notice of the preceding and following, the near and remote
not regard his own things exclusively, but also the things of others; and who ascended through the deepest humiliation to the highest glory.
2. THE CONNECTION. The absolute necessity of taking particular notice of the preceding and following, the near and remote connection of a passage, can scarcely be over-emphasized. It is the conditio sine qua non of all sound exegesis. And yet this is often neglected, especially by those who regard the Bible as a collection of proof-texts. The division of the contents of Scripture into chapters and verses is always apt to endanger this conception. Consequently, many passages of the Bible were misinterpreted in the course of time, and these perversions were handed down from generation to generation. The following passages may serve as examples: Prov. 28:14; 31:6; Jer. 3:14b; Zech. 4:6b; Matt. 4:4b; 10:19; 2 Cor. 3:6b. Rev. E. Kropveld wrote an instructive little work on, "misbruikte Schriftuurplaatsen," which the interpreter can consult with profit. No interpretation that neglects the connection should be dignified with the name "exegesis."
The connection is not always of the same kind. Four types of connections merit attention:
(a) Purely historical, when one historical narrative follows another to which it is genetically and ideologically related (Matt. 3:13–17; 4:1– 11).
(b) Historico-dogmatical, when a dogmatical discourse or teaching is connected with a historical fact (John 6:1–14, 26–65).
(c) Logical, in that the thoughts or arguments are presented in a strictly logical order (Rom. 5:1 ff.; 1 Cor. 15:12–19).
(d) Psychological, when the connection depends on the association of ideas. This often causes an apparent break in the line of thought (Heb. 5:11 ff).
a. In studying the connection, close attention must be paid to the conjunctions. By neglecting this, the interpreter may miss important points. We refrain from giving examples, but refer to what has already been said respecting the use of conjunctions. In some cases, the conjunction itself may represent an element of uncertainty, and the expositor will have to rely on the general context. For example, the conjunction de may be either continuative or adversative, and this makes it uncertain whether John 3:1 introduces Nicodemus as an illustration or as an exception.
b. As a rule the connection should be sought as near as possible. But if a passage does not yield good sense in connection with the immediately preceding, the more remote context must be consulted. Some commentators would connect Rom. 2:16 with the 15th verse. But this construction is very objectionable, and it is preferable to go back to the 12th or 13th verse, and to regard the intervening sentences as a parenthesis. On the other hand, some unnecessarily link Rom. 8:22 with the 19th verse, while it yields a perfectly good sense if connected with the 21st verse.
c. When the connection is not at once apparent, the interpreter should not hastily conclude that there is a change in the course of thought, but rather pause and reflect. On careful consideration it may become evident that there is only a seeming change, while in fact the same subject is continued. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul treats of the right use of Christian liberty in adiaphora. Now, it seems as if he turns away from this subject in 9:1, and begins with a defense of his apostleship, when he says: "Am I not an apostle?" etc. But this is only apparent. He points out that he, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, has many rights and liberties, but makes a considerate use of them, in order that his work may be more fruitful.
d. The interpreter should have an open eye for parentheses, digressions and anacolutha. These all disturb the connection more or less. In the case of parentheses, remarks relating to time and place, or brief secondary circumstances, are intercalated, after which a
paragraph or sentence is continued, as if no interruption had taken place. Thus we read in Gen. 23:2: "And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba (the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan) and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her." Cf. also Isa. 52:14, 15; Dan. 8:2; Acts 1:15.
Digressions differ from parentheses in that they are longer and consist of deviations from the line of argument pursued into collateral topics, or in turning from the direct course of thought into another somewhat allied to it. There is a remarkable example in Eph. 3:2–13, which some would even extend to 4:1. Cf. also 2 Cor. 3:14– 17; Heb. 5:10–7:1.
Anacolutha consist of an unexpected change from one construction to another, without completing the former. They are often expressive of energy or strong emotions. Cf. Zech. 2:11; Ps. 18:47, 48; Luke 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:3. Occasionally, an anacoluthon is connected with a parenthesis or digression, and then presents a double difficulty. In Rom. 5:12 the apostle says: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Now, he would naturally be expected to continue: "so also by one, Jesus Christ, righteousness entered, and through righteousness, life." But the apostle drops the thought in verse 12, and when he takes it up again in verse 18, the construction is changed.
e. In cases in which the connection is not obvious, the question arises, whether the passage to be interpreted does not contain a reflection on, or an answer to the thoughts, as distinguished from the words, of the persons addressed; and whether there is not a possible psychological connection. A careful study of the discourses and conversations of the Saviour reveals the fact that he often gave answer to the thoughts rather than to the words of his auditors. Cf. Luke 14:1–5: John 3:2; 5:17, 19, 41; 6:26. Many commentators have adjudged the words in Micah 2:12, 13 to be an interpolation, because of the seeming lack of connection. But it is quite possible to find a