Stage 2 – Passage Study

Commentaries – The Golden Ones

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

Since we’re talking commentaries, here’s another thought.  How are we supposed to know which ones to buy?  As a preacher I often note a common problem in commentaries – they tend to be atomistic.  That is to say that many of them seem to deal only with the word or phrase at hand.  As a preacher I benefit from this, but value very highly those commentaries that wrestle with the flow of the text, those that include a significant macro view as well as the micro.  This is determined more by author than by series, so we have to hunt carefully in order to find them.  But when you find one that gives a very clear picture of the flow of a text, snap it up, it’s worth its weight in gold!

A couple of basic tips on commentary buying:

If possible, don’t buy blind. If you are able to access a library or borrow from a friend, then do so.  Once you’ve used a commentary you have a much better idea of whether you need to own it.

Try to have more than one. Since commentaries are conversation partners, it is better to have more than one so he or she doesn’t dominate the conversation.

Generally buy selectively rather than a whole series.  No series keeps up the same standard throughout, so it is worth picking and choosing from different series.  If you’re looking for “flow” commentaries that I described at the start, recognize that they can come in the small format (EBC, Tyndale, BST), or substantial English format (NAC, PNTC), as well as the chunkier exegetical formats (Hermeneia, NICNT/OT, WBC, NIGTC, BEC).  However, it is worth noting with discount retailers doing their thing, it may be worth buying a good series for the PC and letting that be the conversation partner, for example NAC or WBC.

Before you buy another commentary, meet John Glynn.  John Glynn’s Commentary & Reference Survey from Kregel is worth its weight in platinum!  I find his evaluation and suggestions on commentaries and other reference tools to be generally excellent.  Paying a few dollars, pounds, euros, yen for this will save money on poor purchases – guaranteed!

Commentaries are important tools of the trade, and buying well is a skill worth aquiring.  But if you can find those commentaries that do a good job on textual flow and macro appreciation of the literary artistry in a book – well, then you are finding gold!

Rumors of Commentaries

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

When I get to listen to a sermon, I sometimes pick up on a commentary vibe.  That is, a sense that the preacher has been spending some time in the commentaries.  Sometimes it is overt references to “the commentators” or a specific commentary (I am describing what I hear, not affirming the practice of citing and quoting the commentaries).  Other times it is a series of background facts that feel like they’ve come from some time in the books.

On the positive side I am always glad to know the speaker has been working in preparation for the sermon.  I’d much rather have somebody who has prepared responsibly than someone who is “winging it” without humble reference to “experts” in the field.

On the negative side I sometimes get a feeling of concern.  It’s hard to pinpoint, but it’s a feeling of concern nonetheless.  I wonder whether the commentaries have been conversation partners in the personal study of the text, or crutches leant on to short-cut the process of exegesis.  I wonder whether the commentaries have simulated wrestling with the structure and flow of the text and consequently the sermon, or whether they have merely furnished a dissected structure on which to hang the broken pieces of a partial sermon.

I thank God for commentaries and good commentators.  We are so blessed today with access to these reference works.  I think it is either arrogance or stupidity that would lead us to ignore them in sermon preparation (provided we are blessed with access to them).  However, they are just one part of our preparation.  We have to wrestle with the text, with its flow of thought, its meaning, its purpose, its idea.  We have to wrestle with the sermon purpose, its idea, its strategy, its structure, its flow, etc.

Commentary study alone will provide a veritable pile of tidbits that can easily fill the sermon time.  But remember that as the preacher, our job is not to fill sermon time, but to prayerfully, carefully, and personally develop a sermon that faithfully explains and relevantly applies the text for our specific congregation.

Know Your Theology and Preach Your Bible

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

Last week I wrote a post that spoke against theological agenda-driven preaching.  Yesterday’s post affirmed the value and relevance of theology.  Are these positions contradictory?  Not at all.  We are living in a generation where there is an increasing biblical and theological illiteracy.  So as preachers we have a responsibility to really know the important doctrines of the faith.  And as preachers we have the responsibility of preaching the Bible so that listeners will know where that doctrine comes from and how to get it.

Here’s a quote from Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students that seems appropriate:

Be well instructed in theology, and do not regard the sneers of those who rail at it because they are ignorant of it.  Many preachers are not theologians, and hence the mistakes which they make.  It cannot do any hurt to the most lively evangelist to be also a sound theologian, and it may often be the means of saving him from gross blunders.  Nowadays, we hear men tear a single sentence of Scripture from its connection, and cry “Eureka! Eureka!” as if they had found a new truth; and yet they have not discovered a diamond, but a piece of broken glass. . . . Let us be thoroughly well acquainted with the great doctrines of the Word of God.

Know your theology, and preach the Bible well so that people can see not only what to believe, but how to derive that belief from the pages of Scripture.  There are two potential challenges in this.  One is ignorance of sound theology.  The other is adherence to a system of theology not firmly rooted in the Bible.  Let us preach to counter the increasing biblical and theological illiteracy, and let’s do it demonstrating healthy handling of the text!

Hermeneutics for Preaching – It Can’t All Be We, part 2

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Following the post on Saturday, “It Can’t All Be We,” Steve submitted an important comment.  I hope he doesn’t mind the extra exposure for the comment by including it here, but I think this is a very important issue for us to wrestle with as preachers.

Steve wrote: The problem with saying there is only one meaning to a text is that our own interpretations of it depend on our own particular social locations. A white Anglo westerner reads the parable of the lost sons one way while a native west African reads it another. What most of us (in the west) mean by “meaning of the text” is arrived at through the use of historical-critical tools that were developed by 19th century white German scholars. Certainly, there’s much to the New Hermeneutic that evangelicals will find unacceptable, but there’s no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

My response: Thanks for the comment Steve. Over the past two centuries there has been a shift in focus in determining meaning. The 19th century was focused primarily on the author. The first part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the text itself. The later part of the 20th century saw the focus shift to the reader. I’m excited to see the resurgence of the author in our generation, especially a more rounded approach that recognizes our presuppositions as readers and the nature and form of the text too. However, if the author is left out, then there is no hope of any objective standard of measure when it comes to the meaning of a text.

So it is important to be aware of our own cultural presuppositions when we read a story like Luke 15. But I also think we have the capability to study the text using a plain, grammatical, contextual and historical hermeneutic. We can study the historical cultural setting of the text to help determine the meaning of the text. Our concern should not be seeking a “white westerner” or a “native west African” understanding, but a “first century middle eastern” understanding. While accepting that our own “lenses” will influence our study, we have the responsibility to pursue that study to the best of our ability so that we can present the meaning of the text. As I wrote in the post, this should lead to a “humble but authoritative” presentation of the meaning. Authoritative because we have employed good hermeneutical skill in the process, and humble because we recognize our own limitations and biases more than others do.

As you’ll notice in my earlier review of Lowry’s book, I am in no way throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the New Homiletic or the New Hermeneutic. I recognize a lot of value in these streams of thought, but I would suggest that a purely subjective interpretational approach to the text is the bath water that can be helpfully drained away.

I’d be interested to read other comments on this.

Do We Preach the Bible or Theology?

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

As preachers we have to determine a fundamental perspective in our approach to preaching. Do we preach the Bible, or do we preach a theology? Obviously when we preach the Bible we will preach theology, and hopefully we will do that well. And there are times when we must chose to address a particular theological issue (the atonement, for example). But generally, when we have a text to preach. Which is it to be? Preach the text or the system?

Let me be honest. There are some passages that feel slightly less comfortable in my understanding of theology than others. If you’re honest, that happens to you too. But my conviction is that when I have a passage to preach, I want to preach that passage. If my study of the text prods at my theology, then hopefully the theology is the one that gets reshaped.

The comment that sparked this post was just a throw away line. The biblical narrative was read. After a theological background was put in place we were brought back to the story. It was summarized in one sentence. Then the implication given was along the lines of, “the story is that simple, so let’s leave that behind . . .” The rest of the message felt like the preaching of a theology, with the narrative functioning as a loose illustration of the theology. (It would be better if the passage were ignored, rather than abused in this way, then listeners wouldn’t go away thinking they’d heard the passage preached.)

This is not about homiletical technique. It’s fundamental to our view of our role as preachers. We are to preach the text. Prayerfully wrestle with the text. Understand the text. Preach the text. Let the preaching of the text shape the theology, not vice versa.

Can You Support It?

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

One privilege of preaching is the privilege of study.  But not everything you discover in your private moments poring over the sacred text should be shared from the pulpit.  Some things may be an exegetical cul-de-sac that you pursued but led to an apparent dead end.  Other things may be genuine insights from the passage and its context, but are still better left unshared.  For instance, perhaps you discern an apparently symbolic or spiritualized understanding of some aspect of the preaching passage.  Should this be presented to a mixed congregation at various levels of biblical understanding?  Here are three questions to ponder before deciding to go ahead and share your insight:

Will your explanation be enough?  We all know the challenge of trying to explain intricate study, perhaps in the original language, to people seeing the text for almost the first time.  If our explanation appears inadequate, we run the risk of undermining our credibility or the logical cohesion of the message.

Do you feel the need to resort to cheap argumentation?  For instance, “If you were to read this book through once a week for 25 years, then you would begin to see that . . .”  This kind of throw-away remark in a sermon can cut deeply into the listeners.  Is the preacher unable to communicate the point now, so the listener is assured they would see it if they studied more?  (Incidentally, I was wondering whether the speaker who said this had read through the book in question 1300 times in the last quarter century!)

Will people copying your methodology get into trouble?  If the insight is somehow symbolic or spiritualized, do we want others copying the method?  Let’s say the insight is genuine.  What would happen if the listeners copy the method and start assigning non-obvious meanings to elements in their Bible readings?

There are times when an exegetical insight, even a genuine one, is better left in the study (or the classroom).  As preachers, we shoulder a significant responsibility for our listeners.  Let’s be sure to consider what is best for them, rather than what looks good for us.

The Pre-Sermon Bible Study Journey

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Bible study feels like a journey. Perhaps for others the terrain feels slightly different, but I can often discern three stages I go through in the process of studying a passage. I am not referring to exegetical method here, but rather to a sense of progress in my quest to understand the passage.

1. Apparent Clarity. Not in every text, but often the first reading seems relatively clear. Perhaps I recognize the characters, or note some rich preaching vocabulary or concepts. Whether or not I’m thinking about preaching it, the text seems initially clear. This stage does not last long. Once I start questioning the text, I soon move into the next stage:

2. Complexity and Lack of Clarity. As I seek to plumb the meaning of the passage, hunting for the author’s idea, it often becomes murky. There’s word study, lexical study, contextual analysis, wrestling with the flow of the text, alternating between synthesis and analysis, etc. At this point it is sometimes tempting to quit or go for a shortcut (like preaching multiple distinct ideas from the same text). If I prayerfully push on through, there is often the joy of arriving at the last stage:

3. Informed Clarity. This is where the relationship of the parts and the whole make sense. This is where the section is clear in its relationship to the flow of the book. This is a great place to get to in Bible study. This is the place I like to be before I think about preaching the text.

My fear for myself, and others seeking to be Biblical preachers, is that we will fail to preach out of a “stage 3” informed clarity. I see in myself the temptation to quit in stage two and preach some form of textual confusion (obviously we tend to paper over confusion to give apparent cohesion to the message). At times I hear messages where I wonder if the preacher even entered stage two at all. The presence of some “rich” preaching words seems to be enough to spark a whole message in some preachers! Let’s be sure to be diligent, to study and show ourselves approved, to push through to informed clarity for our own sakes, and for the sake of those who have to listen to our explanation of the text!

The Fine Art of Avoiding Over-Qualification

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

No biblical text says everything.  Each text says something.  So, we have a potential problem.  There is a constant temptation in preaching to over-qualify.  We are tempted to over-qualify the big idea so that it won’t be critiqued as biblically incomplete.  We are tempted to over-qualify the points of application so that we aren’t perceived to be imbalanced.  We are tempted to over-qualify the whole sermon so that we’re seen to be theologically well-rounded.

There is a place for qualifying.  Our big idea should not contradict the teaching of Scripture.  Our application should not be so imbalanced as to lead to harm or confusion.  Our whole sermon should be seen to fit fully in the category of “Biblical” preaching!

But, generally speaking, we are not required to preach the “whole counsel” from every text.  If we try to say everything, we run the risk of effectively saying nothing.  Let us prayerfully and carefully seek to let the force of the specific preaching text get through to our listeners.  Let us allow subsequent preaching to bring total balance.  Let’s not squeeze the sting out of each text and end up with a bland pulpit.

Wrestling with Flow

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

There are shortcuts in preaching.  Perhaps some are legitimate, although none spring to mind.  But there is one major shortcut that is very common, but that undermines the whole preaching event.  Failing to wrestle with flow.

It is easy to break a passage into its chunks and preach a sermon from each chunk.  Be sure to wrestle with how the text flows together.  If it is a true unit of thought, then there is unity, but it may take work to be able to understand and communicate it.  How do Proverbs 3:11-12 relate to 3:1-10?  How do the small parts of James 1:2-18 fit together?  Why does Luke 18:7-8 come attached to verses 1-6?  It’s easy to preach two or three sermons welded at the seams, but this is a shortcut that is not worth taking.  Be sure to wrestle with the text more and preach one message – of course it may have 2 parts, 3 movements, or whatever . . . but it needs to be one message.  

So, this week, as we prepare our sermons, let us put on our wrestling gear, enter the arena and give our all to pin down the flow!

Not Created Equal

/ Peter Mead / 4 Comments

Preparation and presentation are not the same thing.  For example, consider the issue of details in the preaching text.  In one sense every text is made up of details.  Nouns, verbs, adjectives, participles, grammatical constructions, quotations, allusions, etc.  It can be a narrative, a speech, a letter, an exhortation, a poem, a wisdom saying, or whatever.  Every text is built with details.

In preparation we begin with an interest in every detail.  It is important to see and interpret every element of a text.  It is often helpful to note what is not present too.  As diligent exegetes we consider every detail important enough to study and interpret in its context.  We continually move back and forth between analysis and synthesis, between details and big picture.  However, during the course of the study process, some details will be seen as more critical to a solid understanding of the text.  Every detail matters, but not every detail is equal.

In presentation we are limited by time and motivated by purpose.  Our purpose in preaching is not to present every avenue of inquiry that we have pursued at our desk.  Our purpose in preaching is not to download (or dump!) all of our acquired knowledge to our listeners.  Our purpose is tied to our main preaching idea and its application.  So we carefully cut unnecessary explanation of details that do not drive forward the main idea and purpose of the message.

In the study, diligently analyze the details.  In the sermon, remember that some details need no more than a passing comment, others just a careful presentation in the reading.  However, some details are critical and central, calling on us to highlight them and clarify their significance to our listeners.  We don’t want to lose the forest for the trees, but in order to enjoy the forest fully, some trees have to be highlighted.  Details.  They all matter, but they are not created equal.