The famous Sermon raises the righteousness bar: “Unless your righteousness exceeds…”
I have been enjoying preaching through Matthew’s gospel for several months this year. The Sermon on the Mount beginning in chapter 5 has been especially enjoyable.
If you are interested in the elements of grace in what is often known as more of a law-kind of text, here are some things I have experienced.
First, because of my recent Ph.D. dissertation on Psalm 119, I had a hyper-awareness to the similarity between the “blessed” in the Psalm and the Beatitudes. It is important that Jesus’s sermon begins with the announcement of blessing. No requirements or rules. Not yet.
Second, Jesus’s first recorded sermon contains the command to “repent” (4:17). So, as Jesus continues to preach about the necessary righteousness, each element of righteousness is a form of repentance, which we know is granted as a gift (cf. Acts 11:18).
Third, and probably the most subtle, is found after the Sermon ends. Matthew 8 begins with two characters displaying tremendous faith in Jesus to heal, first the leper and then the centurion. Matthew positions these narratives in such a way to help readers realize that success in reaching the ultra-righteousness called for in the Sermon is found only through faith in Jesus.
Watch your parishioners while your preaching the Sermon. The bar is raised so high, over and over again. Watch the smiles emerge as you remind them that Jesus commands what He creates. There is no longer the thought of, “I can’t do that!” He has done it and now provides a new desire and capacity for the ultra-righteousness He demands.
Those smiles, sourced in God’s grace, will continue to contribute to His glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
Through the years I have tried many different outline methods.
The method I taught in my early years of teaching preaching was that each major point should be worded as an application. It had some merit since it forced preachers to see listener response in each major point and not just at a segment at the end of the sermon. It helped listeners to respond each step of the way.
Then, I spent several years preaching without any outline. Instead of announcing major points, I simply used logical transitions to move from one segment to the next.
For the past several years my outlining follows the method of Timothy Keller, former pastor at Redeemer NYC. You may not know this but Keller’s method of outlining follows the method of another famous preacher named, Jonathan Edwards. I found that out after listening to hundreds of Keller’s sermons and, later, reading Edwards’ sermons.
My best attempt to explain the method is to say that the outline reflects an attempt to show the logical divisions of a particular idea.
Which brings me to my point in this post.
Now I teach and practice a form of outlining that stems from tracing the argument of a passage. My students know this as the “A” in ABIT.
The outline emerges from the practice of dividing a preaching portion into thought blocks, summarizing each block in a sentence, and identifying the logical transition that exists from block to block.
In this way the practice of tracing the argument contributes to the formation of a preaching outline. And for me, this exercise begins on Monday morning. While I might not create the final wording of the outline until later in the week after my exegesis is complete, I understand how the meaning is made in the pericope.
You probably do something like this to create your outline.
Our outlines may help our listeners keep the sermon from fragmenting into too many ideas. The major points all fit together.
The outline helps me make sure I understand how the author is communicating theology. It is a teaching tool for me. If I can outline it right, I am more confident I can communicate the theology clearly.
And, as always, the goal in such clarity is that our Lord would receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
You can decide whether this quote is encouraging or discouraging; same with the following post.
Back in March I introduced you to the multi-volume set, Theoretical-Practical Theology, by Petrus Van Mastricht. The title is a strong hint as to why I believe the set holds tremendous promise for preaching.
Van “Mastricht argued that the TPT was to be used in the preparation of preaching” (p. xxxix). That’s what makes this volume a special part of my reading this year.
Preachers and homileticians will also be interested in an early chapter, The Best Method of Preaching. Now, remember that the following quote was written in 1682. Tell me whether this sounds familiar…
“I did not produce those disputations in haughtiness, for I cheerfully and frankly confess that they do not possess anything from their learning and erudition that could comment them to anyone–especially not in this most self-indulgent age…” (emphasis added, Preface, p. 3).
Imagine that: Mastricht described his day as a “most self-indulgent age.”
When I read something like that it gives me courage. At times I find myself thinking that all of our technological advances make it more difficult to minister in this day. Mastricht’s description fits our day. Back then people respected ministers more than they do today, but the age of self-indulgence marches on.
One of our responsibilities as preachers and teachers of God’s Word is to continue to call Christ-followers toward self-denial. That sounds like something Jesus taught, more precisely as a prerequisite for following Him.
I asked earlier whether this post would be encouraging or discouraging. Either way it hits you, it potentially keeps us focused on our task. And as we work at this each weekend our Lord receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
Theological Depth Is Often Found Through Implication.
I have the privilege recently to be preaching through the early chapters of the Gospel of Matthew. In verses 13-16, Jesus teaches His listeners that they are salt and light.
Explicitly this teaches us about ourselves and how Christ has transformed us into new creations with new spiritual properties.
Implicitly this teaches us about our world.
One sermon segment then can focus attention on what our being salt and light implies concerning the condition of the world in which we live. The logic goes like this:
if we function as salt and light in the world this must imply something about what the world is made of.
The world must need salt and the world must need light. The world needs salt because the world’s substance is subject to decay, let’s say. The world needs light because it is in darkness (I found that one easier).
My point is that as you prepare for this coming Sunday, you can add some theological depth to your sermon by observing implications. God may be stating some things explicitly and you are able to draw conclusions even though God didn’t state that conclusion explicitly.
As is always the case when providing extra-textual data, the way to remain theologically sound is to be sure your implications can be substantiated in the broader context of Scripture. The case above, the implication might not be in Matthew 5:13-16, but it could be in other places in Matthew or in other places in the Canon of Scripture. This gives implication the same authority as the information in our preaching portions.
As you study this week look for strong implication and may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).
We Could Be Losing our Listeners with our Well-crafted (yawn) Outlines.
A couple of weeks ago I suggest that we contribute to that glazed look (the Steve Carrel pic) by (1) allowing gaps in the emotional connection between our sermon data and our listener’s response and (2) allowing gaps in the logical connection between our sermon data–even main points–and our listener’s response.
In both cases I am talking about responses in terms of worship responses: what God intends for Scripture to do to the Christian.
An example of the second phenomenon is a sermon on the Beatitudes in Matthew 5.
There are nine “Blessed are’s…” in the section (vv. 1-12). I chose to spend two sermons on all nine (I covered the first three and then the final six).
This type of list can easily cause slumber in the seats because of how easy it is to allow gaps in the logical connection between the individual Beatitude and a worship response.
That means we have to work hard at each Beatitude, each main point if you will, to keep the worship response intact.
I did not do a very good job at this because I chose to cover the final six together: how the blessed ones are described.
Then, it was time to play catch up and connect the dots between Beatitude and God’s intention for announcing such blessings: Kingdom-Made Christians…
believe the blessing
stabilize their hope in this upside down world
assess the degree that they mirror these characteristics
I hope you can see that too many minutes between those bullet points and each Beatitude can create the yawns or blank stares.
May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as work hard to keep strong emotional and logical connections with our listeners who have ears to hear.
The statement means much more than is being said! Introducing Illocutionary Intent-Informed Meaning (II-M) and Why it Matters
This past Monday I was privileged to present some of my more important Ph.D. dissertation findings to the Alcuin Society of Lancaster Bible College | Capital Seminary & Graduate School. Many thanks to faculty and guests who were extremely gracious.
Here are a few things that are pertinent to preachers:
Learn to think about application early in the sermon development process. The old school approach was to wait on application because if entertained too early, the process had the potential to skew exegesis.
In order to think about application earlier, the search for application must be a part of the search for exegetical/theological meaning.
In order for that to happen your exegetical method must include the search for what I call, Illocutionary Intent. This involves looking for clues as to what the biblical author wants to do to the readers.
If you like, try to create a meaning summary, II-M, for Luke 15. In other words, your one-sentence meaning summary must include an element of what the author intends to do to the reader. Or, to put it another way, make sure your meaning summary includes the intended application or response of the church to Luke 15.
Try it and see how you do.
Also, if, like me, you’re already looking at a Text for this coming Sunday, see if you can detect the illocutionary intent of the author. This will give you a sneak peak at your primary sermon application and worship response of your congregants.
And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
Randal
P.S. I trust you enjoyed a wonderful Easter celebration!
Attempting to Add Additional Depth to our Exegetical Practices for Sermon Development
I am hoping that providing these examples of asking and answering questions as part of exegesis will help you dig deeper as you prepare to preach and teach the Scriptures.
I encountered another example as a result of preparing to preach today from Matthew 3:1-12, the John the Baptist narrative.
One of the key exegetical/theological aspects of the preaching portion is in v. 2, John’s sermon:
“Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
If you’ve preached or taught this before then you’ve defined “repent” and also announced the logical connection created by the connector, “for.” It is because the kingdom of heaven has come near that everyone is called to repentance. You have also defined the kingdom of heaven.
Now, I have been promoting the need to dig a bit deeper by asking and answering additional “why” questions. The analysis above, while important, is not sufficient. In this case I want to ask,
“Why does the arrival of the kingdom of heaven warrant repentance?”
Could you answer that question? Do you see why that question is important for the sermon/lesson? Imagine critical sermon minutes devoted to things like an explanation of the kind of King Jesus is or the kind of kingdom He is creating or the kind of citizen that can occupy this kingdom.
An attempt at an answer is something like: “Only repentance from sin, a true turn from sin and turning to God, creates the kind of citizen that can inhabit the kind of Kingdom God is creating for His new world.”
I am hoping you can see how God can receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) with that kind of exegetical and theological depth.
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.
Learn to get below the surface of theological concepts like “sin.”
A couple of weeks ago I posted on how answering the “why” question can add theological depth to our preaching.
First, when I advocate adding theological depth, I am not talking about the common notion that “deep” preaching is difficult to understand. I am talking about fleshing out the implications of key doctrines in a preaching portion. One way to do that is to look for unanswered “why” questions.
For instance, this coming Sunday, Lord willing I will be preaching Matthew 1:18-25. Verse 21 reads,
“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
One question and answer that adds theological depth to preaching this section is,
“Why is being saved from our sins so important?”
The text does not tell us. We add theological depth by answering that question for our listeners.
Probably our theologically astute listeners will respond with something like: “Having Jesus save us from our sins is important because we are under the condemnation of God.”
Very true, of course.
But what about the sanctifying effect of being saved from our sins? Most of our listeners will not think about the devastating effects of sin in our daily lives.
Consider this standard definition of sin:
any lack of conformity to the character of God, whether by act, disposition, or state (a definition that I still remember from my first year of ministry training back in 1980!).
Notice what is missing in this definition. It’s not that it’s not accurate; it’s just not accurate enough. What’s missing is the soul-destroying, joy-destroying effect of sin. And so in a sermon we could say something like:
“Having Jesus save us from our sins is important because not only are we under the condemnation of God, we are also slaves to soul-destroying, joy-destroying sins.”
My point is that many preaching portions demand us to answer this kind of “why” question. And when we do, our Lord will receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),
Dave and I enjoyed fun times together at our Global Outreach Summit. He also has great interest in hermeneutics and homiletics.
Dave Shive is a 1968 graduate of Washington Bible College, and a 1972 graduate of Capital Bible Seminary with a Th.M. in New Testament Studies. He is also a 1994 graduate of the Baltimore Hebrew University where he received an M.A. in Biblical Literature. Dave also pursued doctoral studies at Baltimore Hebrew University.
He has spent the past 48 years in fulltime ministry as a pastor, Christian school director, college professor, and missions advocate.
Since 2008, Dave and Kathy have served as full time mission mobilizers. They are currently on staff with Frontier Ventures (formerly the U.S. Center for World Mission) in Pasadena, CA.
Dave and Kathy will celebrate their 54th wedding anniversary in June 2022. They have lived in Catonsville, MD, for 25 years. They have three married children, Dan, Mike, and Becky and are the proud grandparents of 11 grandchildren.
Working Harder to Preach Shorter
As a guest speaker, I was recently asked to limit my sermon to 25 minutes. As one who prefers 35 or 40 minutes to preach, I was confronted by a daunting challenge. Oddly enough, I find that preparing this short post on preaching short sermons is much more difficult than writing a longer post about preaching shorter sermons!
As I prepared my short(er) sermon, I recalled a senior pastor who, when asked by a guest preacher how long he could speak, replied, “Five minutes shorter than you think.” The senior pastor was probably thinking that he had heard many sermons that could be improved if only they were a bit shorter. One homiletics professor confided to me that each year one or two students would tell him that they could preach a better sermon in class if they were only allowed more pulpit time. The good prof’s response was always the same: “No, you couldn’t” (said with a smile).
As I was preparing my 25-minute sermon, the difficulties in preparing a shorter message were glaring. My struggle reminded me of the quote by Blaise Pascal: “I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.” Similar to Pascal, I realized I could preach a shorter sermon, but I would need a lot more prep time! Therein lies the dilemma of preaching with less allotted time.
To reduce the length of a sermon, more care is required in the selection of what to say. There also needs to be a ruthless culling of what NOT to say. Almost every pastor can agree that preaching for 25 minutes is harder than preaching for 45. Give me a text and I can preach on it for an hour with little preparation (I’m not saying it would be a good sermon!). But give me the same text and ask me to preach on it for 25 minutes and I would need significantly more prep time.
To preach a shorter sermon, one must be more deliberate, focused, conscious of every word, sentence, paragraph, and idea. Greater discipline is needed to make the best use of every precious minute. I found myself desperately returning again and again to my Big Idea to make sure everything I was saying was necessary and remained true to the text.
Oh, and a footnote to my story about my 25-minute sermon. When I arrived at my guest home the night before I was to preach, I was informed that I could take as much time as I needed! Relieved to hear that, I only exceeded my original time limit by a few minutes the next morning. I realized that my preparation for a 25-minute delivery enabled me to preach a much better sermon.This kind of sermon preparation is great practice in developing homiletical discipline. Try this sample exercise: If you have 40 minutes to deliver a sermon, prepare as if you only have 25 minutes to preach. See what happens!
