Category Archives: theological exegesis

Posted on

Add “powerful arguments” to Your Exegesis: What I’m learning from reading Jonathan Edwards’s Earliest Sermons

by

The Part We Play in Persuading our Listeners to Worship Each Sunday

Some of you may recall that my first observation about Edwards’s preaching was that his sermons lacked the kind of exegesis I was used to. I was trained and practice exegesis that is heavy on word studies. To my surprise, Edwards’s early sermons so far show little lexical work.

The second recorded sermon in Kimnach’s book is, The Value of Salvation, based on Matthew 16:26 “For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

When Edwards arrived at his Exhortation, he states an obvious implication/application: “Let us take utmost care that we don’t lose our souls” (p. 329). He then restates Matthew 16:26 and writes,

“We have now heard the most powerful arguments in the world to persuade us [to] take care of our souls [emphasis added]” (p. 329).

Edwards was right: everyone in the house had heard the most powerful arguments in the world to persuade them to take care of their souls. How did he do it?

Glancing back into the sermon I picked up on two things.

  • Edwards had a comprehensive knowledge of Scripture so he could pull together key texts that spoke to his subject matter. In this case, Edwards relied on verses that spoke of the end of all earthly things.
  • Edwards was a careful observer of life with all its realities. For instance, Edwards reminded his audience that “Worldly good things are very uncertain” (p. 314). Speaking of our best earthly loves, “How uncertain are friends and relatives; their being dear to us won’t keep them from being take from us” (p. 316). So true. The same with, “And what rich man has there ever been whom riches have made happy?” (p. 318).

Page after page exhibits this foray into the minds of his listeners. And all for the purpose of getting them to this place:

“…let us take no thought for this present any otherwise than as the means of the good of our souls…” (p. 330).

There’s still a place in sermons for dictionary definitions of key terms. But I am learning from Edwards that lots of sermon space is needed for logical, theological, philosophical arguments that urge our listeners to their proper worship response to God’s revelation. It’s almost as if Edwards were saying, “Only a fool would not value the salvation of their soul!”

May we also be so forthright with our faith-families so God receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),

Randal

Posted on

The Consummate Persuader: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’s Earliest Sermons

by

Three things you can do to an idea: explain it, prove it, or apply it.
John 8:34 needs a strong dose of the second one.

In Edwards’s sermon, Wicked Men’s Slavery To Sin, his title comes directly from his text, John 8:34 “…Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” Pretty straightforward.

And his first statement of doctrine is also straightforward: Wicked men are servants and slaves to sin (p. 340, Kimnach).

In my previous post I pointed out how Edwards anticipates push-back from his listeners. He instinctively knows that some will not agree with this portrayal of reality. So, Edwards goes to work convincing his audience that God’s statement is true.

What I find fascinating about Edwards’s preaching–and I feel the same when I listen to Tim Keller–is that he knows the ways of the wicked so well. For instance, he writes,

“Wicked men generally think that the way of holiness and religion is much the hardest, and theirs to be much the easiest” (p. 341).

And the wickedness inside all of us thinks the same way. Is it because of our default setting? Or because our appetite for sin is stronger than our appetite for God? Or is it because of deception? Or all of the above? It’s the kind of theological thinking Edwards is very fond of.

Edwards goes on to show that serving God is far easier than serving sin. He quotes from the NT and Jesus’s yoke being easy, for instance. Then he shows the opposite by quoting from OT wisdom literature that lists “The leech” and “Three things [that] are never satisfied” (Proverbs 30:15-16). Obviously, whatever you have is never enough (think of lust and covetousness).

The second thing Edwards says is that “Wicked men are very obedient servants to sin” (p. 342). Whatever sin requires them to do, they do it, even if it means their destruction.

This kind of argument leads to genuine pity and compassion for those that are enslaved to sin. It also leads to the desire to serve God, not sin.

I hope that as you preach and teach you will follow Edwards’s example of reasoning with your listeners so that God receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus as they believe God’s reality to be true (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

How Did He Think Like That?!?!: What I’m Learning From Reading the Early Sermons of Jonathan Edwards

by

Christian Happiness, a sermon based on Isaiah 3:10, may be Edwards’s earliest sermon on record. The verse reads,

“Say unto the righteous, it shall be well with them: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.” (emphasis added)

The sermon begins with,

“Reasonable beings, while they act as such, naturally choose those things which they are convinced are best for them, and will certainly do those things which they know they had better do than leave undone.” (p. 296, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 10)

In typical Edwards fashion, he methodically unloads his logic on his listeners (two propositions of “doctrine,” five inferences of “use,” and two exhortations). Surely, every listeners is convinced that it’s in their best interest to be righteous!

But what caught my attention was the fourth inference:

“Hence learn the great goodness of God in joining so great happiness to our duty.” (p. 303)

How did Edwards think of this? What got him to this inference? And is it important for you and me that we figure this out?

Edwards thinks that there can be no happiness in this life if that happiness does not include doing the things righteous people do.

He states as Gospel fact:

“…the thing required of us shall not only be easy but a pleasure and delight, even in the very doing of it. How much the goodness of God shines forth even in his commands!” (p. 304)

Imagine a God–Edwards refers to Him as “a master of extraordinary goodness”–who only desires our happiness and out of His goodness commands “us to do those things that will make us so” (p. 304)!

Well, not only do we imagine our God like that, we praise Him because He is like that. And we evaluate whether our attitude towards doing the will of God–“a pleasure and delight”–reflects that reality.

May that kind of deep thinking be a part of our weekly preparation and result in God receiving glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Deep And Clear Preaching: Developing Flathead Sermons

by

I love this picture of Flathead Lake in Montana. It’s deceptively deep because it’s so clear. I want my sermons to be like that.

I’m not happy with this after-sermon comment: “Wow, Pastor! That sermon was deep!” There’s so many things potentially wrong with that as I’m sure you know.

What I treasure is the kind of comment I received recently from someone who visited our church when I was preaching a series of sermons through Romans 1-11. That morning I was preaching the middle of Romans 9 and that “easy” section on God’s prerogative to harden the heart of whomever He wants. A few weeks later he told me:

“I couldn’t believe you would preach that text. It was so clear. Thank you.”

“It was so clear.” Thank you, Lord!

Carrell (Preaching That Matters) has a chapter, Going Deeper, Not Wider. In the chapter she confirms our aversion to “deep” sermons, but urges: “when you are aiming for spiritual transformation and you have a choice between breadth and depth, go for depth” (p. 103).

Our allergic reaction to “deep” stems from confusing deep with confusing. I’m arguing for both deep and clear.

I guess we don’t have to worry about being too deep. Carrell writes,

“Not once in the comments from the more than thirty thousand listeners who have responded to sermons over these past several years has anyone ever said something that even begins to suggest: ‘That sermon content was just too deep for me'” (p. 104). [Of course, that could be a reflection of what a steady dose of topical preaching is doing to us!]

Depth will require that we be the best theologians we can be. Clarity will require us to be the best communicators we can be.

Flathead Lake reaches a depth of around 370 feet. It is also clear as crystal. Lord willing, in a couple of days we’ll be able to preach Flathead sermons.

Before Sunday check your manuscript for depth and clarity so God receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Tell ‘Em Why: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’ Sermons

by

In these posts I’m observing how Jonathan Edwards crafted what may have been his first sermon, Christian Happiness. His text was Isaiah 3:10 “Say unto the righteous, it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.” (cf. Kimnach, pages 296-307)

In his doctrine section, proposition II is “The good man is happy in whatsoever condition he is in; and that, First, because…”

What follows are three reasons why this proposition is true. Let me give you the three so you can see what Edwards is doing in this segment of the sermon.

“First, Because no worldly evils can do him any real hurt….

Second….because of the spiritual privileges and advantages, joys and satisfactions, he actually enjoys while in this life….

Third. And lastly, from the joyful hope and assured expectation of the enjoyment of the completion of happiness eternally hereafter…”

There are at least two things to consider. First, why does Edwards spend these minutes developing these reasons. Second, how does Edwards maintain biblical authority while answering these questions that his passage doesn’t answer.

First, Edwards identifies these reasons because the listeners requires some proof that this is true. Isaiah 3:10 is too good to be true in a badly broken world (the same could be said about Romans 8:28). Sometimes this kind of theological/philosophical exposition–remember, I’m not entirely happy with this designation but feel it’s adequate for now–requires our investigation of why the assertion of the Word of God is true or not true.

Second, Edwards answers these questions that are not answered in his text by appealing to the rest of Scripture’s teachings. At times Edwards appeals to multiple Scriptures without quoting them directly. If you read this sermon, you could easily insert Bible references because of Edwards’ ability to loosely quote Scripture. At other times Edwards paraphrases the teachings of Scripture that directly affect his text in Isaiah.

Before Sunday, see if your text contains questions that need to be answered and answer those questions, especially the “why?” question so God receives glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

 

Posted on

More Theology, Less Exegesis: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’ Sermons

by

A few weeks ago I began this series of posts on my rhetorical analysis of Jonathan Edwards’s early sermon. I want to continue this series with a look at two general foci that directed Edwards’s research and writing: theology and expression (the latter meaning expressing theology through language).

In his, Note to the Reader, Kimnach writes, “After theology, Edwards thought most about expression” (p. xiii).

This is insightful for most of us who preach and teach Scripture.

First, I am assuming that most everyone reading this blog has been trained in exegetical practices (such as the well-known historical, grammatical, literary method). That means that most of us think more about exegesis than we do theology.

I am well aware of the interrelationship between the two, between exegesis and theology. After almost thirty years of teaching preaching to all levels of students, I am also well aware of an overemphasis on exegetical analysis in expository sermons. The results are sermons that are exegetically heavy and theologically light.

Lord willing, next time I will flesh this out a bit more with examples from Edwards. For now, let me ask you to think about whether or not you think about theology this week as you prepare to preach and teach God’s Word. Are you moving beyond exegesis to theology? Asking that question forces us to become clearer in our understanding of what theology is.

Second, It is clear from reading Edwards’s early sermons that he spent much time thinking about how to express the theology contained in his selected passages of Scripture. He was a master of the English language of his day. He mastered language in order to get a response from his hearers.

Of course that meant for Edwards and means for us that we save sermon preparation time for crafting the message. This means being “done with” exegesis (see, I couldn’t help myself!)–I mean, theology–and devoting hours to thinking about the best way to use language to be used by the Holy Spirit to move people into an act of worship.

Before Sunday, devote sermon prep time to thinking about the theology of your passage and the best way to communicate it.

May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21),

Randal

Posted on

What I Learned From Listening To Nine Sermons In One Day!

by

I recently returned from teaching a fine class of Doctor of Ministry students (Preaching the Literary Forms of the Bible track) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. It’s always enjoyable and a privilege each May to join my good friend, Dr. Jeffrey Arthurs, for these days.

However, one of our responsibilities is listening to their sermons. My mentor, Dr. Haddon Robinson, once said that he had listened to so many bad sermons over the years, it’s a wonder he was still a Christian. He was half-joking. Thankfully, these students preached well.

But here’s what I observed from listening to nine of ten sermons in one day (All the sermons were dealing with preaching a narrative text.):

We have a tendency to spend too much time retelling the history of the text and not enough time telling the theology of the text.

If I remember correctly, I wrote that comment on virtually every sermon evaluation form.

It seems that instinctively (or due to training/modeling) we believe our task as preachers is to rehearse past redemptive history. Preachers keep their listeners in the past, learning about what happened in the Story.

WE’RE THEOLOGIANS, NOT HISTORIANS

I encouraged the class to think of themselves as theologians, not historians. That means, of course, that we’re able to write the sermon from the perspective of conveying theology, not history. That means we know how each part of the Story is functioning for the Church. That means we know how each part of the Story addresses our human condition as churchgoers. That means we are always talking to us about us from God’s Word. It’s never about God’s Word.

Next time you preach try to monitor yourself in the moment–are you sounding like a history lecture or a theologian/pastor?

And may our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Preaching the Davidic/Solomonic Kingship: Preaching Through 1 Chronicles

by

I admit: the title of this blog post is not sermon-friendly.

My own title for 1 Chronicles 17:1-15 was: “Direct our hearts toward you, Lord”: Living Life In God’s Eternal Kingdom.

1 Chronicles 17 is one of the more significant chapters in the OT. That’s because it contains information about the promises God made to David concerning his dynasty.

The most important aspect of preaching the Davidic/Solomonic Covenant is showing how everything God promised us in Christ, the Son of David, is guaranteed because of what God promised to do for David and his son, Solomon. David’s dynasty would be eternal which means it’s still active every Sunday morning.

This is a case where biblical theology is as important, if not more important, than exegesis.

 

So, here’s a way to approach this chapter:

  1. Our need for God’s kingdom (vv. 1-10a). Verses 8-9 describe the fact of God’s powerful presence to defeat Israel’s enemies (especially, “violent men”). The warfare which began in Genesis 3:1ff. and the promised victories of Gen. 3:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:24ff. provide the context for the Church’s current situation and ultimate hope.
  2. Our need for a King in God’s kingdom (vv. 10b-12). It is very difficult to preach this point in a democratic society like the U.S. I spent some minutes reviewing why Israel wanted a king in the first place (cf. 1 Sam. 8:20, “…fight our battles”). Most important is the fact that God’s chosen king rules in a “kingship within God’s kingly rule” (Bock & Blaising). The Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology speaks of the significant “role of a royal covenant mediator in the person of the king.” We don’t access God’s kingdom and all the benefits of God’s rule apart from a Mediator.
  3. Our life as citizens in God’s kingdom (vv. 13-15). Here is the place to show that the special adoption language describing God’s relationship to the king applies to us (“…I will not take my steadfast love from him…”).

Finally, you may want to move from the son of David (Solomon) to the Son of David (Christ in Matt. 1:1, 17, 20) who is declared the Son of God (Matt. 3:17) who makes living in God’s kingdom possible.

I hope this provides the kind of framework that can help the Church make sense of the Davidic Covenant so God receives glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Four Ways To Exegete Your Text: Following Jonathan Edwards’ Practices

by

1431400066447

A couple of weeks ago I finished reading Douglas A. Sweeney’s, Edwards the Exegete: Biblical Interpretation and Anglo-Protestant Culture on the Edge of the Enlightenment (Oxford).

One of the take aways from this book for those of us who preach or teach the Bible is the four different ways Edwards regularly approached studying the Bible. The four ways are Canonical, Christological, Redemptive-Historical, and Pedagogical exegesis. Think of them as supplements you take to boost your daily nutrient intake. Do you take any or any combination of them each week during sermon preparation?

These four approaches supplement what we normally think of as exegesis: historical-grammatical-literary. Edwards helps us remember why we need to move beyond the realms of word, historical, and literary studies. Here’s what we gain and how our congregation profits from the results of the following four exegetical practices:

Canonical Exegesis: This shows how your preaching portion fits with other Scriptures. Look for times when other Scripture provide vital additional information for the interpretation of your preaching portion.  Your congregants will appreciate seeing how God’s revelation works together to create meaning.I don’t recommend the common practice of showing listeners other Scripture that say the same thing as your preaching portion.

Christological Exegesis: This shows how your preaching portion functions for the Church because of Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and dispatching His Spirit on those who believe. Your listeners will appreciate learning how all Scripture points to the grace of God in Christ. This will keep all sanctification efforts faith-based and help avoid the dreaded moralistic, self-help sermon application. And remember that when you remind the saints about the Gospel, any non-Christians in attendance get to hear the Good News too.

Redemptive-Historical Exegesis: This shows how your preaching portion is part of the meta-narrative flowing throughout Scripture. Your parishioners will profit from the times when you locate your passage in the Story of Redemption (creation, un-creation, recreation, new creation). They will begin to appreciate that salvation is something much larger than the personal, saved-to-go-to-heaven variety.
Pedagogical Exegesis: showing how Scripture guides faith and the Christian life; here we gain precepts for living life as a Christian. One of the great quotes from the book came from this section. It reminded me of my primary responsibility as a soul-watcher. Sweeney writes of Edwards:
“At the end of the day, however, he was a clergyman and teacher paid to unpack the text in a pedagogical way, with the formation of disciples at the forefront of his mind.” (p. 188)

Before Sunday I hope you will supplement your normal exegesis with one or more of these four approaches, all for God’s glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal