Gerhard on less than ideal exegesis

Every pastor has looked back on sermons in horror to wonder what possessed him to interpret Scripture that way. What happens when you preach or teach something that you later regret as less than A+ exegesis? Gerhard offers comfort repeatedly in his commonplace on interpreting Scripture. Hey, even the fathers did this--a lot. As long as you are not teaching something that undermines the rule of faith it's going to be OK. This is not an excuse for lazy exegesis and lazy preaching but the simple acknowledgement that some things in Scripture are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16), even though the main dogmas of heaven (i.e., the rule of faith) are taught in Scripture explicitly and clearly.

We do very well if we use all these means [of interpretation] and finally come to the true sense of Scripture, or, even if we do not arrive at the genuine meaning of a passage, if we still do not err from the rule of faith. Therefore we are not condemned by the passage that Stapleton quotes from Augustine (De Genes. ad. liter., bk. 1, last ch.): “That [interpretation] must especially be chosen which does not go against the context of Scripture and which accords with the sound faith. If, however, one cannot study and examine the context of sacred Scripture, at the least he should alone cling to what the sound faith prescribes.”

Again:

If ever we are unable to arrive at the original meaning for the obscurer passages we must not depart from the rule of faith.

(Translation © 2013 Joshua Hayes. All rights reserved.)

Christian Scriver on the Lord's Supper

Christian Scriver (d. 1693), “The Holy Supper,” in Gottholds zufällige Andachten (1663, reprint Berlin: Evangelischer Bücher-Verein, 1853), no. 390.

On this occasion they went further and began to speak of the high dignity of the Holy Supper. I am amazed, said Gotthold, and my heart rejoices in all the wonders of the love of Jesus Christ, but in none of them more than in this wondrous Sacrament, in which He truly feeds us with His holy, life-giving flesh and gives us to drink of His precious blood. Just as the sun shines brightest at noon, so the love of the Son of God gleams most magnificently in this stupendous Meal. Here His divine heart has opened itself wide, like a rose in full bloom. He gives me not His clothes, not His image, not silver or gold, not crown or scepter, but Himself with all His merit, total righteousness, all of heaven, and blessedness.

In 2 Sam. 12:3, when the prophet Nathan wanted to show how much the man loved his lamb, he said, “It ate of his own food, and drank of his own cup, and slept in his bosom, and he considered it as a daughter.” My Jesus feeds me with the bread of life, with Himself. I drink not just from His cup, but even from His holy wounds. I sleep (find rest for my soul and joy for my troubled heart in His bosom) in His sweet grace and the assurance of His love. He considers me as His son and brother, even as His own heart. He binds Himself with me in an unspeakable way. He becomes my food, drink, life, power, strength, joy, consolation, and all. Here my soul is united, mixed, joined, and penetrated by His soul; my body with His body; my blood with His blood; my heart with His heart; my weakness, misery, need, and imperfection with His divinity, glory, and holiness. Incomprehensible, wondrous love! O Jesus! You are ever a sweet “Jesus” and Savior, but nowhere do Your faithful people taste and perceive Your sweetness and kindness as much as in this precious Meal of love! Therefore one of them says that the joy of all creatures, however much a heart could have, is nothing compared to the joy found in the enjoyment of this Meal.

When I approach it, I see You in spirit and faith with Your holy wounds, dripping with blood. I hear You call out, “Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you life; you shall find rest for your soul” ([cf.] Matt. 11:28–29). When I partake of it, I think that I am hearing You say to my soul: “You are in Me, and I am in you!” (John 14:20). When I walk back, my soul says, “My Beloved is mine, and I am His, and His turning is toward me” ([cf.] Song 2:16; 7:10). After this heavenly Meal, my “dessert,” if I may so speak, is the end of the golden, eighth chapter of Romans, from verse 31 to the end. How well I am then! How drunk my soul becomes! How confident my heart is! How bold I then am against Satan, sin, hell, death, and against the world with all of its amusements and vanity! Then it seems to me that I am no longer who I was; I am Christ, not personally, but Christ’s righteousness, victory, life, and all He has are my own. Then I do not know whether sin, misery, cross, need, death, or devil are in the world anymore; they only thing I know is that Jesus reigns over all and is mine.

But woe, woe! What has happened to this most holy institution? Mad reason wants to teach and correct its Lord and has turned the memorial of love into a meal of strife. Mockers and atheists laugh at it. Hypocrites dishonor it. The common crowd runs to it heedless, without repentance, faith, love, examination, preparation, without devotion and a holy intent. Godless, condemned world! What more should the kind, loving God do for you than He has already done? And how could you make it worse than you have already made it? He gave You His Son; you made Him into a servant of sin (Gal. 2:17). He offered you His grace, richly; you turned it into lasciviousness (Jude 4). He gave you His Word; you mocked it. He promised you forgiveness of sins; you took it as an opportunity to sin even more. He through His Son established a precious Meal of love; you turned it into an excuse for all hypocrisy and security. Now fulfill the measure of your malice. Soon the just and holy God will shake it out into your bosom.

O Lord Jesus! Let me be among the few who hold all that You speak, order, do, and give as high, precious, and worthy! Let your venerable Supper be my heaven on earth, until I come to heaven!

Copyright 2013 Benjamin T. G. Mayes. All rights reserved.

A Summary of Gerhard's Hermeneutic

Johann Gerhard summarizes (very briefly) the necessary tools for interpreting Scripture (Loci Theologici, loc. 2, De interpretatione Scripturae Sacrae, Cotta: Tubingen: 1762):

§ 71. Let us sum up our claims about the true interpretation of Scripture.

(1) In understanding and interpreting the Scriptures our mind is blind and lacking the light of the Holy Spirit.

(2) In addition to the inborn blindness of all men, some are blinded by their own wickedness and stubborn impudence even though the Holy Spirit opened or wanted to open their eyes.

(3) Because our mind is blinded there is need to implore the Holy Spirit’s light through prayer.

(4) Moreover, the Holy Spirit does not work this illumination of the mind apart from means, but it happens through the light of the Word when it is heard and meditated.

(5) The dogmas that are necessary for one to know for his salvation are laid out in proper, clear, and perspicuous words.

(6) From these the rest of the passages of Scripture are elucidated.

(7) This is why the rule of faith is assembled from the clear passages of Scripture, and one’s exposition of the other passages must conform to it..

(8) Even if we do not always arrive at the most proper and natural sense of every single passage, it is enough not to say anything contrary to the analogy of the faith when interpreting them.

(9) Nevertheless, it is still beneficial to interpret even the more obscure passages of Scripture rightly and skillfully. This will happen if we apply the suitable remedies for alleviating obscurities.

(10) In order to find these remedies, we have to seek out the sources of obscurity.

(11) Some passages of Scripture are obscure in themselves and when taken on their own, while others are so when compared with other passages—that is, when they seem to contradict other passages. The reconciliation of passages is a good aid for this kind of obscurity.

(12) Things that are obscure in and of themselves are discerned as such due to the subject matter or to the words. Having some certain axioms in every article of the faith brings relief to the obscurity of subject matter. These axioms should be followed as a guiding star.

(13) Obscurity on account of words is serviced by grammatical explanation of the vocables, rhetorical exposition of tropes and figures, dialectic observation of the order and circumstances, and finally  by a physical understanding of things in nature. It will prove especially helpful in all of these to wisely and carefully compare passages of Scripture where the same vocables and phrases are used, or even where different ones are used for the same things, or the same are used to express different ideas.

§ 72. Let this be said in general about the requisite means for legitimately interpreting Scripture. The supreme and authoritative interpreter of Scripture is, as we assert, the Holy Spirit. It is He who lays out the dogmas that are necessary for one to know for salvation in proper and clear words in Scripture. As for everything else in the Scriptures that is more obscure, to skillfully interpret them we need prayer, knowledge of the languages the Holy Spirit used as His amanuenses, to observe the order and circumstances in a given passage, to wisely and carefully compare passages, and above all we need to follow the rule of faith lest we say anything that is contrary to it when interpreting passages that are rather obscure.
(Translation © 2013 Joshua Hayes. All rights reserved.)

Gerhard on why we can have pure doctrine

From a forthcoming volume on interpreting scripture:

§ 26. “The very thing that the prophets and apostles set forth to their hearers is the same thing that they put into the Scriptures by God’s will. It is not something different,” says Irenaeus (Adversus haer., bk. 3, ch. 1). Therefore just as those who heard the prophets and apostles could perceive from their words what the will of God was and what the mind and thinking of the Holy Spirit was, so we too can read the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures and from their books perceive what the will of God is and what is the mind and thinking of the Holy Spirit. The act of preaching and the act of writing are external accidents that do not change the essence of a thing. Just as oral speaking is the expression [ἀπεικόνισμα] of the mind’s thoughts, so writing is the expression the words from one’s mouth. The philosopher [Aristotle] discusses this (περὶ ἑρμην., ch. 1): “Spoken words are symbols of the perceptions of one’s consciousness, and written words are symbols of spoken words.”

Petschely's Cantor Christianus: Because it sounds better in Latin

One of my "someday/maybe" projects now for a long time has been to compile as many Latin versions (original or translated) of hymns used by Lutherans into a volume that could be used on a Sunday morning alongside of Lutheran Service Book. There is no particular reason why one cannot be singing "Arx firma noster Deus est" while everyone else sings "A mighty fortress is our God" or "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott."

I am relieved to know that my desire to do so is not unprecedented in Lutheranism. Enter Johann Gottfried Petschely, Cantor Christianus, i.e., Cantica Sacra ad quaeuis tempora, et ad quemuis animarum statum accommodata. Solisbaci: Lichtenthalerianis: 1754. ("The Christian Singer: Sacred songs arranged according to various seasons and various life-situations"). This lovely volume contains 916 octavo pages of hymns in Latin. Some are Latin hymns while others are metric translations of German hymns. The volume is arranged according to themes and the church year, much like modern Lutheran hymnals such as LSB, and contains two indexes--one German, the other Latin.

Of course Cantor Christianus does not stand alone. The author's preface credits and lists many other works along the same lines. Petschely claims that writings become clearer and more lucid the more they are expressed in other languages. Therefore where one may not pay as much attention to a vernacular (German) hymn, when rendered into Latin the original is elucidated for the poet and reader. After giving this and many other reasons for the value of his work, he then acknowledges that "some people will undoubtedly think that this way of singing in Latin is a joke, not suitable enough for those who pursue good literature" (4). These are usually the same people, he notes, that cannot appreciate the beauty of Latin, and besides, why should German Lutherans keep their treasure all to themselves when so many could benefit from these hymns who do not know German?

I offer here just one small sample known to us as "Now Thank We all Our God" (LSB 895). Interestingly enough, LSB places this in the "Harvest and Thanksgiving" section while Petschely lists it as a "post sermon hymn."

pp. 74-75
Post Concionem.
41.) Nun dancket alle GOtt, mit Herzen etc.
Nunc plausu manuum cordisque celebremus
DEVM, quem magnas res conficere uidemus
Nos qui ab utero et incunabulis
Ornatos maximis uult beneficiis!

2. Diuitiarum Fons nos laeta mente donet,
Et pace tempora Propitius coronet!
Nos sua gratia constanter protegat,
Et malis omnibus tandem eripiat!

3. Sit PATRI gloria perpetuo Rectori,
Eiusque FILIO et SANCTO SOLATORI,
TRIN-VNI NVMINI, cuius essentia
Est, fuit, et erit, in cuncta secula!

The Ordination of St. Timothy (Johann Gerhard)

Johann Gerhard discusses the call and ordination of St. Timothy in this selection from Theological Commonplaces: On the Ministry, Part One (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), § 62, pp. 83-85. Gerhard is arguing against the Socinians, whom he calls "Photinians." They were a unitarian movement centered in southern Poland.
+++

§ 62. Schmaltzius makes the objection, Refut. D. Frantz., p. 376: “Instead of the observed and considered custom of the Old and New Testament churches being able to remind us that one by no means teaches, [and] that no one is able to take upon himself the duties of teaching others without a sending, much rather it can assure someone that it is not necessary for that to be observed perpetually, since custom and necessity are all but contrary.”

We respond. That perpetual practice of the church depends on divine ordinance and institution, as is obvious from the previously cited passages. Hence it should not be set against necessity. Therefore Augustine’s statement holds true here (De bapt. contra Donat., bk. 4, ch. 4): “Reason and truth must be preferred to custom; but if the truth supports custom, nothing should be retained more firmly.” One cannot say without great absurdity that custom and the necessity of a commandment are perpetually opposed to each other. Luke 2:[42] says that Christ’s parents went up to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover “according to custom.” Yet they were doing this very thing under the necessity of a commandment (Exod. 23:17; Deut. 16:16).

Theophilus Nicolaides (Defens. tract. Socin. de ecclesia et missione ministr., ch. 1, p. 143) makes some specific objections to those passages. (1) He claims that “1 Tim. 4:14 speaks not about the teaching duty but about the grace of God that was in Timothy, that is, about the spiritual gifts which had come to him miraculously.”

We respond. We do not deny that χάρισμα properly means “spiritual gifts.” However, from this one cannot infer that the sending and ordination of Timothy cannot be deduced from this text, because those spiritual gifts had come to Timothy in the very call and ordination, which was being accomplished through the imposition of the hands of Paul and of the presbyters.

Nicolaides is forced to acknowledge this, now that the lightning of truth has convicted him. Therefore he adds: “The teaching office had come to Timothy through prophecy, that is, through the votes of the chief men in the church of Christ, with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery.” Therefore he makes a different objection and adds: “Even if it were conceded that Paul sent Timothy by the imposition of hands, what will he” (Miedzebozius) “make of this, responding that each and every one who enters the teaching office is sent by someone else? Yet an affirming conclusion from species to genus is not valid. At that time, Timothy could have been sent by Paul or even by other elders of the church, not because this was necessary for that office of teaching and because without a sending Timothy could not have taught others, but because at that time order and decency in the church required it.”

We respond. (a) The Photinians’ theorem is that those who are not bringing out a new and previously unheard-of doctrine have no need for a particular sending. It is correct to set the example of Timothy against this. He did not propose new doctrine in the church at Ephesus, of which he had been established as bishop, and yet he in particular had been sent and ordained to the ministry. In fact, Paul says explicitly about Titus: “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might appoint presbyters in every town” (Titus 1:5).

(b) Indeed, it is not always permissible to argue from species to genus. Yet one may proceed from an enumeration of all species to the genus, from a sufficient induction of all examples to a general rule, and from those things that are constituted in the same way and do not allow a contrary objection to a universal declaration. This is how Paul, in Romans 4, proves the free justification of faith from the examples of Abraham and David, because all the devout are justified in the same way as Abraham and David were justified, and no one can give a contrary example of people who were justified differently. The matter is constituted the same way in this question about the calling of ministers. As Timothy did not preach without a sending, so none of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and other teachers of the church preached without a sending. Consequently, from the example of Timothy it is correct to infer the general rule that no one should preach without a sending.

(c) Whatever sort of order and decency of the church once required Timothy’s sending, the same sort of order and decency of the church also today requires the sending of ministers. But now, that order was not arbitrary and indifferent [ἀδιάφορος] but was necessary by virtue of divine command, apostolic example, and the salvation of the church. Therefore such order still today requires the sending of ministers.

Nicolaides acknowledges this in part as he immediately adds: “It would have been excessively disgraceful in an already well-established commonwealth for there to be so great a confusion (ἀταξία) and for those things to be neglected that had to do with adorning it. So also today it would be indecent for those who are going to teach others to be established without a certain order and decency, because the assemblies have been established and there are elders in them.” What he adds in regard to the lack of a necessary and general regulation in this matter can be judged from the preceding.

(2) He says that 1 Tim. 5:22 “deals not with the ordination of ministers but with receiving a fallen sinner” (Defens., ch. 2, p. 177).

We respond. On the contrary, wherever in the history [Acts] and Epistles of the apostles there is mention of the imposition of hands, there is expressed there, for the most part, the ceremony that was usually used in the ordination and sending of ministers (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). This ceremony was also used in conferring the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17) and in miracles (Acts 9:12; 19:6; 28:8). But nowhere do we read that the apostles used this ceremony in receiving fallen sinners. Therefore it is groundless for him to assert that this apostolic statement must be taken to mean such a reception. The words that follow, “Do not participate in the sins of others,” do not oppose our interpretation. These words, you see, either contain a particular command distinct from the previous one, or they give the cause why the ministry should be committed to no one quickly, namely, lest such a neophyte, without careful judgment and consideration, having been selected, should stir up disturbances in the church, the cause of which could be attributed partly to us. See Ambrose and all the ancients on this passage.
+++
Copyright (c) 2012 Concordia Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Valerius Herberger on St. Lucy

The Feast of St. Lucy, Virgin.

Veri Christiani, Luminaria mundi.
A heart that pleases God is a light of this world.

In the Name of the greatest, most noble Light of the World, Jesus Christ, who in the holy Gospel  from the lofty lampstand of His Cross, shines upon the whole Church, and so loves believing hearts that He shares His name with them, and not only calls them Children of Light, but "Lights of the World." — Most blessed with God the heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost in eternity. Amen.

Dear devout hearts, consider with diligence the beautiful words of the Lord Jesus from Matthew 5:14–16. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Lucy in German means an illuminatress, or a child of the light, as our Savior calls all His Christians, John 12:36; Luke 16:8. For she knew the great Light of the World, Jesus Christ, John 1:4; 8:12, and to His glory let the light of her faith shine before men by the beautiful rays of Christian virtue, according to the instruction of the Lord Christ, Matt. 5:16. For this reason I have undertaken to expound these words of the Lord Jesus. Wherefore let us briefly (1) summarize the words of Christ, and hear how He describes His sincere Christians, and then (2) consider how St. Lucy's faith and life agreed with what the Lord Jesus says.

O Lord, send Your Light and Your truth, that they may lead me and bring me to Your holy hill, and to Your habitation. Ps. 43:3.

…

Part II.

We are given a beautiful example in St. Lucy, who was also a light of the world. For she carried the Light of the world, the Lord Jesus, on the lampstand of her faith, and to His glory shone with beautiful rays of virtue as a light in the world

She was constantly asking her wealthy mother to do good to the poor. Her mother said, Wait till I kick the bucket, then you can give everything away. Then good Lucy said, Dear Mother, Da dum vivis, "Give while you live; then God will pay you back. For what you give when you die you give by necessity, only because you cannot take it with you. Otherwise you just leave it there." This is a good rule for those who always talk and prattle about what they will bequeath after their death and never get to it. Behold how her faith burns with beautiful rays of love for her poorer brothers and sisters in Christ!

When the wreath of her virginity was threatened to be taken by force, she said, Si inviolatam me violabis, castitas mihi duplicabitur ad coronam; non enim inquinatur corpus, nisi de consensu mentis, " 'If you violate me who am inviolate, I will gain a twofold crown for my chastity; for the body will not be defiled unless there is consent.' — But that shall never happen with my will."

When she was ordered to make offerings to false gods and to adhere to the older form of worship, she said, "I am assured what is the best, oldest, and most beautiful form of worship, a pure and spotless worship of God the Father, to wit, visiting widows and orphans in their affliction and keeping oneself unstained by the world." These words are found in James 1:27. Behold how her love for God's Word shone forth. How closely she must have listened to the sermon! Then the judge said, "Enough of this foolish talk, I pray you. Tell it to those who lack wisdom. I will abide by the counsel of those who rule the Roman empire." Then Lucy said, "Listen well, then. You shall abide by the counsel of those who rule the empire on earth, and shall I not abide by the counsel of the Most High who rules in heaven? John 6:29; Matt. 3:17; 17:5. You fear rulers, and shall I not fear God? You refuse to anger worldly powers, and shall I anger God? You delight to please princes, and shall I not delight to please God? Do what you cannot avoid; I will do what I know shall profit me for ever. Behold how her Christian heart shone forth!

Therefore God wrought great wonders in her: She could not be moved from her place. God protected her virginity as He did that of Susanna. She could not be burned, like the three confessors, Dan. 3:18. The ancient God was living yet. She could not be executed by the sword before she had been given the most worthy Supper. For the LORD does what the God-fearing desire, Ps. 145:19. The heathen said, "These are very tricks of sorcery. But she said, "Not at all. Rather, they are true and miraculous proofs of My Savior Jesus Christ's power."

There was also a famous Lady Lucy at the time of the cruel emperor Diocletian. She was treacherously exposed as a Christian by her own son, and was delivered over to death. No doubt she saw what Christ, Luke 12:51ff.… God grant all pious hearts patience who must still mourn such things today. Amen.

(From Valerius Herberger, Evangelische Hertz-Postille; translation © 2012 Matthew Carver.)