Stage 2 – Passage Study

Varied Skills in Passage Study

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When we take a biblical passage and study it in order to understand it, and then to be able to preach it, we need a variety of skills.  This post (and tomorrow’s) isn’t an attempt to exhaustively define the exegetical process, but rather a selection of elements that may prompt your self-awareness in this process – perhaps you’re weaker in one area than another, perhaps you need a reminder to include something.  Feel free to add thoughts too, this is brief and non-exhaustive!

Whole Bible Awareness – We don’t rip out the page we are studying, but read in light of the context.  We need to think consciously about how the passage fits in the progress of revelation, what the “informing theology” is that feed into the passage, as well as how the big narrative of Scripture develops after the passage.

Scholarly Awareness – We aren’t the definitive measure of truth, but do well to engage with others in informed conversation as we study a passage.  So we utilise commentaries and reference tools of various kinds, but we can’t rely on them (or just reproduce them – God has called you to preach to these people this Sunday, not FF Bruce, CH Spurgeon or John Calvin.)

Original Language Study – Whenever possible, to the extent of our ability, we should do the serious work of passage study in reference to the original language.  This doesn’t guarantee a better message.  In fact, one of the most important things about original language study is that we must know our limitations.  Sometimes there’s nothing worse for a sermon than someone with a year or two of serious study behind them, or even just a copy of Vine’s next to them at their desk, offering original language insights in a sermon.  If you are able, or if not, then utilising the skill of others, allow original language study to inform your English sermon . . . but almost never let it show when you preach.

Tomorrow I’ll add some more elements to consider, but feel free to add your thoughts below.

Share

Speeding the Process

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

A couple of other ideas that can be added to yesterday’s post:

“Sermon Ideation Groups to plan a series through a book.” John suggested this and I heartily concur.  Mapping out passages and initial ideas can be a great headstart to the sermon series planning process.  Anything that helps to avoid the “from scratch” sensation each week is helpful.  I would add a couple more thoughts related to this:

Phone a Friend and Talk it Through. There are times when sermon preparation is moving forward at a pace, then other times when things seem to grind to a halt.  Being able to talk with someone who understands the process, the concept of good Bible study, etc. can be the kickstart the process needs to get going again.  Such a friend is worth their weight in gold.  If you don’t have one, train some!

Allow Margin to Plan When Productive. I was really productive on planning a series for next January . . . all within a window of 24 hours at the end of May.  That is a significant headstart, which also allows me to collect useful material, illustrations, etc., over the next six months.

The goal is not to speed up the process of preparation, but it doesn’t hurt to be able to be prepared in the limited time that we have.  Cutting corners doesn’t honour the Lord, but thinking it through so we can give our best, even with all the pastoral and personal crises that will come between now and preaching time, is a worthwhile endeavour.

Some Thoughts on Preparing to Preach Psalm 22

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments
This is not a complete post, but it may be helpful.  I received the following question from a good friend:

I have been asked to preach on psalm 22 and am at the moment soaking myself in it to try and make sure I understand the message, the structure and what God was saying then and is saying now.

I will resist the temptation to jump straight to Matthew 27 and end up preaching that, as the psalm should, in my current view, stand on its own merits.  Nevertheless I can’t imagine preaching this without bringing in Matthew.  I would really welcome your views on how to approach this to get the balance right.

Here’s my initial answer:

This is a key issue in preaching OT.  Many automatically go to the NT, especially from a passage like that.  I suppose I would study it in two stages – first what it meant then, then how Matthew / Jesus uses it (raising the issue of whether Jesus was pulling only specific verses or relating to the whole of it by quoting the start of it).

In terms of preaching it, I would probably want to preach it in terms of David first, for a significant chunk of the message, recognizing that everyone else is probably thinking of Jesus.  Then going to Jesus and showing his use of it would be perfectly legitimate, thinking about how it applies to us as a text, as well as how Jesus’ application of it applies to us.  I preached it a few years ago and found it effective to major on Psalm 22 at 1000BC, with a smaller focus given to Greater Son of David at 32AD, connecting it to us throughout (application of the concept or main idea in reference to David, and response to Jesus in reference to the latter part of the message).

The one thing I would add is that the psalm is not finished 2/3rds of the way through, as some preachers sometimes seem to think.  In your study you should probably wrestle with the issue of whether this was a purely predictive text (i.e.not of David, but all of Jesus), a double fulfillment type of text (sensus plenior in some respect – i.e. both of David and of Jesus), or a purely descriptive text that Jesus appropriated as appropriate to his situation and response to it (i.e. all of David, but Jesus could identify).  I wouldn’t address all these in the sermon, but I would preach according to my understanding of how the two relate.

There’s a lot to think about with this passage, and I haven’t got into any details here!  Hope you can really delight in the study of it.

Single Verse Sermons

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

The site received this comment from Peter D:

I have been studying Charles Spurgeon’s sermons. He would often take one scripture and expound on it from every direction he could, would that be thin blooded? I’m preparing a message for later this month and want to focus on one verse within Psalm 63 – it sticks out to me and brings the whole psalm to life, for me at least. In your opinion is it best when dealing with psalms to preach the whole psalm in it’s entirety or can focusing on one part bring it to life for the members?

This is a good question.  Regarding the Psalms I would suggest it is always important to study a Psalm in its entirety, but it may be effective to focus on one part if that seems appropriate for the situation (i.e. when covering the full text in a longer psalm would prove overwhelming or unachievable). 

But what about single verse sermons? Certainly in the past there were many more preachers who preached on single texts, often going from those texts to a sometimes comprehensive canon-wide presentation of the pertinent doctrines suggested (or sometime not suggested) in that text.  Sadly there are many who try to copy the approach of a Spurgeon without achieving a comparable level of personal spirituality and biblical maturity.  There is certainly a place for doctrinal preaching, as well as better and worse ways to do it.  Perhaps there should be a post on that subject sometime . . .

But what can we say about single-verse sermons?

1. If a single verse is a complete unit of thought, great!  For instance, many proverbs stand alone as a complete unit of thought and can be profitably preached as such.

2. If a single verse conveys the main idea of the unit of thought, great!  In some passages there is a single thought that encapsulates the main idea of the passage and it might be effective to preach the verse, while choosing how much of the context to refer to at the same time (depending on situation of sermon, listeners, etc.)

3. If a single verse conveys a significant proportion of the main idea of the text, this might be effective.  As above, the surrounding context will need to be brought into the message in some way or other, but appearing to preach a single verse may work well.  In Peter’s comment above, I noticed how he still tied the single verse to the message of the Psalm as a whole, which makes me think it might be very effective.

4. In a topical message, a single verse may act as sectional manager for that section of the message, but that manager must not act autonomously from the influence of the full unit of thought.  That is, the verse must be understood in its context.

5. If a single verse is used without awareness of context, or to preach a point it wouldn’t give if understood in context, or if preached without studying the context . . . well, please don’t.

Purposeful Selection Then Forgotten

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The first logical step in preparing a message (once you’ve been asked to preach, which is presumed), is to select your passage(s) on which to base the message.  Sometimes the invitation comes with the passage, sometimes with a theme, sometimes an open invitation.  Select then forget.  What do I mean?

1. When you’re invited to preach with a passage assigned. You may be tempted to skip the Passage Selection phase of preparation altogether, after all, job is already done, isn’t it?  Well, not fully.  You need to double check that you are handling a full unit of thought (i.e. not half a story, half a proverb, half a psalm, half a paragraph, etc.)  Whatever you are asked to preach, you have to study the full unit of thought in its context, so there is a need to check the selection.  In doing so, especially if a title has been assigned, you may get a clear indication of what they are wanting from the message.  Great, a church or ministry being purposeful is a good thing. But for the study phase (stages 2-4), you need to forget that purpose and seek to dwell in the text.  Reintroduce that purpose in your thoughts for message purpose, stage 5.

2. When you’re invited to preach with a theme assigned. You go on the hunt for an appropriate passage on which to preach that theme (or a combination of passages).  Once you’ve selected your passages, forget the theme for a while.  The text has to be free to speak for itself.  Any imposed message makes it something other than truly biblical preaching.

3. When you’re invited to preach and free to choose. This is hard work.  You can easily waste a lot of time pondering where to go.  You may go where you go for a variety of reasons, but once you’ve gone there, forget your motivation (for now) and allow the text to speak for itself.

What if it is different? At times I’ve been faced with a passage that doesn’t do what I thought it would, or doesn’t do what a title suggests.  Well, then, either preach the passage or pick another.  Simple really, but vital.  When we are studying passage (stages 2-4), we need to let the text be boss, and then let that authority linger through the message formation phase of the process.

Falling Short of Unity, Order and Progress

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Can I offer three ways in which we can have unity, order and progress, yet still fall short in each area?

Unity – We often fall short when we just tie together the sections of the text by means of a keyword or subject.  In many passages it is relatively easy to make the two or three or four points somewhat parallel and addressing aspects of a subject.  I’m being hypothetical now, but the type of outline that goes through The Problem of Prayer, The Power of Prayer, The Perspecuity of Prayer.  (Commentary labels fall short on numerous levels, perhaps another post for that one!)  Did the writer really intend a list of fully parallel and equal thoughts?  Or was the writer actually building a case to say one main thing?  Unity should be pursued at the level of main idea (subject and complement) not just at the level of subject.

Order – I think we fall short of a well-ordered message when we simply progress through the text in the order it is found in Scripture.  Often this is the most effective order to present the passage, but why?  Is it purely for ease of following?  If the writer had shuffled the pack of paragraphs, would it have been the same another way?  If not, if there is a development of the thought, or a progression toward a climax, or an addressing of objections, etc., then let’s recognize and reproduce a more deliberate order than just, “now onto the next verse…”  (Again, often the order is a good order to preach, but ask yourself why?)

Progress – We fall short when our progress is simply a moving toward the end of the passage.  Listeners will generally feel relieved when they get that sensation of nearing the end, but that doesn’t mean the message has moved anywhere, or moved them at all. Progress should give a sense of moving forward, going somewhere, building, arriving, etc.  Consider how the thought in the passage does more than just slide past, but actually engages the reader, creates tension, resolves it, anwers concerns, etc.

A Classic Contrast Revisited

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In Between Two Worlds (I Believe in Preaching), John Stott contrasted the typical weakness in more liberal churches from the weakness in the preaching in more conservative churches.  One connected with the audience, but had no rooting in Scripture.  The other started with Scripture and built straight up to heaven, without ever touching down.  Timothy Ward’s book Words of Life revisits this contrast.  Allow me to paraphrase:

Some churches aim to give hope and inspire faith, but do so by proclaiming a Christ different from the Christ presented in the New Testament.  This is achieved by honouring the purpose of a text without being shaped fully by the content.  (Incidentally, this also happens in more conservative churches where a particularly elevated value is given to passion and emotion.)

On the other hand, some churches are driven by content, but seemingly unaware of the purpose for which that content was communicated.  In the more conservative churches there is a tendency to see the preacher as primarily a “Bible teacher.”  True biblical preaching should neither by-pass, nor settle for, faithful exegetical and doctrinal instruction.

Let me quote Ward’s conclusion to the section: “Properly faithful biblical preaching involves the preacher deliberately seeking to fashion every verbal (and indeed physical) aspect of his preaching in such a way that the Spirit may act through his words in the lives of his hearers, ministering the content of Scripture in accordance with the purpose of Scripture.” (p165)

Without wanting to critique Stott’s great book in any way, I have to admit I am really excited by what Ward has done here.  Scripture is not just a repository of truth which the preacher must purposefully land in the lives of the listeners.  The preacher’s task includes sensitivity to the original author’s purpose (or intent) as well as content, which must be effectively and sensitively communicated to the contemporary listeners.  What Stott would probably affirm (and I’m not checking the book, so he may overtly state this), Ward does overtly state.  Preacher, in your passage study, be sure to recognize the author’s intent as well as content.  Then preach so as to appropriately do what the passage did, as well as saying what the passage said.

“The Spirit is again graciously present in the preached message, if what is preached now is faithful in purpose and content to what he once inspired.” (p.165, italics original)

Help People Trust Their Bibles

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

I was just reading a post by Bill Mounce on the Koinonia blog (to see it click here.)  He offers a simple and graciously toned introduction to textual criticism set in the context of a natural question raised by folks in the church . . . “why is verse 4 missing in my Bible?”

Some textual critical questions would probably only be asked by people already heavily interested in the subject with apparatus in hand.  These kinds of questions may intrigue us, but usually shouldn’t find their way into the pulpit!  However, if people in the pew are looking at their Bible and asking a textual critical question, then we need to offer help.  Just a few brief thoughts in light of Bill’s good post:

1. Textual criticism can be explained relatively simply. People probably don’t need to know about every textual family, how to pronounce homeoteleuton, or the full rationale behind lectio difficilor potior.

2. Textual criticism can be explained with grace. This area of study can really stir up the tension, especially between adherents to different textual families.  Such tensions won’t help if shown from the pulpit.  Be gracious to people who disagree with you on Majority Text vs Critical Text issues.  Often you’d be fighting an unseen opponent anyway since people in the same church often tend to use the same version of the Bible (and most of these without any real understanding of text critical issues underlying the options)!

3. Textual criticism should be explained at the right time. Just because you’re enjoying a textual critical excursion in your personal study, or even in your sermon preparation, doesn’t mean the people are needing a dose of it.  But when a verse is missing and they are wondering, or when you’re going through Mark or John and you get to the square bracket sections, then is probably a good time to offer some explanation.

4. Textual critical explanations should build trust in our English Bibles. This has to be paramount.  What have you gained if you’ve showed off your knowledge, perhaps won a debate against an opponent not present, but undermined the confidence of every listener in their English Bible?

Table Talk

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Today’s post isn’t one.  It’s a 35-minute interview I did with Mike Reeves over at theologynetwork.org in their Table Talk series.  It’s all about preaching and how our view of God influences our view of the Bible and therefore our approach to communicating it.  So, here’s the link and I hope this is helpful: theologynetwork.org – Table Talk.

Going Deeper Than Instruction

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

In a lot of preaching situations it is easier to simply present the text and press home the imperatives.  Whether or not there is technically an imperative in the grammar, we can easily turn a passage into an instruction and press for change through our words.

I wonder how often we miss the opportunity to go a step or two deeper and recognize the “why” behind the “should”?  Typically the epistles offer lists of instructions, but in the context of the letter, these instructions are very much set in the context of theological truth.  We are to present our bodies as living sacrifices, but it is in view of God’s mercies that we are to do so.  We are to walk in a manner worthy, but specifically it’s in a manner worthy of the calling we have received.  We are to set our hearts on things above, where Christ is, but this is in light of the Christ presented in the first two chapters.

Instruction and imperative don’t just sit on their own as burdens to place on people, but as appropriate response to the captivating truths of who God is, what He has done and so on.

As a preacher it is much easier to simply give instruction and apply pressure, but we must consider how to make sense of those instructions so that instead of pressured compliance, we might see captivated response.