This is the third post aimed at helping us think about adding theological depth to our preaching. The reason why it is important is because most of our exegetical methods do not include this aspect of sermon development.
At this stage of my thinking I am still considering answering the “Why?” question part of theological exegesis (TE). But I usually think of TE as exegeting a text in its broader immediate and canonical context so it functions for the church, part of theological interpretation (TI).
I am toying with terms like, Implicational Exegesis (IE), or Philosophical Exegesis (PE). I’ll take any suggestions.
Another example of this level of exegesis is in Matthew 1:23 “…they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us).”
Since Matthew already does the heavy lifting in the word study aspect of exegesis, it’s up to us to ask why the arrival of “God with us” is significant.
Well, I can tell you that the answer to that question is not easy to find in major commentaries. It will take much theological thinking, thus justifying the label of theological exegesis. We’re asking the question, “Where in the Bible do we learn the significance of having
God with us?” and “When we locate such doctrine, what do we learn about what His presence means for His people?”
If we don’t reach that exegetical depth in our sermon, it will be impossible for listeners to connect emotionally with this stated fact. [I am using “connect emotionally” to convey the times when our parishioners feel praise welling up in them because of the reality.]
So, whatever we end up calling it, I find this to be an important, time consuming element of our exegetical practice.
And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as a result of our efforts to dig a bit deeper into His glorious revelation.
Randal
Hi Pastor Randy, this is very helpful for helping me think through sermon prep time for my own sake and God’s Church. My only thoughts concerning your Implicational Exegesis & Philosophical Exegesis would be to say that Implicational Exegesis makes me think of the term “domino effect.” How do the more obscure passages in Scripture travel into our 21st century world today? And it could be that something like an Old Testament genealogy brings us to Jesus Who was born from a broken family heritage, the implication being that Christ’s family is born from a messy background, hence we can accept our messy heritage too.
And then as for the Philosophical Exegesis, my thought is to embrace some of the mystery of that particular truth & embrace the tension. Perhaps it means bringing into that text a few different kinds of viewpoints on that particular subject, like predestination vs. our free will. I wouldn’t spend too much sermon time on this, but I think it’s good to bring our congregation to the conclusion of “I’m not sure” on certain subjects. It makes us human and God God. In that way, we can humbly show the deep depths and high heights of God’s nature soas to respond in worship. Those are my thoughts for whatever they are worth!
It’s always good to hear from you, Aaron. Thanks for reading the post and thinking about how it can be applied. Let me reply briefly and we can always follow up: those obscure passages such as the genealogy either contain clues within them (Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus in chapter 1) or in the immediate context (OT genealogies in Genesis, for instance, in chapter 5). Those clues unlock the theological purpose or intent of the authors. So the messy line concerning Jesus does contain links to two great OT covenants, four gentile women participants, and summaries highlighting the deportation. All are extremely significant for Matthew’s theology in chapter 1. I think the idea of keeping doctrines in tension when the Bible presents them that way is satisfyingly honest, something that many parishioners will appreciate. Sadly, some would feel more comfortable if we highlight one side and eclipse the other. Since the Bible presents both sides, I want us to give both sides their due. Preach well, my dear brother.