But love edifieth.—I CORINTHIANS 8:1
ALL human speech, even the divine speech of the Holy Scriptures about spiritual matters, is essentially metaphorical. And this is quite proper as regards existence in general, since, although from the moment of his birth man is spirit, he does not become conscious of himself as spirit until later, and so sensuo-psychically he has already lived through a certain period of his life before the spiritual awakening. But this first period will not then be discarded when the soul awakens, just as little as the soul’s awakening will proclaim itself in a sensuous or sensuo-psychical manner as against the sensuous and sensuo-psychical. That first period is simply taken over by the spirit, and thus employed, thus made the foundation, it becomes the metaphorical. The spiritual man and the serfsuo-psychical man therefore in a certain sense say the same thing. Yet there is an infinite difference, since the latter does not suspect the secret of the figurative expression, although he nevertheless uses the same word, but not figuratively. There is a world of difference between the two; the one has made the transition, or has allowed himself to be carried over to that side, while the second remains on this side; yet there is a bond between them because they both use the same expression. The one in whom the soul has awakened, has not, therefore, abandoned the visible world; he is always, although conscious of being spirit, in the visible world, and even sensuously visible: so he also continues to use the same language except that it has become metaphorical. But the metaphorical expression is not a brand-new word; on the contrary, it is an ordinary word. As the spirit is invisible, so too is its language secret, and the secret lies precisely in the fact that it uses the same word as the child and the common man, but it uses it figuratively, whereby the spirit denies that it is the sensuous or the sensuopsychical, but does not deny it in a sensuous or sensuo-psychical manner. The difference is by no means a conspicuous difference. We rightly regard it, therefore, as a sign of false spirituality to make a parade of the conspicuous distinction—which is the sign of the purely sensuous, whereas the essence of the spirit is the quiet, whispering secrecy of the metaphorical—to the one who has ears to hear with.
One of the figurative expressions which the Holy Scripture frequently makes use of, or one of the words which the Holy Scripture most frequently uses figuratively, is: to build, to edify. And it is really —yes, it is very edifying to see how the Holy Scripture does not tire of this word, how it does not spiritually desire changes and new turns of expression, but that, on the contrary, how that which is the true essence of the spirit refashions the thought in the same word! And it is—yes, it is very edifying to see how the Scripture by the use of this simple word is able to indicate the highest and that in the most inward manner; it is like that miracle of feeding the multitude with a limited supply, which nevertheless through the blessing became so richly abundant that there was left a superfluity! And it is—aye, it is edifying, if someone succeeds, instead of busying himself in making new discoveries which will busily supplant the old, in being humbly satisfied with the Scriptural words, in thankfully and inwardly appropriating to himself the traditions of the early Fathers, in establishing a new acquaintancewith the old acquaintances. As children we have all frequently played “Stranger”: truly, this is exactly earnestness, spiritually understood, to be able to continue this edifying jest in earnest, to play “Stranger” with old acquaintances.
To edify is a figurative expression; however, we shall now, with that secrecy of the spirit in mind, see what this word signifies in ordinary use. To edify is formed from the verb “to build” [at bygge] and the adverb “up” [op], on which latter the emphasis must consequently be placed. Everyone who upbuilds builds, but not everyone who builds builds up. For instance, if a man builds a wing to his house we do not say that he builds up a wing, but that he builds an addition. This “up” seems consequently to indicate direction in height, direction upward. Yet this does not quite express it. Thus if a man carries a building which is sixty feet high twenty feet higher, we do not say that he builds up his house twenty feet higher; we say that he builds an addition. Now we begin to see the application of the word, for it seems that it does not depend on the height. On the contrary, if a man built a house, even if it was only a little, low house, but he built it from scratch, then we say he built [up] a house. To build [up] is consequently to build something from scratch. This “up” indicates a certain direction as height; but only when height is also depth reversed do we say “build up” So that if a man builds up in height and from scratch, but the depth below ground does not quite correspond to the height, then we certainly say that he builds up, or simply that he builds, although by “simply building” we understand something different. Thus the emphasis is in relation to the fact of building, in building from scratch. We do not call building in the ground building up, we do not speak of building a well. But if we speak about building up, then no matter how high or how low the building is, it must be from scratch. We may therefore say that 2 man began to build a house, but he did not finish. On the contrary, We can never say that a man, however much he may have added to the height of the building, if it was not built from scratch, built it.
How strange! This “up” in the word “upbuilding” means height, but height as contrary to depth; for to build up is to start from the beginning. Therefore the Scriptures say of the man of little understanding, that he “built without a foundation”; but of the man who hears the word in true edification, or, as the Scriptures have it, the one who hears the word and acts accordingly, that he is like a man who built his house and “digged deep.” When, therefore, the waters came and the winds blew and beat upon this dependably built house, then we all rejoiced at the edifying sight that the storms could not shake it. Alas, for, as was said with reference to building up, it particularly depends on building on a foundation.
It is commendable that a man, before he starts to build, should reflect on “how high he will be able to build his tower,” but if he decides to build, then let him take care to dig deep; for even if the tower, if that were possible, reached to the clouds, if it were without a foundation it was not really built. To build absolutely without a foundation is impossible, it is building in the air. Therefore we are grammatically correct when we talk about building air castles; we do not say “building up air castles,” which would be a careless and absurd use of language. For even in expressing the insignificant, there must be harmony between the individual words, such as is not present between “in the air,” and “to build up,” since the first takes the foundation away, and the latter dispenses with “foundation”; the combination then would be a false overstatement.
This explains the expression “to build up” in simple unfigurative language. Let us now consider it as a figurative expression, and pass over to the subject of this reflection: