Tag Archives: theological exegesis

Posted on

How Jonathan Edwards Helps Me With Applying Scripture

by

Helping our Listeners Know What Influences Their Life Choices

Most mornings I continue to read Jonathan Edwards’s sermons as part of my devotional life. Along the journey through his preaching–currently in the Yale volume covering 1730-1733–I read for homiletical insights with the goal of being a more effective exegete/theologian/preacher.

Almost every sermon helps me learn how to apply Scripture. Edwards was meticulous in his application.

In his sermon, The Duty of Self-Examination, from Haggai 1:5 (“Now therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways.”), Edwards tells his listeners:

“We ought to consider which has the greatest influence upon us: our carnal appetites, or the promises and threatenings of God’s Word” (p. 486, vol. 10, Kimnach).

You’ll certainly want to explain “carnal appetites.” After you do, you have one half of an equation that affects our daily choices. The other half features two elements of sacred Scripture: promises and warnings.

Then, Edwards describes every moment of temptation:

“When there is set before us a self-denying, mortifying duty and a pleasant sin, for us to take our choice, the sinful pleasure and delight allures and entices on one side, and the favor of God and heaven invites on the other. Which do we choose, which has the greatest influence upon us…” (p. 486).

Your Scripture for this coming Sunday could have either direct or indirect reference to our “carnal appetites” or to “the promises and threatenings of God’s Word.” If so, then it’s a matter of identifying some specifics.

For instance, which element influences our thought life? What about the words we speak to each other?

And then, with typical Edward-like seriousness he states:

“Every man is in the way to heaven or the way to hell, and the way that we are now in, if pursued, will certainly bring us to one or the other of these” (p. 488).

And all that before the Application section of the sermon!

I hope that these excerpts from Edwards’s applicational angles helps you help your congregants put God’s Word into practice so that God continues to receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Does Your Exegetical Method Help You Do These Two Things?

by

Make Sure Your Exegesis Allows You To Do Two Things

As I was preparing to preach this past Sunday, I reminded myself again that my job was fairly straightforward. Not necessarily easy, but uncomplicated. If I remember correctly, I even mentioned these two things to our faith-family at the start of the message.

Two things seemed most important if the sermon was going to be a vital part of the worship service. If I could accomplish those two things, then I would have been faithful to my calling as a soul-watcher.

[I realize there’s much more to preaching than these two things, but not less!]

First, it is important for our exegetical method to trace the flow of thought or argument of a preaching portion, regardless of genre (type of literature). Since God decided to write down His revelation to us, He determined to convey theology through literary structure. Tamper with the structure and we may run the risk of tampering with the theology. That’s how His communication works. So, you might consider analyzing the flow of thought or logical structure of a text to be exegesis’s first task. It is always the first thing I do every Monday morning.

Some of my students will recall this being the “A” in ABIT.

Second, it is important for our exegetical method to discover the worship response God is aiming at in His Word. Tracing the flow of thought will reveal how the ideas fit together to form meaning. You and I will have to infer, however, how God intends that meaning to move His listeners to some worship response. You might be more familiar with thinking about the application and that’s fine. I prefer to think of how God intends for the Believer to respond to His revelation as an act of worship. Our exegetical method should allow us to arrive in the pulpit each Sunday ready to announce what God intends for His Word to do to the church.

Again, students may remember this as the “I” in ABIT.

Is this really that important? Sermons on Luke 15 that primarily call all prodigals to come home have missed the flow of thought arising out of vv. 1-2. Missing the argument automatically skews the intention. Tracing the argument leads to a sermon that primarily calls all Pharisee-like listeners to come home.

May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21) as you use your exegetical method each weekend.

Randal

Posted on

Our Dual Role as Exegetes and Theologians

by

Preachers function in the dual role as exegetes and theologians.

Recently, I gained the privilege of teaching a Ph.D. class this fall for Lancaster Bible College | Capital Seminary & Graduate School. The course is BIB 909 Old Testament Hermeneutics and Theology.

One of the many stages of preparing to teach includes selecting major textbooks. One of my choices is Bruce Waltke’s, An Old Testament Theology: an exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach.

[If you plan on preaching from the OT, then this is an excellent resource to have on your shelf. I can’t say enough about the quality of Waltke’s scholarship. Despite being only 100 pages into the book, I am glad I purchased it!]

Near the end of chapter 3, The Method of Biblical Theology (Part 1), section 3 is, “Abstract Themes, Ideas, and Messages.” The last paragraph reads,

“After the exegete has interpreted the text and mined its message, the theologian through critical reflection interprets that message from its old horizon to the new horizons of the canon and then of both to the contemporary church. In other words, the theologian builds his or her interpretation that unites the ancient message with the contemporary world after the exegete has done his or her interpretive work….In this way godly theologians inform the conscience of the church.” (p. 92)

Notice, pastors have a dual role as exegete and theologian for the faith-families they serve.

It is true, then, that interpretation doesn’t end with our exegesis. It extends to our ability to locate the message that functions for the church.

You’ve stopped short of that dual role if you cannot articulate what God intends for your preaching portion to do to the church, to your listeners (“the contemporary world”).

Remember, the meaning of your text for this coming Sunday should combine content (exegesis) + intent (theological interpretation). When meaning combines content and intent, you are functioning in your dual role as exegete and theologian.

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

Randal

P.S. Waltke basis this understanding of our roles on the nature of the Bible. He writes, “The Bible is more than concepts about God….It is God’s address to his people and his encounter with them. His ‘ideas’ and ‘principles’ are true and call for a personal response to obey and participate in the truth, the divine reality.” (p. 91).

Posted on

Learning to Think (and Preach?) Like Edwards: What I’m Learning From Reading Jonathan Edwards’s Early Sermons

by

Edwards displayed comprehensive knowledge of Scripture and reasoning abilities.

A couple of weeks ago I posted the observation that Jonathan Edwards’s preaching did not spend much time on word studies. Instead, he used numerous Scripture to buttress his explanations of his selected text. Then, he bombarded his main concepts with powerful, but simplistic reasoning.

Let me show you a quick example from, what is so far, my favorite sermon of Edwards, Christian Safety, on Proverbs 29:25 “But whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe.”

God’s message is clear: “All those that thus trust in God are safe.” Edwards attacks the reality this way: “We shall show, first, what they are safe from; second, how they are safe.” (p. 456)

That outline is typical of Edwards. (An aside: if you’ve heard or read many of Tim Keller’s sermons, you might recognize some similarities in their approach.)

The first point contains four things: temporal evils, death, the devil, and hell. Edwards uses no proof-texts for these paragraphs. The first in the list, temporal evils, presents the toughest challenge for me. As I’ve mentioned before, what I love about this sermon is the way Edwards explains safety in a world of dangers: “worldly afflictions do often happen to them, but the evil of them don’t befall them. They may be exposed to difficulties, losses, and troubles, but he is not properly in danger of them.” (p. 456) I found this so helpful.

The second point contains three cross-references: 1 Peter 3:13; Isaiah 11:6-9; Mark 16:18. [Dispensationalists with a capital “D” will cringe reading Edwards’s statement: “That prophecy in Is. 11:6-9 is fulfilled upon all true Christians…”

Edwards’s third major point is, “Now follow the reasons of the doctrine.” (p. 459) This section is also loaded with proof-texts about how God protects us and Christ overcomes our enemies.

Anyway, every time I read Edwards’s sermons, he teaches me how to think better. I need that in order to keep functioning well as a pastor/theologian.

May our Lord receive glory in the church and in Christ Jesus as we work hard by His Spirit to preach and teach His Word (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

How Rules for Exegesis Affect Preaching

by

The Implication of “Scripture’s exactness” on our preaching

If you’ve read some of my material through the years, you know that most of my reading centers on hermeneutics, exegesis, and theological studies. The reason is because I put a premium on those topics in the context of my preaching and teaching homiletics. The reason is because I value their contribution over most, purely homiletical writings. The reason is because of my conviction that precision is more important than presentation.

[Caveat: however, I work hard at both precision and presentation and realize that poor preaching can eclipse the exegetical/theological precision used in the sermon development stage.]

Last week I began reading, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis, by R. B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman.

Chapter 3 contains an interesting discussion of “Scripture’s Exactness” (p. 50). The section begins:

“Early Christian interpreters often spoke of Scripture’s ‘exactness’…to underscore divine teaching’s intentionality, reliability, and attention to detail” (p. 50).

The authors explore two implications of this concept.

First, God chooses His words very carefully. This is especially important when considering how many different authors, styles, and genres are in Scripture. God chooses those words very carefully (you will, no doubt, read this through the grid of your own view of inspiration).

Second, and I will quote them here, “what is taught carries a degree of precision that we must grasp” (p. 51).

Therefore, during sermon development it is important that I pay close attention to the words God uses to reveal Himself and His plan for His people. I cannot be a lazy reader, but a close reader of Scripture. That will serve my faith-family well as I prepare to read with them each Sunday.

The second implication for preaching is that, by God’s grace and the Spirit’s enablement, my precise understanding of Scripture must match Scripture’s precision. That almost always requires me and you to paraphrase and restate what God is saying precisely. That means you and I must choose our words and illustrations very carefully to be as precise as we can be. An example is our use of the word, trinity, or nature, words which may not be found in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

Anyway, I hope you get a taste of how a doctrine such as Scripture’s exactness affects our preaching. May our contemplation of God’s inspired revelation and its implication result in God receiving glory in the church and in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:21).

Randal

Posted on

Continuing to Dig Deeper with our Exegesis: More Examples from Preaching Matthew

by

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.

Randal

Posted on

Adding Theological Depth to Preaching by Answering the “Why” Question: Another Example

by

Explore another level of exegesis with me.

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

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