New Testament

Easter is Coming – The Power of Identification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I know Easter is still a couple of months away, but as a preacher it is never too early to think about Easter.  In fact, there is a sense in which commemoration of Easter is never more than six days away – the Lord’s Day is a weekly gathering because of His resurrection.  So here’s a thought regarding Easter (whether you’re planning for April or preparing for tomorrow’s message).

In preaching any narrative section, we need to consider whom listeners will gravitate toward, with whom they will identify.  We should consider how to encourage that or redirect that through our preaching.  In the case of the passion narratives, this tendency to identify can be powerfully used in our preaching.  Luther pointed to this when he wrote:

“Although Christians will identify themselves with Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate; sinful, condemned actors in the Gospel story – there is another who took the sins of humanity on himself when they were hung around his neck.”

When it comes to the story of the crucifixion we find ourselves identifying with so many characters: Judas, Peter, fleeing disciples, Caiaphas, Pilate, Roman soldiers, Simon from Cyrene, mocking executioners, mocking crowds, mocking thief, repentant thief, followers standing at a distance, followers standing close by, even the Centurion.  Yet the wonder of it all is that we are invited to identify with the perfect One hanging on that cross, for in that act He was most wondrously identifying with us.

Consider how the natural function of narrative – to spark identification – can be utilized to communicate the wondrous truth of Calvary this Easter, or even this Sunday.

The Challenge of Narratives 4: Acts

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Unlike the Old Testament narratives, and in some senses, even unlike the gospel narratives, the Acts narratives should be easier to interpret and preach.  After all, this is now church history, not ancient Israel history.  But there is a challenge:

The challenge of “normativeness” – how are we to understand and apply descriptions of a unique season in history – the founding of the church?  Three comments on this:

1. Acts is not “mere history” – Don’t make the mistake of saying we shouldn’t preach from Acts because it is merely a historical account.  It is inspired theological Scripture.  It is as much theology as the epistles!  Acts is history, and it is more than that.  However,

2. Acts is not “all history” – some elements of the Acts story are unique and we shouldn’t presume that it is all normative for where we stand in that same history.  Possible examples include the following.  Should we be concerned that the apostles have died?  Should we be looking for qualified replacements?  Some sing that we need another Pentecost, but what are we suggesting about the work of the Spirit in the Church?  Should we expect Ananias and Sapphira-type church discipline to occur every time there is sin in the church today, or should we be learning from a unique event?  What about the “Gentile tongues” at conversion that are presented as a sign to the apostles at a key transition moment in the progress of the gospel?  Acts is not totally typical of all church history.

3. Acts is “all applicable” – Just because some of the events may not occur again, this doesn’t mean that the text is irrelevant (think about the crucifixion of Jesus, for instance).  All Scripture is useful, applicable, but the challenge is having the wisdom to discern how to apply it.  We need to consider Acts in light of the clear teaching of the epistles, as well as the progress seen within the epistles (consider the different emphasis in 1Corinthians as compared to the later Pastoral Epistles – both concerned with health in the local church, but a different emphasis).  Let’s be careful not to automatically use “Acts” labels for contemporary experiences that may or may not be the same thing as what occurred back then.

Acts is rich and fertile soil for study and preaching, but whatever your theology, I trust you’ll agree that it is not without its challenges!

The Challenge of Narratives 3: Gospels – Part II

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Note – Peter has extended comments related to this post, see previous in the series here

Last time we looked at the interpretational challenge of more than one “author.”  Now, let’s see another challenge:

2. More than one “account” of the event. What are we to do when we find the same story told in two, three, or even all four gospels?  Perhaps like me you were taught the analogy of the car accident?  A solution to the “problem” of multiple, but not identical accounts, this explanation goes like this:

The Car Accident. A car is involved in a crash, so the Police come to the scene and take eye-witness accounts of what occurred.  The person standing at the traffic light saw it one way, but the person coming out of the shop saw it differently.  Same event, different accounts.  Hence we have four gospels, problem solved.

But as with all such analogies, this one falls short.  It doesn’t take into account that each “eye-witness” statement was written under inspiration and with theological intent.  The gospels were not transcripts of history intended to give chronological exhaustive accuracy.  Rather, they are historically accurate, but they are primarily theological writing skillfully arranged to convey four specific and distinct messages.

So what do we do?

1. We should compare multiple accounts of the same event in order to check for accuracy in our understanding of what transpired (you wouldn’t want to preach factual error because you didn’t read Mark’s account).

2. We should compare multiple accounts in order to recognize the emphasis given in the particular text you are studying (i.e. what is John emphasizing here?)

3. We should resist the temptation to preach a composite harmonization of the event itelf, but rather preach the text.  The text is inspired, not the event.  So study them all, but if your text is in John, preach John.  If your text is in Mark, preach Mark.

eg. The feeding of the 5000 has different emphasis in each gospel, so don’t preach a composite of John’s “bread of life” theology with Mark’s “kingdom feast has come” theology.

eg. The stilling of the storm in Matthew 8:23-27 is in a sequence of three miracles emphasizing Jesus’ authority.  In Mark 4:35-41 it stands as a lesson to the disciples after teaching on the unstoppable nature of the kingdom, and begins a series of four stories emphasizing the fear/faith theme.

The Challenge of Narratives 2: Gospels – Part I

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

Peter has extended comments on this post.

When we come to interpreting the narratives in the Gospels, we are faced with a couple of potential difficulties.  I’ll call it the double challenge of more than one:

1. More than one “author” of the parables. Our goal in interpretation is to grasp the author’s intended meaning.  But which one?  There’s Jesus telling the story in the first place, around AD30, in Aramaic, somewhere in Galilee or Judea.  What did Jesus intend for those original hearers to grasp and learn?  But then there’s Luke, for example, retelling the story, around thirty or more years later, in Greek, to a reader somewhere in the Greek speaking world.  Primarily our concern is with what Jesus intended, but we’d be naïve to think that Luke’s intent was unimportant.  Luke did not struggle to focus, and thereby put together a random gospel.  No, he sequences his material with precision and skill.  We see this when different gospel writers frame the same content in a different sequence of material.  But that is another challenge again.

Next time I’ll give the other half of the challenge, the other “more than one!”

Do You Preach Bible Stories?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Biblical narratives spark differing reactions.  I just had a conversation with someone who preaches periodically.  I mentioned the subject of my seminar this weekend and he responded that he loves preaching on that kind of passage.  Yet others seem to avoid narratives, especially Old Testament narratives, at all costs.  The difficulty for the avoiders is that there is so much narrative in the Bible.  Ray Lubeck counts 44% of chapters as being predominantly narrative.  Michael Rydelnik has a more general approach when he concludes that three-fourths of the Old Testament and half of the New Testament is narrative (more like 70% of the whole).

I think it is accurate to say that narratives are generally easy to read, but they can be hard to interpret accurately (we all like a good story, but that doesn’t mean we always “get it.”)  As far as preaching is concerned, on one level they can be relatively easy to preach, but they are usually hard to preach well.

So the challenge today is two-fold.

1. For those who jump at the chance to preach narrative. Make sure you are really seeking to grasp the point of the story rather than merely making the easy moralistic observations that can easily jump out of such stories (we’ll address the various short-cuts to be wary of in the next few days), and strive not just to preach the narratives, but to preach them well.

2. For those who do gymnastics to avoid preaching a narrative. Take the plunge, they are so rich for both personal study and preaching.  Take the hint, God inspired a lot of the Bible in narrative form.  Take the opportunity to provide a more balanced diet for all who hear you.

Biblical Narrative: Two Truths Together

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I’m giving a lot of thought to the preaching of biblical narrative at the moment.  I have a seminar on the subject coming up this weekend and I am thoroughly enjoying preparation for that event.  Somehow, when it comes to narrative passages, there are two truths that don’t seem to sit easily together in peoples’ minds.  These are the historical accuracy of the biblical narratives, and the literary artistry in the biblical narratives.

On the one side you have some conservative preachers who treat the narratives as historically accurate, but essentially no different than any other biblical text (just dissect and deliver!)  On the other side you have other less conservative writers who may recognize the literary skill, but deny historicity (my mind goes to Robert Alter’s term “historical fiction” in reference to the Hebrew Bible).

I appreciate this definition from Jeffrey Arthurs’ excellent book, Preaching with Variety:

Biblical narrative can be defined as a historically accurate, artistically sophisticated account of persons and actions in a setting designed to reveal God and edify the reader. (Page 64)

He goes on to write, “Although biblical narrators do not make up events and characters, they do select, arrange, and depict them with skill.” Historical accuracy and sophisticated literary artistry are not mutually exclusive categories.  As Leland Ryken put it in Preach the Word, “While fictionality is a common characteristic of literature, it is not a necessary feature of it.” (Page 45)

As we prepare to preach biblical narratives, let’s make sure we don’t fall into the either/or thinking.  Historical accuracy.  Literary artistry.  Two truths that sit comfortably together.

Preaching As History Making

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

The book of Acts is a fascinating study.  It is the only inspired account of the birth of the church and early church history.  Yet like all of inspired Scripture, it goes beyond mere history.  While some are quick to oversimplify their categorization of New Testament genre into stories of Jesus (gospels), instructions for the church (epistle) and history of the early church (Acts), plus the apparently troublesome apocalyptic book of Revelation (their view, not mine), this is too simplistic.

Acts, for example, is an inspired historical document, and it is also inspired theological writing.  We do Acts (and ourselves) a disservice if we too quickly dismiss Acts as being non-normative or applicable for the contemporary church.  Equally, we get into confusion if we too quickly apply every element we choose and claim it is normative for all situations (most who over-quickly apply Acts tend to be selective in this approach).  We need to carefully consider the book of Acts with appropriate hermeneutical skill and submit ourselves to appropriate application of the whole text.

In Acts we find historical narrative accounts, and we find recorded speeches (or better, inspired summaries of speeches).  In fact, Walter Liefeld helpfully points out that while quoted speech typically serves in ancient literature as introductory to action, in Acts the speeches are the action.  In my spare moments lately I’ve been enjoying a personal study of the speeches of Acts.  Apparently (I rely on the arithmetic of others), in the roughly 1000 verses of Acts, roughly 300-365 verses consist of speech material.  Some of this is preaching, some is leadership speech, some is legal speech (not mutually exclusive categories).

Ben Witherington asks why Luke includes proportionately so much more speech material in his history than ancient writers like Herodotus, Tacitus, Josephus, Polybius, or Thucydides, for example?  His answer is worth considering:

“This is because Luke is chronicling a historical movement that was carried forward in the main by evangelistic preaching.  This distinguishes his work from that of these other historians who are more interested in the macrohistorical events involving wars, political maneuvering, and the like.”

Before we even give ourselves to consideration of appropriate hermeneutical principles for interpreting and applying the book of Acts; before we engage in rhetorical analysis of the speech material; or before we enter the debate about whether the speeches are accurate representation of the original speaker, or Lukan theology placed in their mouths, etc.  Before any of that engages our attention, let’s not miss the obvious.  The history of the early church is carried forward by the planned and impromptu speech of preachers.  Much of it is evangelistic, some is primarily to believers, some is perhaps opportunistic.  But this much is clear – the history of the church, in the early years, down through the years, and in these years, is carried forward in the preaching of those to whom God gives opportunity. Let’s allow that truth to soak into our souls, fire our hearts and ignite our ministries!

Preaching One Text – Part II

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Yesterday I addressed why it is generally best to preach on a single text.  Today I’d like to address a possible misunderstanding that might result from this suggestion:

This emphasis on preaching a single text does not mean that I advocate preaching biblically naive or theologically unaware messages.  To really understand a particular passage usually requires us to study (or at least be aware of) other passages that feed into it.  For instance, can we grasp what is going on with the marriage issues in Ezra/Nehemiah without being thoroughly informed by the Torah?  Can we understand the prophets as they seek to enforce the covenant if our awareness of that covenant in Deuteronomy is lacking?  Can we grasp New Testament teaching built on Old Testament paradigms if our Old Testament pages remain clean and stuck together?  Walter Kaiser speaks of the “informing theology” of a passage.  We must be careful not to miss critical elements for understanding our preaching text when those elements are recorded earlier in the Bible.

Having studied to the full extent of our resources (time and skill), we then need to consider what our listeners actually need to hear.  A sermon should not be an information dump in which every detail of our exegesis is piled onto the ears of our listeners.  Perhaps no “informing theology” is necessary to communicate this passage.  Perhaps only a brief summary will do.  Sometimes we need to have them turn the pages and see it for themselves.   We must do everything we can to fully understand the passage, but remember that all our work cannot be squeezed into the minutes available for preaching, or squeezed into the minds and hearts of our listeners.  We study at length, then cut out everything unnecessary for preaching the main point of the message.

We may preach one passage, but let us not preach biblically naive or theologically unaware messages.

Communicate the Christmas Carols

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Some of the Christmas carols contain phenomenal truths.  Yet they can easily be sung mindlessly – familiar tunes, familiar lyrics and some unfamiliar words mixed in.  As we preach or lead services in this Christmas season, let’s not miss the opportunity to highlight the glorious truths contained in the songs we sing.  Perhaps a passing comment in a message, reference to a carol to illustrate a point in a sermon, or even brief explanation outside of the sermon.

Consider, for one example, the second verse of Hark the Herald Angels:

Christ by highest heav’n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin’s womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
“Glory to the newborn King!”

How could anyone sing those words without stirred hearts?  But for many, the stirring is mere nostalgia at Christmas past.  Let’s make sure people in our churches don’t miss the stirring reality reflected here!

Preaching Sermons on Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I don’t mean preaching your sermon based on another contemporary preacher’s sermon.  I mean preaching a sermon based on a Scriptural sermon.  There’s lots of them.  It can be fascinating to wrestle with a sermon in its context since you would expect to find a sense of context, purpose, application, explanation, etc.  If you haven’t given this any thought before, here are some places to go:

The Sermons of Acts – Acts is a book of action, but interestingly, the sermons are not introductory to the action, they are the action!  Obviously the sermons in Acts are summaries of the original message, but studying them in their context and looking for what specifically the preacher was saying can be very satisfying.  Paul has at least three sermons (not counting defense speeches).  Peter also preaches in Acts (very slightly harder to understand and apply directly since things were shifting pretty rapidly in those first months, but still worth studying!)

The Sermons of Jesus – Matthew, for example, alternates between discourse (sermons) and narrative (action).  So you have great blocks of teaching – the sermon on the mount, instructions to the disciples, parables of the kingdom, olivet discourse, etc.  Since some of these are distilled surveys of teaching, it can be hard to define a specific sermon text, but it is so worth the effort.  Who was he preaching to?  Why did he preach it?

The only complete sermon – I see only one complete sermon in the Bible.  It takes about 50-55 minutes, and it is absolute dynamite.  The book of Hebrews is a sermon written down.  The more I study it, the more I see it as a sermon.  So many features of orality, so much application, so careful in its exposition, so powerful in its relevance to the first hearers.

Other sermons – then you’ve also got snippets of sermons throughout the Old Testament prophets.  What a treasure so often neglected.

A case can be made for the oral nature of much of Scripture.  With diligent prayerful study, you will find preaching sermons on the Bible’s sermons is immensely satisfying for you, and powerful in the lives of your listeners.