Specific text

Notice the Details

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you are studying a text and preparing to preach it, make sure you notice the details.  No word is there by accident.  As I sometimes say, the writers of the Bible were neither drunk nor wasteful.  Not drunk means that they were coherent and deliberate in what they wrote.  Not wasteful means that papyrus was expensive, so they didn’t waffle for a paragraph or two before getting into it.

Sometimes the details in a passage are helpful theologically.  For example, why does Mark tell the reader that the grass was green when Jesus fed the five thousand?  Is this mere ornamentation?  Or is it part of a larger package of details and tone that are suggestive of Jesus bringing something of the eschatological feasting and abundance?  It can be hard to discern the difference between allegorical misreading of Scripture and sensitivity to the original writer’s intent.  The goal is not to make it say something Mark didn’t know, but to recognize what Mark intended to communicate both overtly and subtly.

Sometimes the details in a passage are helpful apologetically. In a day when the Bible is roundly mocked, we have listeners who need their trust in the Bible bolstered by our preaching.  Thus it is worth noting apparently incidental details that actually under gird a robust evangelical bibliology.  For example, notice the difference between names used in speech quotations and the same names used by the narrator.  Jesus was the 6th most common name in that part of the world at that time, so naturally in speech his name would be qualified, such as “the Nazarene, Jesus” (Mark 14:67).  Yet in the narration, Mark doesn’t need to identify which Jesus he is writing about, so it is just “Jesus” (eg. Mark 14:62, 72).  Mark could easily have had the servant girl referring to “Jesus,” but he didn’t.  Was Mark phenomenally accurate in making up the story, or is he in fact quoting speech with word perfect exactitude?  (Compare the narrator with the speech quotations in Matthew 14:1-11, for another example of this.)

Tomorrow I’ll share a couple more examples of textual details that offer apologetic value for our preaching.  (I’m indebted to Peter Williams of Tyndale House, Cambridge, for these apologetic examples.)

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.

?-Centric Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

There is a lot of discussion about whether preaching is anthropocentric or theocentric (man or God-centered).  Some like to get into the theocentric versus christocentric debate (God or Christ-centered).  I am not getting into that one in this post (although I will mention a helpful category I heard recently from Walter Kaiser – christocentric is one thing, but christo-exclusive is another . . . I like that helpful distinction!)

Based on the nature of Scripture, I think it is vital that we grasp the necessity of theocentric interpretation, and consequently, preaching.  Kent Edwards, in a journal article, stated:

The point of a biblical story is always a theological point.  We learn something about God and how to live in response to him when we understand a biblical story.  The narrative literature of the Bible is concretized theology.
J.Kent Edwards, JEHS 7:1, 10.

How true that is!  Even if you were to study Esther, the story in the Bible where God is textually absent, it doesn’t take long to recognize that God is very much present as the hero of the story!  Let’s be sure we don’t study Bible passages, stories in particular, and merely derive little lessons for life.  We can leave that with Aesop’s Fables.  Let’s be sure we grapple with the theological point of every story, the intersection between God and humanity.  God’s Word is all relevant and useful, so our preaching should likewise be relevant and useful to life.  But we also center our preaching on God, because the Bible is centered on Him!

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!

Dealing With Deadened Motivation

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

How are we to deal with a cold heart when we find one sitting in our own chest?  How should we respond to a lack of spiritual motivation?  I believe we need to think biblically and theologically about this very real challenge in our lives.

Effort of the flesh does not work. It is common advice.  Do the right thing and don’t worry about your feelings.  Your feelings must not drive you, choose by determination of the will to do what is right.  This is all very well, but it doesn’t hold up theologically.  The will is not an independent faculty of the soul that can switch on and take charge when our hearts are cold.  The will is in bondage to the affections, so what are we to do when there is a problem in our affections, a coldness of heart?  Forcing ourselves to do the right thing with a wrong heart is unwise.  Effort of the flesh leads either to sin (the fruit of the flesh in Galatians 5), or pseudo-success (external righteousness with a dead heart is the hypocrisy of Pharisaism).  Paul argues strongly in Galatians 3:1-3 against the notion that we can mature or increase in sanctification by the power of the flesh.

Deadened motivation is an issue of the affections. What does Paul contrast with flesh effort?  It is response to the Spirit, a faith response.  Our affections cannot be fixed by an effort of the will, that is getting it backwards.  Affection is only overcome by affection.  To put it another way, why do we love God?  We love God because He first loved us.  So when I sense the temperature dropping in my heart, my response cannot be to look to myself (flesh effort).  I have to look to Him (faith response).  I need response, not greater responsibility.  I need to delight again, not diligently stir up duty within.  So how do I address motivational issues in my own heart?  I simply lay myself open to the attractive power of the love of God.  What does that look like practically?  Well, typically it means spending time in His Word, perhaps listening to worship music, pondering creation or praying.  Isn’t that just “doing the right thing and letting feelings follow?”  Not really.  It may look similar on the outside, but it’s about being responsive to the love of God, not responsible to achieve my own spiritual motivation.

Tomorrow I will add a couple of thoughts to further clarify what I’ve described here.

Why We Preach

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Where there is no vision, the people perish . . . so starts a well-known, oft-quoted and usually misunderstood proverb (Proverbs 29:18).  The second half of the proverb completes the thought and makes it clear that this is not about having vision statements, 5-year plans and strategic documents (good as those all are).  It is about a word from the Lord.  Where there is no word from the Lord, the people go wild, they cut loose, they sin with abandon.  The same verb is used twice of the Israelites sinning out of control with the golden calf (they weren’t just dancing – Exo.32:25!)  It is used to describe the wickedness promoted by King Ahaz (2Chron.28:19).

So as you continue to prepare for Sunday, remember how important it is that God’s people hear the word of the Lord.  If we consistently fail to preach the Word, the results will become evident.  Whether or not you have a vision statement in the church, make sure the Word of God is preached clearly, accurately, faithfully and applicatonally.

Making Words Clear

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here in London you can visit the British Library and look at such priceless items as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.  While it is a privilege to see them, they are not the easiest things to read and understand.  Written in uncials, ITISNOTEASYTOREADTEXTWITHOUTGAPSORPUNCTUATION.  Never mind the fact that it is in Greek, just the running together of endless letters is tough enough.

Thankfully we don’t have to read Greek text written in uncials.  We are blessed to have the Bible very accurately translated into our language, with all the blessings of spaces between words, punctuation, etc.  They’ve even conveniently added in the widely recognized and accepted verse and chapter divisions.  They usually also add the equally uninspired and sometimes unhelpful section headings.  Nevertheless, with all this help, the text is still often perceived to be a block of writing with one word running into the next.

As we study a passage in order to understand it and then preach it, we start to recognize the structure of the thought.  Just this week I was in Ephesians 5:1-14.  Initially it feels like a whole series of almost random instructions and explanations.  Gradually the flow of thought becomes clearer.  Major thoughts stand out, supporting thoughts fall into place.  Typically in the epistles I will use some kind of clausal layout and/or exegetical outlining approach to see the flow of thought more clearly.

When we preach our task includes the need to make a string of words clear.  We don’t have to start with an uncial script, but to all intents and purposes, we practically are.  Listeners hearing a string of verses often grasp very little first time through.  As we preach we look for ways to emphasize the main thoughts, we look for ways to demonstrate how the “support material” in the text explains, proves and/or applies the main thoughts.  Without technical jargon, our preaching needs to verbally achieve the formation of something like a clausal layout in the minds and hearts of our listeners.  Certainly, by the time we are done preaching, they should not see the text as a string of random words or thoughts . . . it should be much clearer than that!

Planning a Gospel Series – Four More Suggestions

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here are four more suggestions for planning a gospel series:

Decide how many messages the series will last, then select accordingly. You might only deal with a part of the gospel (such as the Upper Room Discourse).  You might select exemplary units that point to the flow in which they sit (such as Luke 19:1-10 with reference to the preceding flow of stories).  You might choose to preach larger chunks in order to cover the whole text in some way. 

Commit to learning the theology and terminology of whichever gospel writer you are preaching. Try to preach John in John’s terms and emphasizing John’s theology.  Luke has his own distinctive set of vocabulary.  Mark has his own style.  Try to let the details of the messages reflect the book from which they are taken. 

Preach the gospel you are in, not all four. Use cross-checks in a gospel harmony only to make sure you see what is emphasized in your focus gospel, and to make sure you don’t preach historical inaccuracy.  Avoid the temptation to preach the event rather than the text (the latter is inspired).

Try to plan the series to consistently reflect the uniqueness of the gospel. For instance, Matthew alternates between discourse and narrative sections – you might alternate messages from these sections (samples from within the two or three chapter chunks, or overview messages of those sections).

What other suggestions would you make for the effective planning of a gospel series?

Planning a Gospel Series – Four Suggestions

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

It is a good idea to preach a series from one of the gospels, but it is not easy to plan.  There are so many events, parables and teaching sections that a series which simply goes from one NIV heading to the next would last for years.  Here are some suggestions:

Get to grips with the gospel before you plan the series. Some good study in a gospel will give you a sense of the flow and structure, of the big themes, the major chunks and so on.  This will all help to plan the series creatively.

Recognize that individual units are strung together to make a broader point. As I presented here recently, Luke 18:9 reaches on through 19:10 at least.  Seeing how these units work together will help to understand the larger sweep of the book.

Wrestle with the flow of the whole. John’s themes of the deity of Christ, belief and life, recur throughout the book of signs, culminating in the climactic miracle of the raising of Lazarus.  Mark’s two overarching questions of who is Jesus and what does it mean to follow him control content throughout the gospel.  Once the disciples finally recognize and declare who Jesus is, they discover that they cannot have the Messiah without the cross – so in the end it is the climactic statement of the Centurion that pulls it all together.  Try to relate the parts to the whole so that the series has evidence of unity in the way it is presented.

Consider giving an overview sermon at the start and/or end of the series. This can really help listeners to see the flow of the whole and orient them to the message of the book.

Tomorrow I’ll add more, but I’d love to hear more input on this subject.

Blinkers Off

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When preaching a narrative it is important to preach a whole story, but don’t wear blinkers.  I am referring to the beginning and end of the specific narrative in question.  We easily fall into the trap of believing that section breaks added in a contemporary version are actually inspired dividers that should separate two distinct texts.  In reality the Bible authors usually strung several stories together.  We may preach only one story, but we must be aware of the flow.

Take, for example, the story of Zaccheus as Jesus left Jericho in Luke 19:1-10.  This story is naturally paired with the other man who couldn’t see as Jesus entered Jericho at the end of chapter 18.  But I would suggest the flow goes back further.  There are a pair of prayer parables at the start of 18, the first connecting strongly with the end of chapter 17.  The second (Pharisee and Tax Collector) begins a flow of stories reaching into chapter 19.  After the shocking story of the two men going to the temple to pray, Luke illustrates the right attitude in approaching God with two stories – one positive and one negative.  First the little children coming to Jesus and then the Rich Young Ruler.  This ends with the challenge of how a rich man can be saved when such is impossible in human terms.  The answer is that it is possible with God (and Jesus goes on to explain how he will suffer and die in Jerusalem).  Then another pair of stories, two men who can’t see, one ends positively, the next?  You’d expect negative – it’s another rich man, this time a despised sinner, one worthy of condemnation by any standard.  But he is saved.  How?  By this same Jesus taking the wrath of the crowds on himself to save the man from probable posse justice.  Zaccheus the rich man is saved by Christ who takes it on himself.  The text flows from at least 18:9 through 19:10.

We need to take the blinkers off as we study the gospels and narrative books of the Bible.  We need to look for how the individual elements are tied together by a very purposeful author.  It will help us to understand what is being communicated.  Furthermore, it is worth thinking about sharing some of this with the listeners.  Not to overwhelm or distract from the message of the specific text in question.  But enough to clarify that the gospels were not written in NIV sections, and maybe even to motivate them to study the flow of the text for themselves.