Stage 2 – Passage Study

Practice Preaching With Senses

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In yesterday’s post I highlighted a helpful point from Jay Adams’ book, Preaching with Purpose, in which he emphasized the need for preaching to all five senses.  For some of us this may come easy.  For others of us, this will take some real work.  Here are a couple of practice exercises that may help.

The Study Search – Adams suggests working within the confines of your study.  Touch, smell, taste, listen, and look at everything around you.  What does that wood feel like?  What does that old book smell like?  How does the painkiller tablet taste?  What about the sound of the door opening?  And that pile of stuff on your desk, what does it look like?  Take a few minutes and observe carefully.  Perhaps in the process you will come up with numerous similes and anecdotes to vivify your preaching.

The Scripture Search – Take a poetic passage – a psalm or song.  Carefully comb through it looking for sensory language or allusions (direct or implied).  Make note of ways to preach that text so that the senses are fully engaged.  For instance, try Psalm 113 or 133 for starters.  Then consider a narrative passage – life is lived with five senses, so this shouldn’t be too hard.  What sensory language could be used to communicate this narrative vividly?  Perhaps try Luke 15, or Genesis 39.

How to Preach Error in a Series

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Perhaps you are preaching a series of messages on a book of the Bible.  Perhaps you are one of several preachers preaching such a series.  So naturally you take the first passage of the text and study it to the best of your ability, Sunday comes and you preach it.  Next week you give your efforts to the next passage in the book.  This is how to preach error in a series.

It seems obvious, but in the busy schedule of ministry, it is so easy to forget.  A passage has to be studied in its context.  You may misrepresent the author’s intent in chapter 1 if you have not studied chapter 1 in its relation to the other three chapters.

Practically this means finding ways to do as much of the exegetical work as possible, in the whole book, before you preach message one.  If you are only preaching one message in the series, then necessarily your broader study will not be to the same level as the passage you are preaching (but perhaps this should push us in the direction of some study in teams whenever possible in multi-preacher series?)  If you are preaching the whole series, this macro view of the whole will benefit every individual message and be a blessing to your soul.

If the passages are connected to each other, as each series in a book surely is, then you cannot afford to prepare only one message and then preach it.  That’s how to preach error.

No Greek or Hebrew? A Tip

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

A very significant proportion of preachers around the world have had no training in the original languages.  After hearing yet another example in the last weeks, I’d like to give a tip regarding “this word literally means…” Generally speaking, unless you have thoroughly researched it.  Don’t use it.

The latest example I heard from the leader of a Bible study.  The verse seemed to be clear enough in content, but then we were given an exciting insight into the Hebrew text, “in the original language this word literally means . . .”  Interesting, perhaps even exciting, but actually, wrong.  It struck me as being slightly bizarre at the time, but not having my Hebrew text in front of me, and not wanting to “lord it over” in some way, I just made a note to check it later.  There’s no way it could be understood that way, unless the source of the alternative understanding had a particular theological agenda (which I’m fairly sure I can guess).

Sometimes “this literally means” might be helpful. It’s rare, but now and then this kind of background linguistic knowledge can add a nuance or some colour to our understanding of a passage.  One example is where a dynamic equivalent translation is “hiding” the repetitious use of a term (eg.”flesh” in Romans 6-8).  It is helpful to know there is a theme being repeated, and that the term used has particular connotations lost in some dynamic translations.

Often “this literally means” is not helpful. Remember that a decent translation (of which we have many in English) is the work of scholars trying to convey the meaning of the original text.  That means they tried to choose words that would express the thought and meaning of the original.  An “insight” that moves us in a new direction is not helpful if that insight is not accurate.  Without a decent amount of training in the original languages it can be hard to tell if someone knows what they are writing or speaking about.  Typically it is worth checking the “insight” against more than one academic commentary, or asking someone with genuine skill in the language (i.e. not just a course or two).

Sometimes “this literally means” is borderline heresy. Here’s the real danger, not just that our dabbling in “original language” comments lead our listeners slightly off track (although that is bad enough), but that we actually verge on heresy.

We are so blessed with good translations in our language.  If you have not had opportunity to seriously study Greek and Hebrew for a couple of years or more, it’s best to not pull out the “this literally means” type of comments.  Just as you may get it wrong, so do others, and some of them get their insights published!

Exegesis Homiletics

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

I am currently preparing a course that I will be teaching at the end of October – Hermeneutics for Preaching.  I came across this very important reminder in Grant Osborne’s Hermeneutical Spiral (p343):

“The hermeneutical process culminates not in the results of exegesis (centering on the original meaning of the text) but in the homiletical process (centering on the significance of the Word for the life of the Christian today).”

To some of us it is obvious that there must be a direct link between exegesis and homiletics, but we all need the reminder.  C.R.Wells, in Interpreting the New Testament (edited by Black and Dockery, pp506-523), writes the final chapter on interpretation and its connection to preaching.  He warns of some critical approaches that will produce “tempting” content for sermons, but content that should not be included.  However, critical methods that deal with the “text-as-is” have great potential as tools of the preacher.  According to Wells, “Every preacher should and must be a critic, but no preacher should ever forget that critical study serves homiletics.”

Accurate interpretation governs expository preaching.  So two simple implications:

1. Don’t allow interpretation and exegesis to be an end in itself. Study in God’s Word must run its course, not only to personal application, but to communication for corporate application.  If you have opportunity and ability to preach the Word, do it.  If you don’t, then find another way to share the truth and its implications with others.

2. If you ever preach, then be an ever-improving interpreter and exegete of God’s Word. Don’t try to preach without the foundation of biblical interpretation under your efforts.  Preaching is more than sharing the fruit of exegetical work out loud, but it cannot be less.  Skill in communication, relevance in content, personal spirituality and prayerful preparation are all important, but without effective biblical interpretation undergirding your messages, don’t call it preaching.

The Lesson of the Soils

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In the synoptics’ parable of the sower, the one variable is the soil.  Same sower, same seed, but different soil.  The variable results therefore point to the state of the soil as a critical consideration.  I don’t intend to do anything like a full exegesis here, more of a pondering on the truth already stated.

There are implications in this for those that listen on a Sunday morning. What can be done to encourage them to come to the sermon with open and expectant hearts?  Surely there needs to be an ethos in the church that the Bible is for the church.  It’s not for academics to dissect in their ivory tower exegesis labs.  It’s for the community of God’s people in the real world, looking for real help, real insight, real spiritual food, real input from God.  This morning I enjoyed listening to a series being introduced at a good church – one of the speakers quoted Karl Barth, “If we expected to hear God’s Word more, we would hear it even in weak and perverted sermons.  The statement that there was nothing in it for me, should read that I was not ready to let anything be said to me.” I don’t share that to spark a debate on neo-orthodox conceptions of God’s Word, but to put a finger on the attitude of the heart in listening to the Bible preached.

There are implications in this for those that listen before Sunday morning. Surely our churches need to be encouraged to listen well, to be good hearers of God’s Word as it is preached to them.  But that same encouragement must also be pointed our way.  We are real people, in a real world, with real challenges and real spiritual needs.  We do not sit in anything even slightly ivory or lab-like as we prepare to preach.  Like others, we too sit under God’s Word as listeners, as hearers.  Let us make sure we have expectant hearts and an eager openness to be shaped by the Bible passages we study.  Right now I am studying Joel and preparing a series in this little power-packed book.  I must prayerfully listen well, before I dare to speak it to others.

The one variable is the soil.  Always.  Theirs on a Sunday morning, the world’s as we witness to them, but ours too as we sit under God’s Word, listening as we prepare to speak.

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.

Please Ponder Passage Purpose

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I am continuing to read Jay Adams book Preaching with Purpose (1982).  Chapters 5 and 6 concern selecting a preaching portion, but point beyond stage 1 to the oft-neglected stage 3 in my process – passage purpose.  Adams points out that a preaching passage has unity not because of literary convention, or by rhetorical fiat and received homiletical tradition.  A preaching passage has unity because of the author’s purpose (“telically speaking” – major emphasis on the term “telos” and “telic” in Adams!)

Each book has an overarching goal, or perhaps several main goals.  Some books state that goal (see John 20:30-31, 1John5:13), while in others it is through studying the whole that the goals become apparent.  It is the preacher’s task to determine what that overarching goal is, then also to determine what the specific purpose in the indiviual passage is.  This individual passage purpose will relate to the overarching goal(s).  What was the author intending to achieve?  Was this section to inform, to convince or to motivate?  (Three developmental questions in Adams form)

So often preachers study the passage content, but give little or no attention to passage intent.  Without the intention or purpose of the author, the passage remains a collection of content details.  When we add in to the study process the critical element of passage purpose, then we are able to genuinely understand the passage, and hopefully, to beneficially preach the passage.  Without passage purpose, a message is likely to pull a passage out of context and misrepresent the intention of the content.  As I’ve written elsewhere, the message purpose does not have to match the passage purpose, but it does have to begin there and it does have some restraints imposed by the passage purpose.

Next time you are selecting and studying a passage, give some deliberate thought to the passage purpose – you haven’t really studied the passage until you do!

Buy a Stained Glass Window

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There is always a danger for preachers preparing to preach.  It is easy to slip into a pragmatic mode of studying a text to find a main idea and develop a message.  All very accurate, very professional, but having lost touch of the reality of what is going on.  As we spend time in God’s Word we are listening to God, preparing to speak of God to a needy group of people.  We are preparing to proclaim God’s truth as an act of love and praise.

Michael Pasquarello III, writes in his book, Christian Preaching: A Trinitarian Theology of Proclamation, that he moved his preaching classes from a seminar room to the seminary chapel.  His goal was to change the ethos in order to change the students’ mindset and approach to the preaching process.  His goal is not just accurate preaching, but “doxological speech from the canon of Holy Scripture that creates the faith, life and witness of the church, which is the work of Christ and the Spirit.”

In the past I have found it very helpful to prepare at least some of the time, in the church where I would preach the message.  This isn’t practical for all of us.  So perhaps it’s time to buy a stained glass window for our study?  What have you found helpful to stimulate the reverence and spirituality of this highly spiritual process?

Vague Preaching Ideas

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you study a chunk of biblical text, you are looking to state the idea of that chunk.  The idea encapsulates, condenses, summarizes and usually abstracts from the details present.  In terms of the hermeneutical process, we sometimes refer to the stage of principlization (coming between interpretation and application).  The reason for deriving the principle from the passage is to allow for an application of that principle in another setting, namely our setting today.

The first part of the study process involves understanding the author’s idea to the best of our ability.  It is all “back then” in focus.  The statement of the author’s idea will initially be historically specific.  In order for that idea to cross over the divide between then and now, the idea will need to become slightly more abstract.  For instance, “Israel” might become “God’s people,” and so on.  The challenge in this process, however, is not to go too far.  There has to be a limit to how much abstraction takes place in the move from interpretation to application.

Here’s the test I use of my own study and preaching, and the test I use when evaluating student sermons.  Does the end result remain sufficiently specific that it can be reasonably and directly tied in to the passage in question?  To put it another way, if I only hear the idea, is there a reasonable chance that I could identify the passage (presuming I know the Bible well enough)?  If not, if the idea is so vague that it could come from any number of passages, then it is too vague.  You’ve gone too far up the abstraction ladder.

Use this test of your last main idea, and your next one.  Is it really the idea of the passage (with all its details feeding into it), or is it merely a vague statement of biblical truth?

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?