Stage 2 – Passage Study

Comment on Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’ve written on commentaries before, such as here and here, and even here. I was just prompted by something I read to point out something else concerning commentaries. As well as the standard sage advice to not overly revere the commentaries, but rather treat them as conversation partners; as well as the solid suggestion to not invite them into the conversation too early; one more suggestion:

Don’t only read commentators that are solidly within your own theological tradition or denominational stream. It is tempting, especially with limited resources, to always buy from the same denominational publishing house, or in a series that is largely of your kind theologically.  Some people seem to only read Reformed Calvinists, others look for well-known Arminian theologians, others like anything connected to Dallas, others want Abingdon Press, others only John MacArthur, others only Tom Wright, others only buy UK/Australian authors, etc.  Tempting as such an approach may be, you will find that richer insight is gained by engaging with a variety of voices.  All of these that I have mentioned can be helpful, as can Roman Catholic commentators, or Jewish commentators, etc.

A couple of caveats (since I know some readers will take me out of context and write me off theologically for one of the items in that list, or perhaps for all of them – I could list more until I find your favorite!)  (1) Just because it’s different, doesn’t make it right, any more than it makes it wrong.  That is to say, whatever their tradition or theology, some commentators deal with the text better than others – you are still looking for good commentators.  (2) Make sure you have some grounding yourself before you bounce around in other camps.  Reading multiple voices is part of good seminary training, but be careful not to intellectually buy into anything and everything in print.  (3) Don’t neglect quality commentators from “your camp.”  They will probably form the “spine” of your collection.  (4) It is helpful to know where a commentator is coming from.  It helps to know that this guy always looks for an obscure position and takes it.  It helps to know that that one comes from a theology that tends to read these kinds of verses in this way.

Finally, I’ve mentioned John Glynn’s helpful book in the past.  I’d like to point you to a very helpful online resource strongly influenced by John Glynn’s book.  Perhaps you have not come across it yet – bestcommentaries.com. I would not say that I always agree with the scores given to a commentary, of course, but it largely seems to be a very helpful guide.  Take a look around it, you will probably be glad to add it to your bookmarks!

Do We Get It Backwards?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Here’s a provocative quote from Charles Kraft:

The amount of crucial information involved in Christianity is, I believe, quite small.  The amount of Christian behavior demanded in response to all that information is, however, quite large.  We have, however, given ourselves over to a methodology that emphasizes the lesser of the two ingredients. (Jesus Model for Contemporary Communication, 123)

I essentially concur with this and want to make a couple of comments.  Obviously Kraft is not saying that Christianity is simplistic or lacking in content.  I’m sure he’d agree that we will never exhaust the riches of God’s Word.  However, for each truth in that Word, there are numerous necessary applications to real life behavior.  As preachers we tend to explain, explain, explain some more and then finally squeeze in a couple of minutes of application.  Perhaps we would do well to follow the advice of Don Sunukjian along the same lines, when he says we should explain as much as necessary, then apply, apply, apply.

In reality I find a lot of preaching is lacking in application, but not really because the text is being over-explained.  I would suggest, perhaps provocatively, that I rarely find a text even decently explained.  What many preachers tend to do is fill time with talk.  Random details in the text, other texts, illustrations lacking in defined purpose, filler words and noise.  I find it so refreshing when a preacher actually explains a text, and it is time to celebrate when there is specific and substantial application added to the mix.  I know there are still some exegetically heavy lecturers getting into pulpits, but probably far less than in the past.  However, it would be wrong to flatter many preachers who lack in application by suggesting they explain too much.  In reality many preachers neither explain nor apply well.

Many preachers tend to feel they have not done their job if they only preach one text, one main idea, one truth and then apply it well.  They perhaps feel that such preaching might be too lightweight or thin on content.  So they try to pack in more information, more texts, more truths, etc.  What could have been a powerful, penetrative, convicting, focused, applicational and memorable sermon becomes an overwhelming speedboat charge through the jungle of the catechism, or through systematic theology, or through all things Bible (complete with the resulting spray in the face that makes you do that squinting, blinking thing with your eyes!)

If it means actually seeing lives changed, let’s preach lightweight.  Actually, I don’t believe that.  Let’s preach one text well.  Well focused, not going anywhere else without good reason.  Well explained, but not an information dump.  Well applied, specific and with the appropriate grandeur for such a biblical truth.

Biblical Preaching – Crisis and Recovery

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

We’re coming toward the end of terms and semesters. Just a few weeks to go until many will walk the stage, shake the hands, get the paper, etc. Here are some great thoughts from Al Mohler’s commencement address at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary last December. It’s worth reading the whole address, here’s the link.

“Our authority is not our own. We are called to the task of preaching the Bible, in season and out of season. We are rightly to divide the Word of truth, and to teach the infinite riches of the Word of God. There are no certainties without the authority of the Scripture. We have nothing but commas and question marks to offer if we lose confidence in the inerrant and infallible Word of God. There are no thunderbolts where the Word of God is subverted, mistrusted or ignored.

“The crowds were astonished when they heard Jesus, ‘for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.’ Congregations are starving for the astonishment of hearing the preacher teach and preach on the authority of the Word of God. If there is a crisis in preaching, it is a crisis of confidence in the Word. If there is a road to recovery, it will be mapped by a return to biblical preaching.”

Lest any of us feel buoyed by degrees earned, titles held, respect given, etc., let’s remember this – the authority in our preaching comes from the Bible, not us.

Not Every Passage is Easy

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I suppose many of us preachers have a desire to make every passage understandable.  This is good and right on many levels.  Yet some passages, and some details in passages, are tough.  I was leading a Bible study on Isaiah 49-50 the other night . . . there was a tough detail.  Should I force my understanding on people?  What if my understanding of it rests on a broader background than some of those present can draw on?  I’m intrigued by Piper’s point in chapter 14 of Brothers We Are Not Professionals – we should show people why God inspired hard texts.

It is amazing that so much of Christianity rests on the shoulders of a “book,” and some parts of that “book” (technically 66 of them I suppose) are hard to understand.  Why did God do this?  Piper offers four reasons.  1. To stir in us a sense of desperation (utter dependence on God’s enablement).  2. To move us to supplication (prayer to God for help).  3. To prompt real cogitation (thinking hard about Biblical texts – which is no alternative to praying for help!)  4. To stimulate genuine education (the training of young people and adults to pray earnestly, read well and think hard.)

As preachers we must wrestle with hard texts and not simply skirt around them in our preaching, nor avoid them in our scheduling.  On the one hand it is up to us to help make the message of the text clear.  At the same time, we may do our listeners a disservice if we don’t point out when a passage is tough, and look for ways to let that be a motivation for study, rather than a hindrance.

Why Preaching is Ailing – Part Me

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In the last two posts we’ve considered Greg Haslam’s list of eight reasons why preaching is ailing.  I’d like to add a couple more to the list, from my perspective.  Feel free to add your thoughts.

Some don’t know how to interpret the Bible. Some preachers have the best intentions, and even good presentation skills, but are lacking in the core ability to wrestle with a biblical text and grasp its intended meaning.  It’s easy to search a text for launch pads to spiritual thoughts, but it takes some prayerful skill to grasp the point as intended by the author.  Hermeneutics is not a luxury for the preacher, it’s foundational.

Some don’t understand the biblical bigger picture. We live in a day of ready access to biblical information, but it takes more than a big virtual library to make a preacher.  Quick access to info on a passage is one thing, holding together the big picture of the whole Bible is quite another.  We need more preachers who are really people of the Book as a whole.

Some don’t know what preaching is. It’s easy to think of preaching as a form of communication, a religious pattern to be repeated each week.  But what of the core elements of true preaching: the true meaning of the text, effectively communicated through the preacher’s words and life, with an emphasis on the applicational relevance to the particular listeners present, all in full reliance on the Spirit of God.  Miss out one of these elements and preaching ails fast.

Some don’t care about their listeners. They say that church too easily reflects its culture.  Well we live in cultures often bereft of others-centered motivation.  It’s too easy to build a ministry around a core motivation of “whatever is best for me.”  Preaching withers when listeners don’t matter.

There we go . . . four more things to watch for in our own ministries.  Tomorrow I want to turn the tone so we don’t get discouraged!  And if this list doesn’t discourage you, then be careful of pride!

Bible Study Is Not a Hop

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I don’t want to oversimplify Bible study, but in most basic terms it involves two steps. The first step is to understand what the author meant by what he wrote back then.  The second step is to then consider the enduring application of that text for us today.  Back then . . . today.  Two steps.  One.  Two.

Bible study is not a hop.  We cannot simply try to understand what the text means for us today.  But this happens all the time.  Last night I was enjoying a Bible study in Isaiah 28-35.  We noticed how easily writers will try to explain the content of the passage in terms of “us.”  The problem with this “melded” approach to understanding a passage is that it flattens and simplifies everything.

You might say that actually simplified is good when it comes to complex books like Isaiah.  Indeed, but not when simplified comes at the cost of understanding what Isaiah was actually writing, and at the cost of enjoying the multi-layered, complex, intricate and beautiful plan of God.  When we look at the way God works out His promises we should be stirred to cry out, “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”  There is a richness to the way God works through history.  That richness can be lost so quickly – in the time it takes to change two steps into a hop.

Wherever we are in the Bible, let’s be sure to wrestle with what the author meant back then, followed by the possible applications for us either by enduring theological truth or by extension (interpretation before application).  One … two.  Not a hop.

Review: Bibleworks 8

/ Peter Mead / 7 Comments

bw8box-reduced-300

I’ve had Bibleworks for many years (since the Hermeneutika days!), but I’ve had Bibleworks 8 for just a couple of weeks.  Is it worth upgrading from an older version?  Is it worth buying Bibleworks for the first time?  Yes and a qualified yes. The qualified yes is that it is worth buying Bibleworks for the first time if you are serious about biblical exegesis, especially original language work.  If all you want is a Bible on the computer and the ability to do a simple search for a word in the English Bible, then you can get cheap or even free software to do that.  Bibleworks is not a library of commentaries, although it does have an increasing set of quality reference tools built-in.  Bibleworks is not a collection of public domain reference tools that are freely available elsewhere.  Bibleworks is about serious biblical exegesis, especially in the original languages.

Some things don’t change.  The basic feel of the program is the same as before, although the user interface is now more logical in its organization.  You still get more Bible versions than you’ll know what to do with, including numerous foreign language versions (great for missionaries), a significant array of Greek and Hebrew grammars and access to such things as the Belgic and Westminster Confessions, and Schaff’s church fathers.

Most things keep improving.  In reality there are now more of the above versions (TNIV, NIrV, plus Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Macedonian, Russian, Arabic, etc.), grammars and historical texts.  I was interested to see that Waltke & O’Connor as well as Dan Wallace’s grammar are now included without needing to be unlocked (Jouon and Muruoka are included too, but I haven’t got into that yet!)  There is now another set of NT Greek diagrams to compare with the previous set (which leads me to ask why this was not available when I was in seminary, and also to make some passing comment about how easy it must be now compared to “back in my day!”)  Apparently, you can now listen to the English text read aloud (if you’re on Vista, which I’m not, so I can’t comment on how that sounds).

The real heart of Bibleworks is how easily it allows complex searches and access to text related information.  Both are easier and better in version 8.  The Analysis Window is clearer and more sensibly organized.  Now there is more information close to hand when working in a text.  I like the context tab, which gives lists of word frequency in the pericope, chapter and book.  The stats tab gives visual representation of the current search results, and the X-refs tabs gives sets of cross-references associated with the current verse (which I suppose some preachers will enjoy too much!)  Phrase matching and related verse tools are impressive new features, finding the same wording elsewhere in the canon.  Grammatical searches are easy to use with auto-complete features.  Not only does Bibleworks have lots of searching tools, it also has them very well integrated.

The text export function is now far more sophisticated, so once I figure out how to use it, I won’t have to reformat every verse I import to MS Word (and once I check the instructions I am sure it will become clearer how to get this feature to work the way I want it to!)

Overall impression so far?  I didn’t know if I’d notice the difference, but I do.  I’m glad I’m blessed with Bibleworks 8 and I would encourage others who do serious exegetical work with original languages to jump in and join me.  I have Logos/Libronix, but honestly always go back to Bibleworks for working with the Bible (and to Libronix for the excellent commentaries).  I cannot compare Bibleworks with Gramcord or Accordance as I don’t have or use either, but I can compare Bibleworks 8 with 7, 6, 5, 4, 3.1, etc.  It’s better.

For more info, pricing, full database lists, etc., please go to bibleworks.com or if you’re in UK/EU go to bibleworks.co.uk

I would be interested to hear from other Bibleworks users what features you find helpful in your sermon preparation.

Smooth Preaching Doesn’t Mark

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

I like this term, “smooth preaching.”  I was just reading about it and resonating with the thought.  Peter Jensen uses the term in his chapter on the role of the seminary in the training of the preacher.   (Preach the Word, p216.)  He writes, “There is a variety of smooth preaching that replicates what it sees as the main theme of a text but does not bring to the surface anything in the text that surprises, contradicts, creates tension.”  It is the kind of preaching that rushes too easily to conclusions or fails to spot the points of stress in a text.  It is dull preaching that dulls the Word of God.

I suppose some might wish that someone would publish a book, perhaps a New International Textual Stress Points Commentary, or a Passage-By-Passage Jagged Edge Guide.  But in reality, there is simple no better way to avoid such smooth preaching than this – spend significant time dwelling in a text, wrestling with the text, allowing the text to wrestle with you, opening your own heart to the text, leaning so close to it that it can draw blood.  Close and personal encounters with God’s Word will bring the Bible into real conflict with sin in our lives.  It will expose and challenge our pride, anger, doubts, motivations, attitudes, habits, tendencies.  If we keep texts at arms length, then we will preach smooth sermons.  If we handle texts only briefly before preaching the obvious, then we will preach smooth sermons.  If we really prayerfully vulnerably wrestle with a text, and lose, then we will be in a better position to preach sermons with the textual edge bared to make its mark.  The Word of God does cut, but smooth preaching will only conceal that edge.  Smooth preaching doesn’t mark.

Adjust Agenda?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Yesterday I quoted from JI Packer’s chapter on Charles Simeon in Preach the Word.  I wanted to finish quoting the paragraph since it is provocative and perhaps helpful:

The motive behind his almost obsessive outbursts against Calvinistic and Arminian “system-Christians,” as he called them, was his belief that, through reading Scripture in light of their systems, both sides would be kept from doing justice to all the texts that were there.  Be “Bible-Christians” rather than slaves to a system, he argued, and so let the whole Bible have its way with you all the time.  Whether or not we agree that such speaking is the wise way to make that point, we must at least endorse Simeon’s “invariable rule . . . to endeavour to give to every portion of the word of God its full and proper force.” (Packer, in Preach the Word, 147-148.)

Perhaps you might substitute a different theological label into his quote, but still I think the point is helpful.  It is naive to think that we can simply preach the Bible in a theology-neutral way.  However, there is a great difference between reading every text in light of your system and constantly adjusting your system in light of the biblical text.  In that sense, let’s preach as, and let’s preach to motivate, “Bible-Christians.”