listeners are more stimulated by it than by other reasons, and the appropriate Bible verses in a sermon always sound like a voice from above. - Besides the scriptural proofs, however, there are those which deduc e the truth from the Christian consciousness of the listeners. These, too, are of great effect, the more so as the listeners are advanced in knowledge. One can also call these proofs the Christian proofs of reason. Thus, for example, the atonement through Christ's sacrificial death can be justified quite well by the fact that: b) that the justice of God is just as certain an absolute as holiness, and that c) a mediation initiated by God himself offers the only possible way out here, in order to do justice enough and to allow free space for grace on the other side. - But there are also proofs of experience, or deductions of truth from Christian experience, which, properly applied, come close to the proofs of Scripture. Whoever has once recognized in his own heart what Christianity grants from such a rich abund ance can soon be convinced, and even those who have not yet had such experiences will be won over by them; for these are facts which are taken as a basis here, and which can be perceived at any moment. Who, for example, can deny the true Christian higher w isdom, nobler sentiments and more worthy deeds and actions? Who cannot recognize in a truly pious mind the highest degree of human perfection attainable on earth? What, then, can be practically argued against Christianity?" (Being and Profession etc., p. 323 f.)
"As an orator in general," says Homil. Mag. 7, p. 348 f., "a Christian preacher in particular must be strong in proof. One can say: As the proof, so the sermon; if the proof is weak, the sermon will not be powerful either. Proof is the spiritual act by which the fact of certainty is brought about in us. The proof consists in setting before the listener, as it were, his signature, that is, his assent to a truth recognized by himself. The main proof of every sermon must be based on the unshakable foundation of the divine word. All Evidence from reason can only be of secondary service. Also, one should avoid using a formal syllogism in the sermon, as it had become the custom (more correctly the bad custom) around the middle of the last century after Wolf's method of demonstration. An example of this is given by G. F. Meier (Gedanken vom philosophischen Predigen, Halle, 1754). He says: I once heard the following demonstration from the pulpit: A man is bound to make himself perfect, consequently he must arrange all his free actions in s uch a way that they become means of his happiness, consequently he must perform actions which make him blissful, consequently he must perform actions which are good, consequently such actions which are according to the laws, consequently he must observe al l laws, consequently he must also observe the divine laws, consequently he must also observe all laws in the Bible, consequently man is bound for the sake of his own perfection to observe all laws which are contained in the holy scriptures. - There stood with me a man in a blue coat, who turned around. A precocious and learned being looked out of his whole countenance, and he spoke with an astonished applause: 'That was a syllogism!' - Apart from the rationalistic salbadery brought to light here, it would b e very wrong to want to develop the truths of divine word in a similar, syllogistic form on the pulpit."
But the preacher must beware of all spurious reasons in his presentation of evidence. Scriptural proofs become such when they are based on a false interpretation of biblical passages; experiential proofs when they are based on superstition and the like. All sham reasons are not only superfluous for the proof of truth, but also unworthy, for truth in itself is powerful enough to convince the listener without further additions, and the truthfulness and majesty of the divine word can only be impaired by such dishonest human means. The end never justifies the means. The first place among the scriptural proofs is naturally taken by those which are given in the sermon text itself. By drawing on these and using them to prove the proposition as truth, the preacher's argument is as faithful to the text as it is truly divine. The hearer must say to himself, "This is what the text says, this is what God, the Holy Spirit Himself, says to me; the Holy Spirit speaks to me in the text through the mouth of the preacher." Let us bring forward individual examples for explanation!
By the proving arguments, which are given in the text, the statement itself is presented as truth: it is therefore important to show the proving power of it. Matth. 5, 3 says the Lord: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." In this saying we have in the words: 'Blessed are they who are In the words: "for the kingdom of heaven is theirs" the proof for this statement is given. That the spiritually poor are blessed is proven by the fact that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. The statement results in the following syllogism: "To whom the kingdom of heaven belongs, the same is blessed; now the kingdom of heaven belongs to the spiritually poor: consequently the spiritually poor are blessed. - According to Matth. 25, 34 the Lord will say on the last day to those on his right hand:
"Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world", and according to v. 35. 36 as a reason for this: "For I was hungry and you fed me.... I have been a prisoner, and ye have com e unto me." In these works of those standing at His right hand, which He enumerates, the Lord does not indicate the cause why they should inherit the kingdom, but the marks of their faith by which they have become heirs of the kingdom. The 'because' is to be understood from the reason of knowledge, namely: 'That you stood in faith and became heirs through it, you made known by feeding me when I was hungry,' etc. Cf. Luc. 7, 47: "Therefore I say to you: She is forgiven of many sins, for she loved much" (= this is evident from the fact that she loved me much, v. 40 -46); Rom. 10, 10: "If one confesses with his mouth, he is saved", to which the Apology remarks:
"Paul speaks in this way that confession makes one saved, in order to show what kind of faith attains eternal life, namely the firm and active faith. But faith is not firm if it does not show itself in confession. So also the other good works are pleasing because of faith" etc. (Müller, p. 150.) In these words, Matth. 25, the Lord thus names the fruits and characteristics of the beatific faith in the individual works of love. The proof contained in them is therefore the following: In whomsoever the marks of true faith are found, he is an heir of the kingdom; in you these marks are present: so etc. - Rom. 5, 5 Paul writes: "But hope does not put to shame, because the love of God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit." That the love of God is poured into our hearts is given as the reason that our hope does not cause us to be put to shame. Thi s love is the foundation of our hope. Where love is, there is also the endeavor to do good to the beloved, and this endeavor lasts as long as love lasts. Since God's love is eternal, he can and will do us good without ceasing. Proof:
If God loves us, we ca n hope for all good things from him without fear of being put to shame. Of course, these proofs are not to be given in the form of syllogisms, but explanations.
§ 8
No small care must be taken to point out the explanatory arguments found in the text and to show what power to explain the statement is contained in them.
Note 1
Among the explanatory arguments: a) Parables, such as Ps. 118:12: "They surround me like bees, they dampen like a fire in thorns." b) Models, like Matth. 12, 40: "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so" etc.; Joh. 3, 14. 15: "As Moses was in the wilderness" etc. c) Examples like Jac. 5, 16. 17: "The righteous prayer is able to do much if it is earnest. Elijah was a man" etc. d) Testimonies, like Rom. 1, 17: "As it is written (namely Hab. 2, 4): "The righteous shall live by his faith." These testimonies, if they are biblical, like the one just mentioned from the prophet Habakkuk, also have the power of proof and not only the power of explanation.
e) Contrasts, like Eph. 5, 8: "For you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord"; 1. Pet. 2, 25: "For you were like sheep going astray, but now you are" etc. f) Conclusions, partly from the greater to the lesser, like Rom. 8, 32: "Who also spared not His own Son, but gave Him for us all, how shall He not with Him give us all things"; partly from the lesser to the greater, like Luc. 11, 13: "If ye then, being evil, are able to give good gifts unto your children, how much more?
Note 2
If parables or examples are found in the text, one must investigate how far they serve to explain or elucidate the subject in question. "It is," Luther says of the parables, "as it were, such a thing with them as with a painting, that one paints something before the eyes of the silly simple -minded, so that they may grasp and retain it all the more easi ly." (VIII, p. 2518.) For this reason, Christ himself used parables over and over again. In the case of parables and examples, the point of comparison must be determined first and foremost, and then everything that does not belong to the matter must be left out. The The point of comparison is partly already indicated in the text, but partly latent and must then be sought from the scopus and context.
Examples: Revelation 3:3, the Lord says to the angel of the church of Sardinia, "If thou shalt not watch, I will come up on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee." Here the point of comparison is the manner of coming, as indicated in the words 'like a thief'. As a thief comes suddenly and without courage, so Christ will come suddenly and without courage. Likewise 1 Thess. 5, 3: "When they shall say, There is peace, there is no danger, then destruction shall quickly overtake them, as the pain of a woman with child." (In 'quickly' point of comparison.) Cf. 2 Pet. 3, 10; Matth. 24, 27. - Ps. 11 8, 12 the singer says: "They surround me like bees, they dampen (extinguish) like a fire in thorns", and thus vividly describes the situation of the Israelite people right after their return from the Babylonian exile, how the small group of the returned was surrounded and threatened by the enemies. Here is the point of comparison, because it is not given. Luther gives it in part in the words: "The bee is an angry, fierce little animal; when it is angry, it sticks its stinger into its enemy and leaves him inside, regardless of the fact that it loses its life over it....". So are the enemies of Christ so vengeful and so hotly poured out, that before they perish therefrom they should not do harm, or be avenged, yet lose all grace for ever." If one further notes the concise expression 'surround me' and Deut. 1, 44: "and hunted you as bees do," the multiple point of comparison is clear. And in the words, "they dim, i.e.: they go out, like a fire in thorns," is the point of comparison: as the fire in thorns flares up violently, but quickly goes out, so violently did their enmity against me blaze up, but so quickly did it go out. - Cap. 7 the prophet Hosea reproaches the Ephraimites for their hypocrisy with their days of repentance and prayer and then says in the 16th verse: "They convert, but not rightly, i.e.: not to the Most High, but are like a false (deceitful) bow." Also here the point of comparison must be found, because it is not given, and this is after comparison with Ps. 78, 57: As a bow, whose string is loose, does not drive the arrow put on it to the goal, so also the resolution of the hypocrites is too loose, too cold and weak: they take a run to repentance in outward penitential exercises, but do not reach the goal, to true conversion to the highest God.
As in the case of parables, so in the case of examples, attention must be paid above all to the point of comparison in order to explain the subject matter. Examples: Matth. 12, 40 the Lord says to the scribes and Pharisees: "Just as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale. Belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the midst of the earth." Here Christ limits the likeness to Jonah himself to the time that the prophet spent in the belly of the whale and that he, Christ, will himself spend in the earth, i.e. rest in the grave, so that the three-day period forms the point of comparison. - Joh. 6, 48-50 the Lord says to the Jews: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the desert and died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, that whoever eats of it may not die." The manna in the wilderness, as Christ shows by this comparison, was a model upon Him, the bread of life. As God gave the manna in the wilderness to sustain temporal life for the children of Israel, so Christ is given by God to bring eternal life to the world. We recognize this point of comparison partly from the scopus of the speech, in which the Lo rd wants to bring the Jews to the right knowledge of his person, to faith in him, through which they shall become partakers of eternal life;
partly from the context, since Christ calls himself the living bread from heaven. - If there are several points of comparison in a simile or model, these must be pointed out in particular in order to make the thing that is to be explained fully comprehensible. Examples: Mal. 4, 2 it says: "But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise." In these words the prophet calls the future Messiah the sun of righteousness, Jer. 23, 6; Joh. 1, 9; 8, 12 and compares His appearance in the flesh with the rising of the sun. What is the similarity between Christ and the sun? 1. As among all the heavenly bodies there is only one sun, so among all men Christ is the only mediator between God and men, 1 Timothy 2:5. 2, 5. 2. as the sun is the most excellent of all the heavenly bodies, so Christ has the first place in all things, Col. 1,
18. 3. as the sun is the inexhaustible source of light and splendor, so Christ is the
light of wisdom and the splendor of glory, Col. 2, 3; Heb. 1, 3. 4. As the sun gives light and life in uninterrupted motion, so Christ is ever active for the salvation of men, Heb. 7, 24. 25. - Is. 64, 6 the repentant Israelites confess: "We are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an unclean garment." In these words, they compare themselves to lepers, who were the most unclean of all in the Old Testament. Now the individual points of comparison between leprosy and sin are as follows: 1. As leprosy has its origin within, in the blood, and then also
2. as leprosy spreads over the w hole body and corrupts it, so sin spreads over the
whole man and corrupts all his powers of body and soul. 3. (3) As leprosy was contagious, so sin is contagious. (4) As leprosy was hereditary, so sin is hereditary from generation to generation. (5) As lep rosy was incurable by human art and medicine, so sin cannot be overcome by human power and effort. In the case of examples, testimonies, contrasts and conclusions, the evidential value of the same must be clearly shown. What Luther wrote in B. 63, p. 354, applies to the examples: "These make the speech clearly understood and much easier to retain; otherwise, where the speech is heard without example, how just and good it always is, it does not move the heart so much, is not so clear and is not retained so firmly; therefore it is a very delicious thing about the histories. Thus, the apostle uses the example of Abraham in Romans 4 to prove the two closely related propositions that he made from v. 21 of chapter 3:
1. that man is justified by faith alone, and 2. that this justification is granted to
Gentiles as well as to Jews, since Abraham attained justification by faith before he received circumcision. And this example of Abraham was all the more striking, because his opponents especially appealed to Abraham f or their works righteousness. In order to prove which power the testimonies have to explain, it must be shown what and how they are supposed to explain. Paul cites Rom. 4, 6: ("According to which also David says" etc.) the testimony of David for justification by faith, namely his statement from the 32nd Psalm: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom God imputes no sin. What does David want to explain with this testimony? That works are excluded from justification. How does he prove this? By saying, David pronounces the beatitude of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works; for he says, "Ble ssed are they," etc. Therefore we conclude: Those who have sins lack good works; those who are justified have sins, consequently they are justified without works.
In the case of contrasts, the power of the contrast must be shown. When the apostle Rom. 3, 28 says: "Therefore we hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone", he contrasts justification by faith with justification by the works of the law. The one excludes the other necessarily. For he who is justified by the works of the law has the ground of justification in himself; but he who is justified by faith has the ground or cause of justification in the merit of another. If, therefore, the former, justification by works, i s denied, the latter, justification by faith, is proved, because two mutually exclusive opposites cannot coexist. Therefore Luther rightly added the exclusive particle "alone," although it is not found in the basic text. (S. Luther, B. 65, p. 109 ff.).
In the case of conclusions, the strength of the conclusion must also be proven. Such a conclusion is found in Rom. 5, 10: "If we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son while we were still enemies, we shall be saved through His life, if we have been reconciled. In these words the apostle draws a conclusion from the lesser to the greater: for if Christ by his death caused his enemies not to perish, much more by his life will he cause his friends to be preserved.
§ 9
If there is any conclusion of the holy author in the text, the force of it is to be presented convincingly to the listeners.
Annotation
Whoever is more familiar with the letters of the apostle Paul knows that the apostle often uses a conclusion or a "syllogism" in them. Since the Holy Spirit wanted to act with men through men, he also lowered himself into human relations; when he gave the apostle the things and words he was to write, he did not paralyze or bind his reason, but rather enlightened it, guided it in its conclusions and made it infallible. If such apostolic conclusions occur in a text, then the actual conclusiveness of them must be shown. Examples: Paul concludes Gal. 3:18, "If the inheritance were acquired by law, it would not be given by promise. But God gave it freely to Abraham by promise." In this saying, the individual words must first be briefly explained so that the hearers may get a proper concept of the same. By "inheritance" are to be understood all benefits in the kingdom of grace and glory, which are called an "inheritance" because they are inseparably connected with filiation and are bestowed upon us according to the pleasure of the heavenly Father, without any merit of our own.
Becoming. Law' is the divine prescription of what we are to do and not to do; and to 'acquire' something through the law means: to obtain a right to claim certain goods by fulfilling the divine commandments. The 'promises' are the gospel. To 'acquire something through promises' means: to receive the goods in the kingdom of grace and glory through the gracious promises of God as a gift, so that any right of man to them through merit is completely excluded. From this now follows the conclusion: 'If the inheri tance comes from the law, it does not come from the promise.' This conclusion is based on the contrast between law and gospel. The law demands the fulfillment of our duties, the gospel offers us benefits. If the law and the gospel are in exclusive oppositi on, the one necessarily cancels out the other, and one effect cannot have two mutually exclusive causes. See Rom. 11, 6. cf. Luther's words in his "Ausführl. The difference is in broad daylight, when everyone sees that the law is much different from the promise. And even though natural reason is a very blind, foolish fool, it must nevertheless confess that much is another thing, that it promises something rather than demands something from someone, or that it gives something rather than receives something f rom someone. If a horse had reason and could speak, it would have to say that much is different when the stable master gives it food, than when he sits on it and spurs it on to run or pull. Therefore the law and the promise, as has often been said, are as far apart as heaven and earth. The nature of the law is that it wants something from us and says: Do this, do that; but the promise gives us something, that is, it proclaims what God has given us through Christ, namely, eternal blessing, etc. From this it follows that we obtain the inheritance, that is, the blessing, not through the law, but through the promise. (Berl.
p. 422.)
1 Cor. 15:17 says the apostle: "But if Christ is not risen, then your faith is vain, and you are still in your sins. " The first par t of this statement: "But if Christ is not risen," is clear in itself; but the last part, which is the main point here: "If ye are yet in your sins," needs explanation. Sin has a twofold power, namely, one that controls man and one that condemns him. With regard to the former, "to be in sin" means nothing other than to be under the dominion and bondage of sin and to have to obey it, Rom. 6:20; with regard to the condemning power, however, "to be in sin" means to stand before God as a sinner worthy of cursing and condemnation and to have to suffer the just punishment of sins. How does it follow, then, that if Christ had not been resurrected, we would still be would be under the dominating and condemning power of sin? Answer: Christ had undertaken to take away the power of sin, death, the devil and hell through his work, Hof. 13, 14; but if he had not done this, he would have succumbed to these infernal powers himself and, like the other sinners, would have been conquered by them;
consequently, even those who believe in him would still be under the dominion of sin. Christ had also taken our guilt and punishment upon Himself, Jos. 53, 5; Joh. 1, 29, to pay and suffer it in our place; if He now remained in the grave and death, this would be a sign that He had not completely paid our debt, had not completely suffered our punishment, consequently we who b elieve in Him would not be freed from the condemning power of sin through Him, but would have to suffer the punishment of it ourselves. Luther: "If the resurrection were nothing," he says, "you would all still be in your sins, both you and all who have fal len asleep in Christ, and Christ would not help you anywhere. For what would you gain by preaching and believing that you were redeemed from sins and justified by his resurrection, if such a resurrection were nothing, and if, having been redeemed from deat h, you should not rise again and live? Would it be all in vain that you and all Christians from the beginning were baptized into it, heard the gospel, and so lived as Christians who had forgiveness of sins through their Lord, and yet warred no more than the heathen and unbelievers, and rushed on like cattle, which are nothing after death."
Rom. 8, 31. 32 the apostle writes: "If God is for us, who can be against us? Who also spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all; how shall He not with Him give us all things?" The force of this conclusion from the greater to the lesser is based on the following argument: He who did not deny his enemies the most precious thing he had, will much less deny his friends the lesser. Now God has given to his enemies the most precious thing, namely his Son, consequently he cannot withhold from us the much lesser.
§ 10
When interpreting the text, the context must not be ignored either, as it often sheds light on the whole text as well as on individual words and expressions of it.
Note 1
A distinction is made between context in the narrow sense, in the broader sense, and in the broadest sense. Context in the broadest sense is defined partly as the The term "parallelism" is understood to mean the whole of Scripture, or the book from which the text is taken, and t he whole system of Scripture, i.e. everything that is found in the preceding and following biblical writings and belongs to the complete explanation of the subject of which the text deals, in short: the whole parallelism of Scripture. If, for example, the text Isa. 53, 10 (If he gives his life for a guilt offering, he will have seed and live long) were taken, in which a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ is contained, then all earlier and later prophecies of the same, such as Gen.
3, 15; Ps. 16, 10; Hos. 6, 2; 13, 14; Mich. 2, 13; 2, 19; Matth. 20, 19 and others. - To the context in the broader sense belongs everything that belongs to the whole matter in what immediately precedes and follows, the part of Scripture from which the text is taken. If one had to explain the saying Rom. 10, 4 (Christ is the end of the law, he who believes in him is righteous), then the part of the Epistle to the Romans, which includes Cap. 9, 10 and 11, would have to be considered as context in a broader sense, since in these three chapters the causes are explained why the Jews did not demand true righteousness. If a text from the 7th chapter of the 1st epistle to the Corinthians were to be treated, then the whole chapter would have to be considered, because in it some questions concerning marriage and virginity are treated. - The context in the narrower sense deals only with the verses preceding and following the text, which must necessarily be added to the text in order to recognize the logical sense of the text words. This is the one that comes into consideration here.
Note 2
Without paying attention to the context, often not only the actual meaning of the text, intended by the Holy Spirit, is not recognized, but also a completely foreign meaning is imposed on it, i.e. false exegesis is done. Let us take as an example the words Is. 1, 5 and 6 (The whole head is sick - yet is it soothed with oil). How often these words are cited as proof of the unfathomable ruin that came into human nature through the Fall! And yet Isaiah does not speak of the original sinful destruction, but of the miserable condition of the Jewish people as a result of the divine judgments that came upon them. This is clear from the immediately preceding words: "What more can be done to you, since you only increase your deviation? As a result of these wrathful judgments of God, the whole Jewish people looked like a bruised, mangled human body. If further the word Is. 64, 6: "We are all like the unclean ones" etc., as it is not seldom used is explained by the righteousness of the born-again, this also obviously contradicts the context, because according to this, it is the Jews who have been struck by the judgment of wrath who now declare their former outward righteousness to be dung and filth. (See vv. 9-12.) These examples show how necessary it is to pay attention to the next context with all diligence in order to reach the right understanding of the text. Compare the saying Marc. 3, 24: "If a kingdom is at odds with itself, it cannot stand," where the context begins with the 22nd verse and ends with the 27th verse, and Marc, 6, 4: "A prophet is nowhere less valid than in his homeland and at home with his own," where the context to be considered is from vv. 1 -6. Not infrequently one recognizes from the context the reason for the words of the text. Thus we read 2 Sam. 7, 11 that the Lord God makes David say, "The Lord will build you a house."
The reason for these words is found in the previous 5th verse, in which David announced his intention to build a house for the Lord. Then the Lord told him through Nathan the prophet: 'Not thou shalt build me a house, but I will build thee', i.e.: The Lord will establish for you in your family a lasting and eternal kingdom, that is, the kingdom of the Messiah. S. v. 12. 13. Cf. cap. III, § 3, P. 49. When comparing the context, special attention must be paid to the connecting particles by which the text is connected to the preceding one. This is especially true of the textbooks of sacred Scripture, such as the epistles of the apostle Paul, in which almost all verses are connected to the preceding ones by copulative, causative, conclusive, adversative, etc. particles. The same is true of the epistles of the apostle Paul, in which almost all verses are connected to the preceding ones like links in a chain. Just look at the 8th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. "From this it is evident," writes Rambach, "that he (Paul) does not demand blind faith from his readers, but proves all that he says and indicates the most concise causes of it.
V. 12 is called αρα δυν. Previously he had asserted and proved the freedom of
believers from damnation. From this he derives the pedantic conclusion that because the Spirit of God already dwells in you and will also make your mortal bodies alive at this time, you are bound to li ve not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Out of benevolence come duties." (Explanations on his Inst. Herm, sac., p. 505.)
Note 3
But as the context often reveals the logical meaning of the whole text, so also the meaning of individual words and expressions in it. 2 Corinthians 12:9 Paul says: "Therefore I will most gladly boast of my weakness." Of which Is the apostle talking about weakness here? Luther gives the answer in the words: "What do you think I love you for, dear Paule? My power cannot be mighty, because only in your weakness. Summa, you have to be weak, you have to suffer, sigh and complain, be strong, for your own good, so that you may finally conquer with suffering and strife and become a great apostle. If you will not be weak, then my power has nothing to do with you; if I am to be your Christ, and you in turn my apostle, then you will have to rhyme your weakness with my power, your foolishness with my wisdom, my life with your death. And that the apostle speaks of his weaknesses in his suffering, but not of sinful weaknesses, is clearly shown by the context. For he speaks both in the preceding, Cap. 11, 23 st, and in the following, Cap. 12, 1 0, of his sufferings, temptations and persecutions for Christ's sake, and says v. 10: "Therefore I am of good courage ( εΜοχώ έν άα&ενείαις = I am well pleased with infirmities), which the apostle could not say if he spoke of sinful infirmities, for of these the Christian has an abhorrence. - As another example is offered by the expression Luc.
1, 78: "There hath visited us the going forth (ανατολή) from on high." Now the word ανατολή denotes Matth. 2, 1. 2. 9. etc., Rev. 21. 13; 7, 2, the east country, while it is used Matth. 24, 27 of the appearance of the lightning, and the Septuagint, Zach. 3, 8, translated the Hebrew zemach (Luther: growth) as ανατολή. So also the word.aufgehen' is used in the natural sense in German when we say: the sun, the seed rises.' Now what is to be understood by the expression 'going forth from on high' in this passage, Luc. 1:78, is shown by the 79th verse: "That He might appear to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death," namely, that the promi sed Messiah appeared as a brightly shining star, as an outgoing sun on earth. Cf. Isa. 9, 1. 2., 60, 1-4 and others.
§ 11
Since all the words of the holy authors of Scripture flowed from the most sacred affect, this too must be well observed in the explanation of the text and vividly set before the listeners.
Note 1
The authors of the individual books of the holy scripture were just as conscious as will-less tools of the holy spirit. They wanted to write and were conscious of what they wrote and spoke. Luc. 1, 1. 4; Ap. 1, 1. 2; Rom. 15, 15 and others. If they were vividly aware of the things they wrote, they were also inwardly moved by them. "They may write what they want, the holy writers, but we must always imagine them as being in the highest affect. In each of their words burns a heavenly fire, blows a spiritual glow that can revive and ignite a dead heart. At times this holy affe ct, this inner warmth, this joyfulness wrought by the spirit becomes apparent even to the dumbest eye." (Hom. Mag. 8, p. 242.) Yes, how often do we find the individual affects mentioned in the holy scriptures, as anger, joy, sadness, hope, fear, hatred, de sire and so on. Just look at the words of Paul, 2 Corinthians 7:11: "Behold, the same thing that ye were divinely afflicted, what diligence hath it wrought in you, besides wrath, anger, fear, desire, zeal, vengeance." But if the apostle's word produced these affects in the readers, should he have written them without any affect? The preceding verses, especially 3 and 4, testify to the contrary. Furthermore, compare the passages of Scripture in which the joyfulness (Luther actually always wrote joyfulness as a translation of the Greek παρρησίας, which is not joyfulness, but the boldness arising from faith, fearlessness in speech and action, in the whole appearance) is mentioned, with which the apostles appeared and spoke, as Apost. 4, 13. 29. 31; 2. Cor. 7, 4;
Eph. 6, 19. 20 and others, we can see from which affect these chosen instruments of the Lord spoke and wrote. The interpreter must necessarily recognize this emotion, from which the words of the text flowed, if he wants to understand them completely. If possible, he must put himself in the author's frame of mind in order to be a correct interpreter of his words. This is easy to prove. Every speech is the expression of our thoughts; our thoughts, however, are always connected with a certain affect, which we, like the thoughts, reveal through the living speech; yes, not only through the speech itself, but also through the tone, the raising and lowering of the voice, the modulation, the gestures, the movements of the body, the facial expression, the facial expression and the gestures of the giver. And the more the affect, the inner mood of the speaker increases, the more lively, especially if the affect is of a joyful nature, his speech becomes, the more his whole body, all the nerves and parts of it, come int o action. If we heard the apostles and prophets themselves speak, we would understand many of their words better, their affect would confront us in the lively speech, and thus their thoughts and words would become clearer to us. But since we do not have this advantage, but only their written word, it is difficult in many cases to ascertain with certainty in every text the affect in which the same has been expressed.
is written. How difficult this is sometimes, just a few examples: Gen. 3, 22 God says: "Behold Adam became like our one". Some commentators interpreted these words as ironically spoken, as if God had said: Behold, Adam has become like our one, yes, he has become like the devil! But should the merciful God have scoffed at such a fallen, wretched man! Keil rightly remarks on this passage: "The word of Jehovah: "Man has become like our one.... to know good and evil," contains no irony, as if man had raised himself to autonomous position like God: for 'Irony over one unhappy deceived soul harbors Satan indeed, but not the Lord.'" Others supposed that these words, spoken out of pity and compassion, read, "Alas, Adam has been as our one, has been like us, has borne our image, but bears it no more." Still others understand it as an exclamation of joy, because God accepted the fallen but penitent man again to grace and made him skirts of skins, which were a sign of the clothes of salvation and the innocence of Christ, so he was again pleased with Adam and Eve in these typical clothes and therefore exclaimed: "Behold, Adam is become again as ours, even as my only begotten Son, in whose innocence and righteousness he was clothed. (J. J. Rambach, E. F. Neubauer a. A.) So the question is whether Cain spoke the words Gen. 4, 13: "My sin is greater than that it might be forgiven me" in despair, or in defiant insolence (asking: "Is my sin greater than that it might be forgiven me?"), or complaining about the greatness of the punishment, or repentant ("My sin is greater than that I might dare to lift up my eyes"). If we could hear Cain himself, the tone in which he spoke these words would give us certainty. The most appropriate explanation seems to be (sin understood as guilt of sin): 'My guilt of sin is greater than I am able to bear', so that Cain does not complain about the greatness of the sin, but only about the severity of the punishment, which is indicated by his words in the 14th verse.
Nevertheless, the preacher must make every effort to investigate the affect, because the knowledge of it is of great use to him. One learns," writes Rambach, "1. to understand the meaning of words more deeply, if one penetrates with the eye of understanding into the innermost heart and the affect of the speaker and looks at the affect as the source of the thoughts and words. (2) Speech is made more palatable and lively by this, for affect is, as it were, the soul of speech. If, for example, the words of Isaiah, "A child is born to us," etc., Cap. 9, 6, are seen as signs of the joy that he felt when he spoke in the If we are spiritually among the spectators of the newborn Jesus, who have been made partakers of this salvation, these words will sound much more pleasant and have a much livelier meaning than otherwise. This contemplation of the sacred actions of the holy writers is at the same time a channel through which a spiritual inclination can also be directed to our actions. For we must seek to profit not only from the words but also from the actions of holy men, and must therefore also read the Scriptures for their sake, so that our disorderly actions may be purified and our hearts filled with good and holy actions. To this end, the contemplation of the actions of the holy writers contributes much.
Note 2
The emotions are partly openly revealed in the texts, partly they are hidden in them. When the apostle Col. 1. 27 writes: "Now I rejoice in my suffering, that I suffer for you"; Philem. 7: "But we have great joy and comfort in your love"; Gal. 1, 6: "I marvel that you are so soon turned away"; 2 Cor. 11, 3: "But I fear lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve with his mischievousness, so also your senses be moved from simplicity in Christ", the first and second passages clearly express the emotion of joy, the third that of wonder, and the fourth that of fear. Cf. Ps. 13, 6 (joy); Is. 16, 9 ff; Jer. 14, 17; Mich. 1, 8. 9 (great sorrow and sadness); 2. Kings. 8. 11. 12; Ps. 57, 8; 119, 131. 136; Eph.
6, 19. 20 and others. It is different with texts in which the affect is hidden and can only be fou nd by a closer examination of them, often with the help of the context. In such cases, one recognizes the affect 1. either from the nature of the thing spoken of in the text; or 2. from the unusual construction of the speech; or 3. by comparing the parallels; or finally 4, from the circumstances of the time. Examples of 1 Rom. 6. 1. 2 Paul writes: "Shall we persevere in sin, that sin may become the more powerful? Far be it from that!" The apostle undoubtedly wrote these words in disgust. For if someone draws a despicable consequence from his statement, then he takes exception to it with disgust. Cf. Rom. 3, 8. - Is. 9, 6 (joy over the great gift); Amos 3, 8 (the roar of a lion causes fear);
Ps. 6, 1. Examples of 2. 2 Sam. 18, 33 David exclaims: "My son Absal om, my son, my son Absalom! Would to God that I had to die for you! O Absalom, my son, my son! " The threefold repetition of the name Absalom and the fivefold exclamation 'my son' testifies to the affect of the deepest pain and unspeakable sadness, combined with the most burning desire to have him back. In such situations, the mind is affected to such a degree that it cannot get away from the object with which it is occupied, cannot tear itself away from it, which is why the words are torn off and come over the lips intermittently. Ps. 12, 1: "Help Lord, the saints have decreased," etc. (dismay at th e small number of saints); Ex. 5, 17:
"Pharaoh said: you are idle, idle you are!" (Grimness and anger.) Examples to 3. When Paul writes Romans 12:1: "I exhort you, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice," etc., we d o not see directly from these words out of what affection they are written. But let us look at the parallel. 1 Thess. 2, 11: "As you know that we, as a father to his children, have admonished and comforted and testified to every one of you," we see that all the admonitions of the great apostle flowed from fatherly love. Cf. 2. Cor. 2, 17 and Phil. 3, 18; 2. Mos. 20. 21 and Ebr. 12, 21 (In which mood Moses entered the darkness). Examples to 4. How the circumstances of the. Ps. 37,25 shows how the circumstances of the time reveal the affect: "I was young and became old" etc. David wrote this psalm in his old age, when he had already experienced much cross and suffering. Therefore, he describes in it the mystery of the cross and the consolation that he had experienced; this is where the affect comes from. Cf. Ps.
51 (David's prayer of repentance after his fall). In general, if you want to recognize the effect, note that the Holy Spirit speaks to us humans in a human way through the authors of the holy scriptures, Rom. 6, 19, therefore the speech of the holy scriptures must be analogous to human speech. Therefore, the speech of the holy scripture must be analogous to human speech with regard to the affect. When it says, for example, Isa. 63,8: "They are my people, children, who will not be false," these words are a fatherly apology of God, which one understands when one imagines a physical father who receives bad news from his son, but does not want to believe it out of love and trust in him. Cf. 1 Sam. 10, 12: "Who is their father?"
(Contempt). Now the better the preacher has recognized the affect out of which his words of the text have flowed, the more completely he has let this affect work upon him and produce the same in himself, the more textual, lively and fresh will be his presentation of the circumstances of the text. be. It is precisely through this, especially in the case of historical texts and parables, that it takes on life; it becomes new when it is given to the listener in such a way. The listeners are transported to the scene of the story and become most vividly interested, while otherwise t he whole presentation becomes dry, dead and uninterested. Cf. 2, p. 226 f. As an example, Rambach cites the Gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican on the 11th Sunday after Trinity: "The Pharisee stood with the affect of a carnal confidence in his good works, no doubt in a place where he could be seen by many and observed and admired in his humble gestures and gesticulations. The words: "or also like this publican" he spoke with ironic affect and contemptuously. The tax collector stood at a distance, as one who is far from God, and did not want to lift his eyes to heaven, " i.e., in the emotion of shame he did not consider himself worthy to look at heaven, because he had not had any heavenly sense at all. He beat his breast' as the source of all wickedness, as if he wanted to say: that is where the harm is, that is where it hurts him, and that is where God has given him a blow, etc. The tax collector went down justified, calm in his conscience, with a new holy resolution to live his life in a completely different way." Chrysostom, in a homily on the value of humility, says of the Pharisee and tax collector: "I thank thee," said the latter, "that I am not like the rest of men, like the robbers and the unjust, or even like that tax collector there." O what foolis hness! Not only did the arrogance of this Pharisee rise above the whole human race, but he also foolishly mocked the tax collector who was standing not far from him. But what did the latter do? He did not repay dishonor with dishonor, was not upset by the insult, but bore it all with composure. But the arrow of the enemy became for him a remedy of recovery, the disgrace brought him glory, the accusation the wreath of honor."
(Chrysostom - Postille v. Hefele, p. 390.) How vivid becomes the speech by this rep resentation of the affecte! However, every care must be taken not to attribute a false affect to the speeches of holy men driven by the spirit of God. It would be strange fire on a holy altar if one were to take the words of the Lord, Proverbs 1:26, "So will I laugh at your calamity and mock you when it comes that you fear," as being spoken in glee. S. the annot. 1, p. 257 from Gen. 3, 22.
§ 12
Once the true meaning of a text has been stated in this way, it can sometimes be confirmed and explained in various ways.
Note 1
Parallelism serves primarily to confirm and explain the meaning derived from the text. As is well known, parallel passages are those passages of the Holy Scripture which agree with the text either in words or in substance. These are called verbal parallels, these real parallels. The latter are considered here especially as a means of confirming and explaining the correct meaning of the text. Examples: Peter writes in 1 Ep. 4, 12: "Beloved, do not let the heat that comes upon you alienate you, as if something strange were happening to you." In the Greek the apostle uses the word πύρωσις, which in the proper sense denotes the heat which arises from fire, but figuratively a severe affliction, which is called heat because it causes burning pain and anguish in the heart and purifies believers from the dross of sin. This can now be further proven and confirmed by parallels. Such are: 1 Pet. 1:7: "That your faith may be found righteous, and much more precious than the gold that perisheth, which is tried by fire"; Ps. 66:10: "God, thou hast tried us, and purified us, as silver is purified"; v. 12: "We are come into fire and water"; Zech. 13:9: "I will bring the third part through the fire, and purify it as silver is purified, and sweep it as gold is swept."
2 Sam. 7:12, 13 God says to David, "Now when thy time is fulfilled for thee to lie down with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall come out of thy womb, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will confirm the throne of his kingdom forever.... I will be his father, and he shall be my son." Is Solomon or Christ meant here by the 'seed' of David? Most of the newer exegetes claim the former, Luther, on the other hand, the latter, for he writes: "Whoever wanted to interpret this saying as referring to Solomon would have to be a muthwilliger Deuterer. For although Solomon was not yet born at this time,.... he is not the seed or son of David, who was born after David's death, of whom he says here, 'When your time is past and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you.'.... Therefore it is to be held firmly that this saying is said of Christ alone, and just as the previous saying describes a special son above all other sons, that neither is such a thing said to the angels, much less to the Solomon, as here the apostle says." This interpretation of Luther is confirmed by the parallel Hebr.
1, 5: "To which angel did he ever say: I will be his father and he will be my son? Angel did he ever say:... I will be his father, and he will be my son." See also Ps. 45, 7 and Hebr. 1, 8; Is. 8, 18 and Hebr. 2, 10-13; Is. 59, 20 and Rom. 11, 26. The comparison of the last two passages shows that Isaiah does not speak of the first future of Christ in the flesh, nor of His last future in judgment, but of His revelation to the Jewish people and the conversion of them. Among these parallels, which are to be used for confirmation, those are to be chosen which, if not in words, at least in substance, correspond most perfectly with the content of the text. Literally and factually, the words of institution in Lucas Cap. 22, 19. 20 and in Paul 1. Corinth. 11, 23-25; also
1. Kings 22 and 2. Chron. 18; factually, but not literally the report of the healing of the gout -ridden
man, Matth. 9, 1-8 and Marc. 2, 1 -12, since Marcus gives his report with different words and adds several circumstances that Matthew does not mention. See also Matth. 11, 2 comp. with Luc. 7, 18 ff. Examples: 1. Joh. 5, 19 we read: "The whole world is in trouble." In John's ethical version of this word, 'world' here refers to the human race in its natural, corrupt state, in contrast to the born - again. By the 'Argen' is understood Satanas, as is evident from the words B. 18: "Der Argewird ihn nicht anasten," and fro m the contrast to 'von Gott', and by "liegt" is expressed the bondage and captivity in which Satanas holds this world. Now, the parallels in which natural men are described as slaves and captives of the devil serve to confirm this, as 2 Timoth. 2, 26: "And they would sober up again from the devil's snare, by whom they are captives to his will", Joh. 5, 44 etc. - Is. 63, 3 Christ says: "I tread the winepress alone, and there is none among the nations with me." Does the Lord refer to Himself in these words as the winepress treaders in His redemptive suffering, or in His judgment of wrath against His enemies, in which their blood will flow as it were, as the red wine flows from the winepress? According to the context, the latter interpretation is undoubtedly the correct one, as especially vv. 4-6 show. But this is now also confirmed by the verbal as well as real parallels. For figuratively only the judgments of God on those who are ripe for judgment are called a treading of the winepress (s. Klag. Jer. 1, 15; Jo el 3, 18), and in Rev. Joh. Cap. 14, 19. 20 and 19, 11 -16 the great judgment of wrath on the antichristic churches is called by the same expression. The meaning of our passage is therefore, as these parallels show, that the Lord of the He said that the time of grace for his people would be preceded by a terrible judgment on th eir enemies, of which Edom appears as the representative.
In the use of parallels, however, Rambach's remark should be noted: " Parallelism is not to be extended so far that one would want to corrupt one parallel from the other. Such a right he has least of all." In the case of parallelisms, attention must also be paid to the biblical synonymy, since the Scriptures often express the same thing in different places with different words. This biblical synonymy serves at the same time as an explanation, when one compares other terms that have the same meaning as the one contained in the text, and especially when actual statements are held together with tropical ones that are found in the text. Examples: Rom. 13:14 Paul writes, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ," exhorting us to more and more fully appropriate the virtues of Christ, emulating His example (Luther: "that we may follow Him and become like Him, walking in the very robe of virtue wherein He walks"), as one puts on a garment. This expression: Pu t on the Lord Jesus Christ' is synonymous with the other expression used by the apostle Eph. 4, 24: "Put on the new man, who was created according to God in righteousness and holiness", and can therefore be used to confirm and explain the former. - Luc. 12, 25 says the Lord: "Let your loins be girded" (Without image: As right servants have their outer garments girded around their loins to be always ready to receive their Lord, so you also should be ready to receive the coming Messiah, unhindered by earthly care, etc.; cf. Ephes. 6, 14; 1 Pet. 1, 13). If the Lord thus exhorts in these figurative words to constant readiness for His coming, a synonymous parallel is offered in actual words Matth. 24, 44: "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man" etc. - Cf. Eph. 5, 15 and Hebr. 12, 13. - Matth. 24, 15 and Luc. 21, 20. - Gal. 5, 24 and Col. 3, 8. 9.
Note 2
The matter discussed in the text can also be confirmed and explained by looking at the opposite. This is especially suitable to clarify a matter and the refore recommended. Ps. 73, 23 Assaph says: " Nevertheless I always remain with you, for you hold me by my right hand"; on the other hand the apostle Hebr. 3, 12: "Take heed, brethren, lest any of you have a wicked unbelieving heart, which departs from the living God." To remain in God and to depart from God are opposites. Cf, 15, 19 and 1. Joh. 5, 19 (Being of the world and of God); 2. Corinth. 4, 4 and Rev. 11, 13 (God of this world and God of heaven).
Note 3
Finally, this explanation can be done by examples and parables. Of course, according to the procedures of the apostles, mainly bibli cal examples are to be used. Jacobus cites the example of the prophet Elijah as proof for the power of believing prayer Cap. 5, 16, and Paul proves Rom. 4 the justification by faith with the example of the justification of Abraham and David. And how many excellent examples are given in Scripture, especially in the Old Testament! If it is a matter of confirming or explaining the words of Paul Rom. 12, 20: "If therefore your enemy hungers" etc. with a biblical example, who would find a more striking one than the one reported in 2 Kings 6, 22.
23, where the king of Israel did not strike the enemy Syrians who invaded Samaria at Elisha's command, but entertained them and then let them go! Cf. 1 Sam. 24, 5. 19. 20. "In the sermon", writes Hüffell, "one can explain the matter by parables and pictures. This is best done through biblical stories and parables..... Whoever has the riches of biblical history at his command will seldom be lacking in a suitable example; but unfortunately our preachers themselves do not know enough of the contents of the Scriptures, and especially the Old Testament examples and facts are used far too little." Images and parables from life, examples from the history of the world and the pagan writers are not to be completely excluded, but why use them often, since there are so many of them in the holy scriptures? Does not the use of these biblical examples also give the sermon a biblical character? Do they not make a better impression on the listener than those from the Scriptures of this or that heathen, mostly unknown to him? So what is the use of the inferior? But of course many preachers of our time lack the necessary acquaintance with the Scriptures of the Old Testament; the examples given therein are either unknown to them or not present. How completely different in this respect are the sermons of some older faithful Lutheran preachers, such as Joh.
Arndt, H. Müller, etc. Concerning these parables L. Osiander writes very true: "It is also not edifying, if one holds up to such simple -minded listeners many histories from the pagan scribes, on which one cannot base oneself and loses time with it. Instead, it is best if the preacher sticks to the Holy Scriptures and proves his teaching with clear testimonies and examples from the Bible that are known to the common man as much as possible and bases it on the same. On this a Christian can safely rest." Even short sayings of the "Fathers" can be mentioned now and then in the sermon, if the circumstances allow it, but it should be done very rarely and with caution. If, for example, Carpzov writes of himself: "I have also sometimes taken no hesitation in presenting good thoughts of the old church teachers, especially Augustini, Hieronymi and Bernhardt, who particularly delect me, when I have seen that they have taught something edifying either about the text or about a subject," then this may perhaps be justified by the circumstances of his time, but it cannot be recommended for our time. For one thing, these "fathers" (both those of the old church and those of our Lutheran church) are completely unknown to most listeners, and secondly, frequent citation of them easily gives the impression that their words are equated with the word of God, apart from the fact that the preacher thereby exposes himself to the suspicion of boasting or poverty of thought. The situation is different with short, apt sayings of Luther, which, as Rambach says, can be used as a cue to reject the suspicion of novelty. Also short sentences from our confessional writings, namely the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism, can be used in a suitable place.
§ 13
In every explanation of the text, both the quantity and the quality of the texts must be wisely taken into account, if everything is to be treated correctly and fruitfully for the audience.
Note 1
As far as the quantity of the texts is concerned, it goes without saying that short texts must be explained in greater detail and the content of all words and phrases must be explained more carefully than is possible with long texts. For if one wished to engage in a detailed explanation of all words, etc., in the case of long texts, in the case of individual Gospels and the Epistles, for example, it would amount to a prolix exegesis which would have to be as unfruitful as it would be tedious for the listeners. "One must," says Rambach, "rather u se this advantage with long texts, that one explains what is easy only with a short paraphrase, but what is difficult and dark, somewhat more accurately."
Note 2
The quality of the texts, as far as it is considered in the explanation, has to be discussed more thoroughly than the quantity. With regard to the quality, the texts fall into 6 different classes, namely 1. historical, which report a historical event; 2. dogmatic, which describe one or several
3. moral, concerning the life, conduct, or virtues of the faithful; 4. prophetic, containing prophecies;
5. parabolic, giving parables ; and 6. typical, giving examples. These texts, which are different in
content, are now to be treated in a manner corresponding to their content.
1. historical texts. With these texts, it must first be noted as a rule that no detailed explanation
of all words and phrases may be given, since these are mostly already understandable to the common man. It would be nonsensical if someone in a sermon on the Gospel on the 1st Sunday of Epiph. (Luc. 2, 41 -52) to explain all the words that are understood by the listener without any explanation. For example: the travelers are called "his parents". Who were they? In what sense is Joseph referred to by this name? The evangelist indicates the kind of journey by the words: "they went" (έπορεύοντο), by which is expressed every movement from one place to another, whether it be on foot, on horseback, in chariots, etc. The journey was to 'Jerusalem'. Th e journey went to 'Jerusalem'. What kind of city was it? How old was it? What did it look like in the time of Melchizedek when it was called Salem? How afterward, when it was called Jebus? What destruction did it suffer?
For what purpose did they travel to Jerusalem? What was the purpose of the Jewish Easter, etc., etc.? "The text," says Harleß of such and similar explanations, "may contain the simplest, clearest narrative, the outer course of which is immediately comprehensible to everyone, but they begin to retell it, to give explanations that are completely superfluous, to paint the delicately and meaningfully indicated broadly and flatly, and to hang an ugly copy on the beautiful original, in order finally to tell the listener in a hundred detours what he knew long ago when he heard the text. Such things belong to the not only superfluous, but even harmful tediousness with which one is tormented in sermons, in the writing of which the preacher did not consider what is really necessary for him and others i n the contemplation of the word.
In particular, the following should be noted in the case of historical texts. One sees first whether in the text deeds of God or of the creatures are told. If the former is the case, then one sees further whether these deeds are divine benefits, chastisements or miracles. If they are benevolent deeds, it must be shown what they consist of or consisted of, so that the listeners get a clear idea of the greatness and benefit of them; if they are chastisements or punishments, it must be explained partly what goods the persons concerned were deprived of, partly what evils they were subjected to as a result. In the case of miracles and extraordinary acts of God, the following must be briefly demonstrated The effects described above cannot be produced by any natural causes, but must be suspended by the ordinary laws of nature. For example, when Christ healed the eyes of the two blind men by simply touching them, it was an effect that could not be caused by natural, but only by supernatural, divine power.
The deeds of the creatures are either good or evil. It was a good deed that the Cananaean woman stopped with her request for help and did not let herself be turned away until she had received an answer; an evil deed, on the other hand, was the cruel Bethlehemite infanticide of Herod. Both kinds of deeds are to be duly put into the light, so that they can be recognized according to their true nature. Concerning the circumstances, by which the deeds, actions etc. reported in historical texts are accompanied, we refer to the already page 227 given citation of Reinhard. Here only the following hints. That which is incomprehensible in a historical text must be explained as briefly as possible. This has to be done especially when one or another ancient usage is touched upon or assumed, which is unknown to the audience. E.g. Luc. 4, 16. 17 would be especially the words: "and went to school according to his custom.... and wanted to read" (ά^αγνώναί = publicly read a section of the read aloud the holy scripture). Cf. Marc. 5, 22; Luc. 3, 14; Apost. 18, 8. 17 (head of the school).
These circumstances must not be treated separately, but in their connection with the facts and it must be shown how they relate to the facts, how they contribute to the promotion or certainty of the same, because otherwise the unified point of view would be lost. Thus, for example, the treasure of the emperor Augustus reported in Luc. 2, 1. 2 must not be treated on its own, but only in connecti on with the birth of Christ; insofar as God used it as a means to fulfill the prophecy of the prophet Micah that the Savior would be born in Bethlehem. In the story of the raising of the young man at Nain, the circumstances can be divided into two. Classes can be divided. Those of the first class serve to prove that the young man was not apparently dead, but had really died; those of the second, that he had truly been raised by the Lord.
2. dogmatic texts. In these, especially the meaning of those words, on which the main
emphasis lies, and on whose correct and full understanding everything depends, must be clearly explained. Let us take as an example the word of Paul, Rom. 6, 23: "The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus." Here the word "God" does no t need any explanation, but it must be shown what "eternal life" is, and why. it is a 'life', an 'eternal' life and why this is called a gift (χάρισμα = gift of grace) of God. In these texts, according to Rambach, "the whole propvsition must be explained in its scope and the connection of the subject with the predicate must be shown. Why, for example, in the previous statement eternal life is called a gift of God's grace, how this is opposed to the merit of works, that thereby all merit of works is excluded, and that because there is no relationship at all between a good work and eternal life, etc." (Rambach). Next, the sentiment of the whole proposition must be confirmed with analogous or parallel expressions of the holy Scriptures. Eph. 2, 8: "By grace you have been saved"; Tit. 3, 5:
"According to His mercy He made us saved." Finally, we must also remove the doubts and explain those passages that seem to contradict our text, as the passages where eternal life is called a reward, e.g. Matth. 5, 10: "It shall be well rewarded you in heaven." This does not mean a reward for work, which is given out of debt, but that which follows from a previous promise. This is called a reward by certain analogy, a reward not according to merit and demerit, but by grace of promise." In Reinhardt's "Confessions" we find the following: "What I have said above about the necessity to put oneself completely into the time and circumstances in which a historical text belongs, if one wants to obtain happy views of it, applies, taken as a whole, also to didactic ones.
If, for example, one knows how to visualize the whole context of the circumstances in which an apostle wrote down the text borrowed from one of his epistles, it is easy to find the general truth to which the particular case treated by him belongs; and if one has deducted this, one will be able to make fruitful use of all the ideas and parts of the text. This vivid immersion in the circumstances under which the apostles wrote their epistles can also lead to general concepts under which the manifold contents of a text can be conveniently arranged and combined into a whole. As is known, the twelfth chapter of Paul's letter to the Christians at Rome is divided into three epistles, which have to be explained on the first, second and third Sunday after the feast of the Epiphany. At first sight, this chapter seems to contain a lot of not very coherent exhortations and moral teachings, which th e apostle came up with by a coincidental combination of his ideas. But put yourself completely in the position of the apostle;
ask yourself why he might have made just these and no other recollections; ask yourself why he might have made these and no other recollections; ask yourself why he might have made these and no other recollections; ask yourself why he might have made these and no other recollections. See if you can perceive a relationship between them and the status of Christians at that time and their relationship to the rest of the world, and it will soon become clear that the apostle had in mind the distinctive character that the gospel gave to its confessors and that made them the most distinguished of the time. If one grasps this general concept, everything arranges itself and connects itself; thus one sees the Christians in the first epistle as members of the church; in the second in their ennobled personality, and in the third with the advantages by which they differ from the rest of the world."
3. moral texts. In these texts three things must be observed; namely, a) the emphasis
of the word by which the virtue or vice is designated must be explained precisely. When it says 2 Pet. 1, 6: "Reach out to.... in modesty temperance," it must be shown that the temperance (εγκράτεια) meant here does not consist solely in moderation in eating and drinking, but in abstinence in general, self-control from sinful lusts and temptations; cf. Apost. 24, 25; Gal. 5, 23. - Likewise, the Lord's saying Luc. 12, 15: "Beware of avarice" must be proven that "avarice" is the insatiable desire for greater possession of earthly goods. (Luther: "Although there is never enough for avarice, and if the earth were like grain, and the water like wine, and the mountains like gold, they could not satisfy a single avaricious man, if he had it all alone." B. 41, P. 167.)
b) The nature of the virtue that is exhorted or the vice that is warned against must be explained by a detailed description and this description must be confirmed with parallel passages. For example, when the apostle Phil. 4:5 writes: "Let your gentleness be known to all men," not only the actual meaning of the word gentleness is to be shown, namely: meekness, mildness, yieldingness, that one also gladly refrains from his right, but also a correct description of this Christian virtue is to be giv en and its expressions presented. Cf. Luther, B. 7, p. 111 ff. c) the arguments used by the author of the text must be highlighted and the strength and coherence of them must be demonstrated. Titus 2, 10 the apostle exhorts the servants that they should "show all good faithfulness" to the masters. He gives the motive for this in the words of the 11th verse: "For the saving grace of God hath appeared unto all men, chastening us," etc., thus taking it from the special nature of the New Testament. The more abundant grace received in the New Testament also requires greater faithfulness in all Duties toward God, neighbor and ourselves. Luc. 12, 15 the Lord says: "Beware of avarice, for no one lives by having many goods. " With these latter words, the warning against avarice is justified. This argument is therefore to be used and the force of it i s to be emphasized to the fullest extent, but not to leave the same thing lying around and gather a bunch of others from somewhere.
4. prophetic texts. In these texts, one must first and foremost try to be clear about the
person or thing that is being spoken of. If this is named or clearly described, no extensive investigation is necessary; but if this is not the case, it must be determined from the pre dicates that are attached to it in the text or context, and this in such a way that one proceeds from the general to the particular. Let us take as an example Isaiah 53:13: "Behold, my servant will do wisely," etc. Since this servant is not mentioned by na me, the question arises, who is this servant? We now look at the attributes attached to this servant and first at the more general ones. First, this person is called a servant of God, and then he is described as one who should be deeply humbled and despised, but then highly exalted and honored. But now more specific attributes follow, for it is said of this servant that he was beaten and wounded for others, that he bore the sins of all men and endured their punishment, that in his suffering he observed a marvelous silence, that through his knowledge he made many righteous, that after his death and burial he lived to a long time, etc. Among all the servants of God, these more specific attributes can only be attributed to the Messiah; therefore, only he can be spoken of in the text.
If one has reached clarity about the subject in this way, then the words and phrases that are not generally understandable must be explained. Thus, in the text Is. 53, it should be briefly explained why the Messiah is called a servant of God, what must be understood by his exaltation and humiliation, and so on. Finally, the fulfillment of the prophecies contained in the prophetic texts must be proven by referring to the passages from the Gospels that deal with the humiliation and exaltation of Christ.
5. parabolic texts. Parables are divided by homiletics into apological and symbolic. Those
are allegorical representations from human life, in which the acting persons, their actions or speeches form the main components, e.g. the parable of the unjust steward, of the merciful Samaritan; these are symbolic representations through objects from inanimate nature, in which the persons serve only for form and dressing, but not the inner The seed is not the seed, but the seed and the different soil into which it falls. In the simile of the sower, it is not the sower but the seed and the different soil in which it falls that is the essential content. In the case of these texts, a) the outer shell of the parable must be presented in general and its dark parts explained as far as necessary for understanding; b) the scopus and c) the actual core of the parable, the spiritual core, which lies hidden in the shell, must be shown.
With regard to the explanation of the symbolic parables, it should be noted what G. C. Bartels writes in his "Speciellen Homiletik" p. 32 f.: "It is incomparably more important, and of practical use for our homiletical purpose, to pay attention to the fact that all symbols, thus also the symbolic parables of Jesus, contain three main inner components, namely the symbolizing image, the symbolized idea and the point of th e symbol, or the point of comparison of both. A single example will suffice to make the matter clear. The matter will be clear. In the symbolic parable of the mustard seed, the mustard seed is the symbolizing image; Christianity, or its salutary institution, the kingdom of God, is the symbolized idea;
and the small primordial beginning, from which great, glorious and blessed things spring and blossom, is the point of the symbol. Hüffell also writes about this: "The parabolic texts contain a religious or moral teaching clothed in history, and for this very reason and most especially are suitable for popular teaching. The parable is a living moral or teaching, therefore more vivid, more attractive to the people, and also more versatile for the preacher. The parable is suitable for every age, for every situation, and can always be made the story of the individual. In the homiletical treatment of the parable, it is important first of a ll that the religious and moral truths it contains be fully grasped, so that one does not get caught up in secondary matters and thus leave the actual moment unconsidered; furthermore, that one does not overlook any individual feature that is essential to the whole; that one does not include anything that the text does not contain; that one observes a certain balance in the treatment of the individual moments; that one finally remains true to that simple and parabolic spirit in the execution and reproduces everything factually as it exists. This last point deserves special consideration, and one must therefore be intimately familiar with the spirit of the parabolic in order to treat a parable properly.
Whoever, for example, in the parable of the rich man (Luc. 16) wanted to enter into dogmatic investigations about the state of the blessed in heaven, or the damned in hell, or into equally dogmatic investigations about revelation and reason (v. 29-31), The parabolic, to which the historical merely serves as a dressing, would be completely lost sight of. The most suitable treatment for parabolic texts is the analytical one, and one can say that the parable is the made text for the homily."
6. typical texts. In typical texts, the preacher has a double task, namely, a) to present the
type or model itself, if there are any difficulties, and b) to clearly show the analogy between the type and the antitype, or the signifying and the signified thing. As an example, the typical text Deut. 21, 4-9, compared to the antitypical passage Joh. 3, 14, can serve. From these the analogy is to be shown 1. between the serpent of brass and Christ; 2. between the exaltation of the serpent and the crucifixion of Christ; 3. between the effect of the exalted serpent and the effect of the crucified Christ and 4. between the means by which this effect was produced, namely between the beholding of the exalted serpent and the faith in the exalted Christ. Cf. Gen. 14, 18 ff. and Hebr. 7, 1 ff. Analogy between Melchizedek and Christ concerning the person, the office (priestly and royal) and the official functions.
Note 3
As far as the quality of the texts is concerned, the following general rules should be observed: (1) It is often necessary to reconcile texts which seem to contradict another passage of Scripture with the latter by a brief explanation. Since the Holy Scriptures are literally inspired by the Holy Spirit from beginning to end, it is a foregone conclusion to the Christian that no real contradiction can be found in them. Such a contradiction can only occur between two statements if in them a) the same subject is spoken of, b) in the same way, and c) at the same time. If one of these three is missing, there is no real contradiction, but only an apparent one, and this must then be removed.
Examples: Proverbs. 4, 23 says: "Watch over you r heart with all diligence, for out of it comes life." The word of the Lord Matth. 15, 19 seems to contradict this: "Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder" etc., thus all works of spiritual death. However, both passages do not speak of the same subje ct, but Solomon speaks of the born again, Christ of the unborn. The former wants to say: From the heart, if it lives in Christ, Gal. 2, 20, and is born again through the Holy Spirit, Ps. 51, 12; Ezek. 36, 26. 27, spiritual life pours out into all the members, into all the organs. all practices that flow as good fruits from faith'. Cf. Rom. 3, 25 and 1, 7; - Joh. 1, 21 and Matth.
11, 14; - Gen. 6, 6 it says of God: "Then it grieved Him that He had made man of the earth," whereas 1 Sam. 15, 29: "He is not a man, that anything should grieve Him." How the 'it grieved him' in the first place is to be understood, "results," says Keil, "from the explanatory and intensifying: - 'it grieved him in his heart.' According to this, God's repentance does not presuppose a changeability of his being and his counsels; in this respect God does not allow himself to be repentant (1 Sam. 15, 29), quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit (because nothing unexpected or unforeseen meets him). The repentance of God is an anthropopathic expression for the pain of divine love over the sins of men, and wants to say:
atrocibus hominum peccatis non secus Deum offendi quam si lethali dolore cor ejus vulnerarent. Calv.)" i.e., that God should not be so offended by the atrocious sins of men as if they should wound his heart with mortal pain. Repentance with God does not involve, as with men, a certain weakness and imperfection." - Matth. 10, 5 Jesus says to the twelve: "Do not go into the Gentile streets and do not go into the Samaritan cities", while he says to them Marc. 16, 15: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." To remove this apparent contradiction, one must only note that the first command applied before, the second only after the Lord's ascension.
However, Rambach rightly remarks with regard to the solution of apparent contradictions: "One has to note here that one should not make a conciliation in any other passages than in those where the contradiction is quite obvious, so that one h as to worry that a scruple might remain in the minds of the listeners if one conceals this. When Joh. 1, 21: "Are you a prophet? And he answered, No." This seems to contradict the words of Zachariah Luc. 1, 76: "And you, little child, will be called a prophet of the Most High"; 2. of Christ, Matth. 11, 9: "Who is also more than a prophet". Answer: John denies that he is a prophet in the sense that the Jews understood.
It may be that they understood the prophet promised by Moses, Deut. 10, who was the Messiah himself, but whom they took for another prophet out of ignorance; or it may be that they meant one of the old prophets who rose again from the dead. John was not such a prophet. However, he was another prophet. Joh. 1. 8: "He (namely John) was not the light." Joh. 5, 35: "He was a burning and shining light." Both sayings are true. He was not the essential light, which enlightens all men, and from which all lights must be kindled; yet he was a light kindled by the essential light. Joh. 3, 17: "God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world." Joh. 9, 39: "I have come into this world fo r judgment." The first passage deals with the first purpose of Christ's future, which was to make the world blessed and their sin good in the divine judgment; the other with the accidential purpose of the future, since it was to the prideful Pharisees' advantage to increase their condemnation that the Son of God had come and so clearly shown them the way to blessedness, but they despised all this because they thought themselves wise and righteous enough."
But beware of trying to remove the apparent contradiction of two passages if you are not able to do so, otherwise only greater harm will be done; the doubt will remain with the listeners. And one should not magnify these contradictions so much as to show one's ingenuity and seek one's own honor by resolving them, but should treat the word of God reverently in this respect as well. 2 Such texts, which are misused by people living in carnal security, need to be explained properly more often. Rambach writes about this: "There is a large number of sayings, which the old Adam knows to explain according to his hermeneutical principles in such a way that thereby the revealed works of the flesh are defended and true Christianity is denied. This palladium must be taken from him. Thus, some turn around the words of Christ Matth. 15, 11: "What enters the mouth does not defile the man. From this they want to conclude that one cannot sin through intemperance in eating and drinking, because this is only something external that enters the body through the mouth, since sin comes from within. But in this old Adam is a stupid exegete.
Beer, wine, etc. is, of course, in itself a good gift from God that does not defile a person's conscience. But the soul of such a man is defiled by his evil will and his intemperate l ust, according to which he misuses these good gifts of God to excess, to the detriment of health, to the stimulation of evil desires, etc. Therefore, eating and drinking, even though it enters the mouth, Gal. 5, is counted among the works of the flesh, which exclude from the kingdom of God. Ask such a man if it is sinful for him to drink poison and kill himself. He will answer in the affirmative, and yet poison is something that enters through the mouth." That this reminder of Rambach's must not be overlook ed is experienced by all preachers all the more, since intemperate drinking, cleaning addiction, etc. belong to the prevailing sins of our time, and therefore the conscience of many Christians is in danger of becoming dull.