New Testament

Discourse is Not Just Epistles

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When I teach preaching courses, I tend to refer to the three types of Scripture: discourse, narrative and poetry. The various genre fit within these categories and so they give a good overview of different Biblical text types. So the principles of narrative interpretation would apply in the Gospels, Acts, historical books and so on. The principles of poetry would apply in Psalms, of course, but also other wisdom literature and poems found in historical books (eg.Exodus 15). The principles of discourse interpretation naturally work in the epistles, but that is not the only place we find discourse.

As direct communication, discourse is often the easiest type of passage to interpret, and it is usually one of the easier ones to preach. While narrative and poetry have real advantages for sermon formulation (for instance we could mention tension and imagery respectively), discourse tends to be direct instruction. With a sensitivity to the original context and audience, appropriate progression through exegetical, theological and recontextualization stages of sermon preparation, the preacher is able to formulate an attractive preaching plan for the text.

Other New Testament Discourse – Obviously the Epistles tend to be the preacher’s favorite in the Bible churches of the western world. But consider the other discourse possibilities in the New Testament. In each of the Gospels we have recorded speeches by Jesus – direct instructional communication. His Sermon on the Mount, or Olivet Discourse, or instructions to the seventy-two, etc., can all make for great preaching. Then in the book of Acts we have the speeches of Peter on Pentecost, Stephen on his promotion day, Paul in Athens and so on. In Acts it seems that the speeches do not supplement the action, but actually are the action, moving the broader narrative forward time and again.

Old Testament Disourse – Consider Joshua 1, for instance. God’s instructions to Joshua at that key moment of transition. It is part of history, part of a broad narrative, but actually those first nine verses are not a plot to trace, they are a discourse. Then you’ll find discourse in the wisdom literature, such as Job and Ecclesiastes, but arguably in poetic form throughout.  Likewise many of the oracles in the prophets bear features of discourse-driven communication, along with poetic structuring.

As preachers we may easily fall into the trap of thinking anything outside the epistles will be either narrative or poetry. This is not true, and tomorrow we’ll consider what this means in our preparation.

Preaching Easter (Pt4): Resurrection Implications

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

NT Wright made an interesting comment this week. He suggested that the New Testament presents many implications that come from the resurrection. However, the one that most preachers tend to emphasize is not really presented in the New Testament. Namely, “Because Jesus rose from the dead, we can go to heaven when we die.” I mention this not to affirm the comment, but to prompt our thinking and Bible study.

Before preaching the resurrection this Sunday, check your text for the implications that are present. For instance, in 1st Corinthians 15 we read that His resurrection gives us hope of our own (v16-20), the fear of death is removed (v26, 54-57), there are ethical implications (v32-34), motivation for ministry (v58), and even prompting to practical help for the poor (16:1, note Galatians 2:7-10).

Let’s preach the truth of the resurrection, let’s even allow our excitement to show, but let’s also try to be specifically clear in presenting the implications. It is easy in our excitement about the event to fall short in our relevance and application. Truly, everything is changed because Jesus rose from the dead. Part of our task is to help people see how that is true.

Preaching Easter (Pt3): Harmonization and the Gospels

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Whenever we preach from the gospels we need to be aware that there may be up to four accounts of the story before us. In the past a great deal of emphasis was placed on harmonizing the gospel accounts. That is to say, placing all four side by side and seeking to combine them in order to have the “full” story. There is certainly a place for this practice, but how much of this should we concern ourselves with as preachers?

There are many elements in the Gospels that only appear in one gospel. In this case the issue of harmonization is largely irrelevant. But then there are events found in all of the gospels. The passion narrative, obviously, is found in all four.

Check all four gospels for accuracy in your preaching. If you are preaching from, say, Luke’s account, then it is helpful to check the other three. You wouldn’t want to undermine your preaching by telling the story in such a way that you make errors because you forgot to check the other gospels.

Preach the text rather than the event. Having checked the other gospels to make sure you are not presenting an error in your sermon, be sure to actually preach Luke’s account (or whichever you have as your preaching text). The gospel writers did not simply recount a transcript of a video taken the first Easter. They selectively chose the details to include in order to write an historically accurate theological presentation. Seek to preach the emphasis of the text you are in.

Preaching Easter (Pt2): Shock and Awe

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I expect we would agree that the typical crucifixion image that comes to mind is probably a little too “hygienic.” The traditional pictures seen in old churches with the Lord serene and clean, hanging on the cross with a minimal element of humiliation are so far from the brutal reality of the event. Those pictures, combined with the regularity with which we refer to the cross, lead many believers to have an unrealistic mental picture of Calvary.

As we preach the Easter story in the next days, we have the opportunity to tell the story well. We can give enough description, and take enough time, so that the image is able to form in peoples’ minds. We can give enough description so that the image forming is more accurate, less “clean” and closer to what actually happened. Historical and biblical accuracy should permeate our preaching of this great event.

However, this does not mean we should automatically “go all out.” It may be that overly graphic detail is unhelpful to some. I’ve heard some very effective presentations of the crucifixion that went into the medical details and the sickening truth of the event. I’ve also heard some where the “shock and awe” tactic backfired significantly. We must be aware of who will be listening and what will be most effective for them. Our goal is to present the biblical truth and call for response, not to repulse people with images that obscure the message. Remember that people will be drawn and convicted by the Holy Spirit, not by our skill in story telling that can stir the emotions into a frenzy.

Let’s try to find the right balance for our listeners this Easter. We need to tell the story well, we need to help people see and feel the reality of Calvary. But we also need to be careful to allow the Holy Spirit to stir the heart, rather than merely stirring the stomach by excessive shock and awe tactics.

Preaching Easter (Pt1): Back to Basics

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In some ways Easter is not like Christmas.  The Christmas story tends to remain largely unmentioned for eleven months of the year.  So when the advent season comes round again people expect to hear the basic Christmas story.  But the events of the first Easter get mentioned and preached on throughout the year.  So there is a temptation for us as preachers to try and get clever with our Easter messages – perhaps hyper-creative, or super-subtle, or whatever.

Our regular listeners need to hear the basic Easter story.  Jesus told his followers to share bread and wine, “in remembrance” of Him.  In a sense the Easter story never grows old for Christ’s followers – it means too much to us.  So as a preacher don’t feel pressure from somewhere to say something that is somehow clever or different.  There are plenty of biblical passages that can be used, and people will appreciate a clear preaching of any of them.

Remember that irregular listeners need to hear the basic Easter story.  At Easter time there is a higher likelihood of visitors.  Maybe they feel they should go to church at Christmas and again at Easter.  Maybe they are visiting family who go to your church and politely join their hosts.  These people don’t need some kind of creatively opaque and nuanced message.  They need the message of the text clearly presented and applied.

As a preacher you may be feeling the pressure to do something different this year.  I’m not suggesting we should be boring or predictable.  I’m not saying that creativity is inappropriate.  Let us be as effective as possible in our communication of the biblical message of Easter.  However, let’s remember that sometimes it is very effective to simply preach the basics – the story from the text, the implications for us today.

Who Put Them There?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first stage in preparing a biblical message is to select the passage.  This is incredibly easy if you take an arbitrary approach to the canon.  For example, maybe you plan to preach chapter-by-chapter through a book, or even verse-by-verse through a section.  Wait!  This sounds easy, but we must not take this approach.

The chapter divisions and the verse divisions are not there by author’s design.  These helpful little reference markers were added later to help us find our place, not to help preacher’s select their passage.  This is not new news for most of us.  But it is so easy to slip back into bad habits like this. After all, every time you open your Bible to read it you subconsciously take in a silent number every sentence or so.  Although not spoken, their voice is still heard, at least subconsciously.

Let me quote Richard Erickson’s helpful book, A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Exegesis, as he makes the same point:

If we desire to be as faithful as we can be to the text as its author first wrote it, then we should never set out to “preach through” a biblical book chapter by chapter (or worse, verse by verse).  We have no guarantee that the later editors of Scripture who added the familiar chapter and verse divisions did so in the way the original authors would have done it.  In fact, we have many reasons to suspect they did not!  As far as you are able, let the book itself tell you where to make appropriate divisions in the run of its “argument” or its “plot.”

As you prepare for your next sermon, take a few moments to evaluate the passage boundaries – are they what the book itself would tell you?  Ignore the numbers, the author didn’t put them there.

Wrestling with Flow

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There are shortcuts in preaching.  Perhaps some are legitimate, although none spring to mind.  But there is one major shortcut that is very common, but that undermines the whole preaching event.  Failing to wrestle with flow.

It is easy to break a passage into its chunks and preach a sermon from each chunk.  Be sure to wrestle with how the text flows together.  If it is a true unit of thought, then there is unity, but it may take work to be able to understand and communicate it.  How do Proverbs 3:11-12 relate to 3:1-10?  How do the small parts of James 1:2-18 fit together?  Why does Luke 18:7-8 come attached to verses 1-6?  It’s easy to preach two or three sermons welded at the seams, but this is a shortcut that is not worth taking.  Be sure to wrestle with the text more and preach one message – of course it may have 2 parts, 3 movements, or whatever . . . but it needs to be one message.  

So, this week, as we prepare our sermons, let us put on our wrestling gear, enter the arena and give our all to pin down the flow!

Written Text: More Than Words

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It would seem obvious that a written text, such as the one you will preach next Sunday, is made up of words on the page.  Furthermore, we all know that words on a page convey information.  So our task in preaching must revolve around the relevant explanation, proclamation and application of those words, right?  Right, sort of, but it’s much more than that.  Words on a page are not randomly generated codes from some computer.  They are coherent and purposeful communication.

How is writer communicating with those words? We need to be sensitive to the tone of writing as well as the words written.  Is the writer rebuking or encouraging, defensive or freely celebrating, sarcastic or sombre?  For example, when you consider the cultural context and background issues in Corinth, you might expect a rebuking and attacking tone toward the end of 1Cor.15.  But actually the tone there is careful, then celebratory and genuinely encouraging.  It would be a shame to miss the tone as you study it and then preach rebukingly.

What does the writer intend to occur through that communication? If the writer intends to inform and stir specific application, then it will help us to pick up on that from the text.  For instance, if the tone is encouraging and positive, it would likely be counter-productive to preach a stinging message from the text.

Start with the tone and intent of the writer.  There may well be reason to preach in a different tone or with a different goal.  But first of all see if the writer’s tone and intent fit your situation.  That’s the best place to start.  If you decide to change your tone or intent because of the congregation, great, but let’s be careful not to default to always rebuking, or always guilt-inducing, etc.

As you study your passage for the next sermon, remember to ask yourself, “what was the writer’s tone here?” and “what did he intend to achieve through this text?”

Purposes – There May Be Two!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It’s a fairly simple truth, but an important one. Sometimes, perhaps even often, the passage purpose (stage 3 in our model) and the message purpose (stage 5), will differ. While it may sound very orthodox and biblical to suggest that the purpose for preaching any text is the same as the writer’s purpose in penning the text, this is not always the case.

Take 1Corinthians 15 as an example. Paul is addressing a church caught up in an idea of their time. The idea that the church had swallowed from its culture was that bodies are bad, being spiritual means being non-physical and there was essentially nothing more to come in the future, because they had already “arrived” spiritually. So, for example, when Paul tells them that both the living and the dead believers will have their bodies transformed at the coming of Christ, that would have been felt quite forcefully. Today however, our common thinking in the church is often somewhat different. Perhaps a congregation may generally accept the reality of the coming resurrection and not be caught up in an anti-somatic (“anti bodily existence”) philosophy, or perhaps they give no thought whatsoever to our future resurrection. Obviously it depends on the congregation. Just because the need of the people may differ, this does not mean that the text is needed any the less. We just have to be careful to think through the author’s purpose, and our purpose in preaching that text. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful . . . and part of our responsibility is to know our people enough to know what angle on the passage idea they need to receive!

Be sure to think through the author’s purpose in writing any text, but also think through whether your purpose in preaching it will remain the same (sometimes), or differ (sometimes).

Controversy, Defensiveness and Timing

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Obed submitted a comment on The Full Meal Deal concerning the timing of presenting a controversial or challenging topic. I suppose we could complicate things, but it seems to me that there is a fairly simple principle here. Know your listeners well enough to know how they may react to a controversial idea. If they are likely to get defensive, then lay the groundwork first. I use the image of a boxer’s guard (forgive the martial imagery if you are a pacifist in the sporting arena). Is what I am going to say likely to bring up the hands to guard the face? If so, then what follows will only strike to the surface. As a preacher I need to preach so that the hands remain down and the idea gets through.

The classic example of this is Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” That idea was very likely to stir up a negative reaction among a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus’ death. So Peter did not present the idea in the introduction. This idea was not printed on the notice sheet or bulletin (they would have noticed and put the bullet in, so to speak!) This was not a deductive sermon. Peter knew the listeners’ likely reaction, and used the first part of the sermon to prepare the people for the big idea. Once it came, their reaction was not murderous, but they were convicted.

If your idea is controversial. If the listeners are likely to become defensive. Then time the presentation of the idea. Preach so their hands remain down and the idea gets through, not only to the head, but so that they are “cut to the heart.”