Old Testament

Preaching Warning Passages

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I was just reading a little commentary on Joel by Thomas Finley.  On page 38 he makes a comment that is worth our attention as preachers.  It’s not new, it’s not profound, but it’s easy to leave this out of the equation as we evaluate our ministry.

According to Finley, the prophets, such as Joel, “had the power as preachers to motivate people to repent on the basis of warning them of the judgment to come. Although the New Testament focuses on the Lord’s grace and mercy, the warnings of judgment are not absent there either. In light of Joel and the rest of Scripture, one might wonder whether contemporary pastors who tend to avoid “fire and brimstone” preaching in favor of a steady diet of mercy and forgiveness provide an incomplete presentation of God’s Word.”

While we must recognize that culturally our listeners have changed over recent decades, and consequently their appreciation for a dramatic and aggressive pulpit pounding has dropped, this does not mean we cannot preach warning of judgment.  The culture in which we preach, the people to whom we preach, behoove us to give careful attention to our tone, attitude, word choice and so on.  But the Bible text has not changed, and if we are to preach the whole counsel, then we will be preaching passages like Joel – heavy on warning, powerful in presentation of divine judgment.

The calling of expository preaching demands not only a sensitivity to our listeners, but an absolute commitment to hearing the Word of God, and presenting it accurately, faithfully and clearly.

7 Reasons to Preach A Lesser Known Book

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Most preachers do what most Christians do.  They tend to stay in the familiar books of the Bible.  The gospels, the epistles, and maybe some Psalms or well-known Old Testament narratives.  But what about Nahum, Obadiah or Joel?  What about Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, or even 2nd John or Jude?  Here are 7 reasons to select a lesser known book for your next sermon or series.

1. It will be fresh for the listeners. They may be feeling full of your usual fare, so a trip into uncharted territory will be a refreshing and invigorating experience (as long as you preach well!)

2. It will be fresh for you. Ditto.  You will find that once into the study, you’ll be so grateful that you took the plunge into another part of the canon.

3. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful. This means that you won’t come across a chunk of text that is of no value to you and your listeners.  It’s all God’s Word and it is all applicationally useful in our lives.

4. It will reinforce to listeners that they can profitably spend time in the whole canon. They will see that the lesser known books are of great value in filling out our understanding of God, seeing how His people are to respond to Him, etc.

5. Moving into a different genre stimulates variety in your preaching. A different genre provides different forms and rhetorical features.  You’ll enjoy the possibilities if you consider the many ways to preach wisdom literature or a prophet.  Let the type of writing influence your type of preaching.  Seek to do what it does, as well as say what it says.

6. It will inform your future preaching of the more familiar books. Typically lesser known books are further back in our Bibles.  Once you have spent time in these books, you’ll have a greater sense of the informing theology of the later and better known New Testament books.

7. It will force you to truly prepare. Be honest, you could probably preach a series in Ephesians or Romans without having to break a sweat (although the series would be better if you did).  But I’d wager that Joel or Nahum might put you to work from scratch (and to pray accordingly!)

Why Was the Text Written?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In a general sense everything written in the Bible was written for our instruction (Rom.15:4).  Yet as preachers we can fall into the trap of looking for a sermon in a text, rather than fully pursuing the process of allowing the text to be boss of the sermon.

Yesterday I was discussing Genesis 3 with a friend.  I’ve heard sermons that essentially ignore everything after verse 7 in order to give a how-to guide to resisting temptation.  Was that why the chapter was written?  This was not merely an example of temptation, it was the Fall.  While there may be a place for noting the steps Eve took that led to disaster, surely this cannot dominate the message to the extent that the passage becomes a mere instructional piece.

Why was it written?  There is instruction about a one-off event with lasting implications that face us all everyday.  There may be passing lessons to learn about the way the enemy works in our response to God’s instruction.  There also is significant space given to explanation of the consequences of the Fall.  There is also hope interwoven with judgment in the seed of the woman to come.

When we pause and ponder enough to recognize that the passage is not an instructional anecdote, but one of the most significant events of history, and that the reverberations of that event are wobbling our world moment by moment right until this moment, and that the solution is not in our ability to implement lessons from Eve’s conversation, but in the hope of the seed of the woman who would come and crush the serpent’s head.  When we spend enough time in the text and see why it was written, then we are in a better place to preach the Word.  After all, it was written for our instruction, so that through the encouragement of Scriptures we might have hope!  (Rom.15:4)

Think Through The Reading

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It is easy to take the reading of the Bible for granted.  It is easy to make a mess of it too!  For example, consider Joshua 6:16-19.  The narrative has built to a climax.  The Israelites are about to complete their silent march attack strategy with the great shout.  As you are reading through this section, if you have engaged your own passion and imagination, then you will be excited to read Joshua’s command.

“SHOUT! FOR THE LORD HAS GIVEN YOU THE CITY!”  Naturally at this point you will find your voice raised and your lungs tight.  The problem is that his shout command turns out to be a somewhat detailed instruction.  What appears at first to be a 9-word exclamation turns into a 104-word detailed instruction on what to destroy, who to save, where to put the treasures, etc.

If you were to read this passage without thinking through the reading ahead of time, you might need a paramedic!  104 words at the intensity of the initial 9 words and you’ll have tight lungs, a raspy voice, a new color of face and about three minutes of recovery time before you can preach on!

It’s a small thing, but length and intensity of speech, along with difficult pronunciations or potential Freudian slips can really derail the message!  Think through any text reading ahead of time.

Preaching Longer Narratives

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Nathan asked about preaching longer narratives, such as the narratives of Daniel.  Last week I preached Daniel chapter 2 and the book of Esther (10 chapters!), so I’ve been thinking about this recently.  Here are my thoughts, I’d love to hear anything you would add:

Even if it is long, preach a literary unit. Longer narratives can stretch through many verses and multiple scenes.  Unless the scenes are really sub-plots that can stand on their own, I would suggest trying to preach the whole narrative.  While this may create some challenges, it is still better to deal with an entire narrative than risk misunderstanding and misapplying a part-narrative.

Tell the whole story, but perhaps read selectively. In the case of the Daniel 2 message, the leader of the service had a major chunk of the passage read before I got up to preach.  In the case of Esther, I read certain paragraphs and verses as I told the story.  While we want to honor the text and certainly encourage people to read it through later, the weakness in extended reading is actually our reading rather than the text itself.

The challenge is actually the same as for any passage. The challenge we face in preaching a longer narrative is, in one respect, no different than any other passage.  Which details will receive in-depth attention, and which elements or sections can be summarized to maintain flow and unity?  A longer narrative calls on our skill in big picture exegesis and compelling story-telling, but in many ways the process remains the same – study the passage, determine the main idea and purpose, define purpose and main idea for the sermon and shape it strategically, etc.

Definitions Without Jesus – Christian Preaching?

/ Peter Mead / 5 Comments

John raised an important question in response to the post on key elements of an expository preaching definition.  Should it not include some reference to Jesus?  Some say yes, others say not necessarily.  Interestingly, of the six definitions I have used in my preaching course, only one includes a reference to Christ (J.I.Packer uses the term, “Christ-related”).  Anyway, two positions to ponder:

Christocentric preaching – Bryan Chappell, influenced by Edmund Clowney, teaches and models a form of preaching wherein the fallen-condition focus of the passage is resolved by moving to the person and work of Christ.  People in this line of thought have made comments that a sermon which could be preached in a synagogue, or one in which Christ is not mentioned, is essentially a non-Christian sermon.  (Interestingly, Chappell’s definition of an expository sermon, on p132 of Christ-Centered Preaching does not make any reference to Christ – “An expository sermon . . . expounds Scriptures by deriving from a specific text main points and subpoints that disclose the thought of the author, cover the scope of the passage, and are applied to the lives of listeners.”)

Theocentric preaching – I’ve heard Haddon Robinson reject the charge that a message without Christ is essentially a non-Christian sermon by stating that he preaches theocentrically, and if God plays a key role in the message, then he knows no other God but the Trinitarian God of Scripture.  In practice, Robinson does move from an Old Testament passage to Christ when it works to do so, but he does not feel obliged to do so every time.

People who question the “always bring it round to Jesus” approach are not automatically advocating anthropocentric, “seven secrets for success,” or self-help sermons.  Chappell is right to critique sub-Christian preaching of the “be like,” “be good,” or “be disciplined” variety.  However, must every sermon include Jesus in order to be considered expository?  Certainly many sermons will naturally move to Jesus, but must every sermon?  I would say not, what would you say?

Steps To Faith

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Coming to faith is a process.  I’ve been studying the early chapters of Daniel and the early chapters of John.  It’s not uncommon to find, in the Bible, that there is a process involved in understanding God for who He is and accepting His role and self-presentation.  Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar is truly “converted” in chapter 4, there are key incidents in the previous two chapters.  What might this all mean for us as preachers?

1. View each message as an opportunity to move people forward one step. It takes repeated exposure to the gospel for people to gradually be drawn closer to that point of heart-level understanding and response.  Even once people are saved, the process continues.  So let’s not have the mentality that says, “I’ve already told them this, they should get it now!”  Our listeners, just like us, are notoriously slow and gradual in responding to God.

2. Remember that the process happens apart from preaching too. While that visitor may be a first-time listener to your preaching, they may have already been through many steps on the journey (listening to preachers on the radio, reading books, interacting with believers, etc.)  So while we should view each message as an opportunity to prompt the next step, we should not underestimate the opportunity and fail to present an opportunity to fully respond.  Somehow we need a real sensitivity to God and to people in this aspect of ministry.

The Possibility of Passage Shape

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you study a passage, part of the study is to recognize the shape the passage was given by the author (I’ll use “shape” in this post, but could use “structure” or “flow”).  There may be a logical sequencing of thoughts, or a narrative plot, or a poetic structure.  One possibility is that you can take that passage shape and let it be the primary influence on the message shape.

It may be that you decide to change the shape for the sake of the message.  Maybe the original recipients and your listeners differ significantly so that you have to structure the thought differently for the sake of effective communication.

However, to make such a change, in my thinking, should be a deliberate step away from the default option, which is to reflect the passage shape in the sermon shape.  For example, perhaps you are preparing to preach a Psalm and notice that it has three movements each having the same shape and largely the same content.  It might be tempting to “fix” such a literary “wastefulness” and use a more compact approach to preaching it.  Actually, by doing so, you would lose part of the power of the passage.  Our task as preachers is to communicate what a text says, but also to in some way do what a text does.  What does repetition do?  It reinforces, it allows truth to sink deeper, it builds on itself.  Repetition with variation is a powerful tool in writing Scripture, and consequently in the preaching of Scripture.

One possibility that comes when we recognize the shape of a passage is that we will reflect that shape in our message.  There may sometimes be reasons not to do this, but let this possibility be a strong one, even the default.

Discourse: The Danger of Spiritualization

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We’ve noted that there are discourse passages in almost every section of Scripture – history, wisdom, prophet, gospel, etc.  Awareness of the broader plot within which discourse is placed is helpful both in understanding the passage meaning and purpose, and also for preaching the passage with contextual understanding and tension.

So if we decide to preach a discourse in a typical analytical manner – for instance a deductive sermon – what should we be wary of?  Be wary of direct transference of relevance to a different audience.  Joshua 1 does not give direct promises to contemporary readers that wherever we place our feet, we can claim for God.  Equally it does not mandate military action on our part.  Yet the passage yields much that can be so relevant to us.

Be careful to work through the process of exegetical analysis (in that context), drawing out the abiding theological implications (in any context), and recontextualizing the principles (in this context).  Be careful not to then re-attach original phrasing in a careless manner that might imply direct transference of details by a spiritualization process (i.e. let it show that you are not simply reading the text and then telling people to “claim land” as God instructs us to “march” over what we should “conquer”).  By showing some process in our preaching, we can protect our people from bad practice in their own Bible study.  By showing awareness of audience (original and contemporary) and passage purpose (original and preached), we guard our people from inappropriate application.

When Discourse Sits in Narrative

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Discourse text often sits within a narrative.  Consider the teaching sections of the Gospels, how a Jesus sermon is set in the context of the story of His ministry or passion.  Consider the speeches in Acts as they move the story forward time and again.  Consider the direct communication of God to Joshua at the key transition point in Israel’s leadership, or the direct communication of the prophets as they address a specific issue at a specific point in Israel’s history.  Whatever form the book may take generally, these specific instances are essentially discourse Scripture.

When a discourse text sits in the midst of a broader narrative, what do we do?  We should analyze the broader plot to see the function of the discourse within it.  The narrative plot then serves as context for the details of the discourse.  Of course we could choose to preach the text in some kind of narrative form, but equally we can choose to keep that plot-work at the level of context and purpose analysis.  A discourse type text can yield clear and effective outlines through careful analysis.  By giving time in our study to the plot within which the discourse sits, we can add tension and interest to the preaching of the discourse.

This applies to epistles too, incidentally.  Just because an epistle may consist entirely of discourse, we should not lose sight of the broader narrative of history in which it sits.  An epistle is a point in time, a point on the plot line of the story of that particular church or individual.  At a key juncture in the story of the church at Rome, or in Colossae, Paul wrote to them.  We have his discourse, but we can also trace the tension of the church’s history to that point, and be left with the tension of how they would respond to his instruction in the letter.  Awareness of the broader narrative can always add tension and interest to the preaching of a discourse.

Discourse usually sits within a broader narrative framework.  Awareness of that helps our interpretation of the passage. It can also help our preaching by adding more life to the living words!