Expository Preaching

The Heart of Hermeneutics – Part 4

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

A Relational Responsive Heart Check

The process of Bible study must begin “back then.”  We need to look carefully at the text to see what was actually written.  And we need to learn diligently what the author intended to communicate.  Then we need to appreciate the intended impact of the text “for today.”  That means a careful consideration of the love response that the text should stir in us, as well as the appropriate transformation in how we live our lives.

 

After studying a passage and seeking to interpret it as well as possible, consider the following facets of a relational responsive heart check:

1. God himself.  Since every biblical text is ultimately a revelation of a personal God, ask yourself what this text has revealed about God?  Is it revealing his nature, his character, his heart, his values?  Is it revealing his Son in some way that you can ponder?  The answer is yes.  Every biblical text is a revelation of a personal God, so there will always be value in considering what that revelation should stir in your heart as you read it.

2. The Biblical characters. The Bible is much more incarnated theological truth than it is written code.  That is to say, there are real people on the page.  Theological teaching is usually wrapped up in real people, living in real situations.  There is more narrative than any other type of text, which means lots of characters living out their response to God’s word.  But every text has a narrative nature to it.  Poetry offers a glimpse into a narratival setting, even if you don’t know the details.  Direct communication like speeches and letters were not written in a vacuum.  There was a situation and we are given the glimpse offered by an epistle penned purposefully for the recipients at one moment in their story.  The Bible is ultimately a revelation of God.  And that revelation is wrapped up in the people on the page.  Be mentored by them.  Learn from them.  Allow your heart to engage with them as you watch how they responded to God.

3. The original recipients.  The original author of each book wrote with relational intent.  He wanted to do more than just transfer information.  Each book was written to stir the hearts of the original recipients.  Why not consider them?  What did Moses want Israel to feel as they read his great foundational collection?  What did Paul want to stir in the believers in Galatia, or in his representative Timothy serving in Ephesus?  The text is ultimately about God, it presents itself with characters on the page, and it was written to real people in real situations.  Ponder the intended impact on their hearts as you consider the impact on yours

4. Me.  The original author of each book could not have known about me, but the divine Author has preserved the Scriptures, superintended the collection of the Scriptures, sovereignly overseen the translation of the Scriptures, and graciously provided the opportunity for me to own the Scriptures.  He has given me if I am his child, a new heart that relishes the goodness of God in Christ.  And so, I should look at the Scriptures to see my God, as well as be mentored by the people on the page, considering the impact for the original recipients, and overtly considering how the text should stir my heart as I read it.

5. Others.  As I study the biblical text and consider how it should be stirring my heart, the result will not just be a Godward response.  Yes, there should be wonder, awe, worship, praise, gratitude, devotion, and so on.  But also, a God-stirred heart will be a heart that reflects God’s other-centred heart.  How can what I am seeing in the text, which is stirring my heart in response to God’s revelation, be carried to others evangelistically or pastorally?  At this stage, there might well be a stirring of prayer for others, even if the action of sharing remains in the future from the time I am studying the text.  A truly relational response to the Bible will not just be Godward, but it will also spill over to others because we are relational beings.

Perhaps this five-point checklist can be helpful as we seek to more overtly recognize the role of the heart in the Bible study process.  Look, learn, love, live.

The Heart of Hermeneutics – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

How Does Hermeneutics Require Love?

Last time we looked at John 5 and Jesus’ critique of the Jewish leadership.  They were eminent Bible scholars, but something was missing.  They could well have been an example to us in terms of observing the text, technically interpreting the text, and fastidiously applying the text.  They thought that in the Scriptures they would find life.  But they were missing the person revealed there.

For the Jewish leadership, there was apparently confidence in the inductive process.  However, their incurved hearts spelled the corruption of that process.  They did not see the person, and the reason was a heart issue.  Why is the heart so often left out of hermeneutics?

A More Complete Process

A complete approach to biblical study needs more than “look, learn, live.”  We need to put the heart back into our hermeneutics.  What does the text say?  What does the text mean?  What should the text stir?  What difference should the text make? 

Look —- Learn —- Love —- Live

When we lose the sense that the biblical text is primarily revealing a person, and that the intent of the author is to stir the reader’s heart in response, then our approach will necessarily fall short.  Even if we progress from “back then” and arrive at “for today,” we can end up with something stripped of its relational dynamic.

Principles and Morals

In a process that is blind to the significance of the heart, some will end up with just an abiding theological principle.  This statement of truth and instruction is what remains after traversing the millennia from back then to our own time.  Others will end up with a “moral of the story.” 

That’s what people do with old stories.  Since the people are all dead in history, or figments of fiction that will soon fade from memory, at least there is a lasting lesson for us all.  So, our children might enter the land of make-believe for an old tale, but what remains when the story ends and it is time to sleep?  Well, the moral of the story is that we should be like the tortoise, or don’t speak to strangers who look like wolves or witches, or whatever.  These may well be good life lessons well worth learning.

And what of the people in the pew?  After entering the world of a Bible story in the sermon, they must then re-enter normal life.  As the story fades and present reality dawns, at least they can carry an abiding theological principle into their week. 

The Bible is Not a Fable

But isn’t the Bible different?  Is not the goal of the Bible something more than divinely sanctioned and historically accurate Aesop’s fables?  It is critical that we keep clear the ultimate purpose of Scripture – to reveal the living God, his heart, his plan, his Son.

In the next post, I will suggest a relational responsive hermeneutical checklist to enliven the critical love stage of the Bible study process.

The Heart of Hermeneutics – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What Did Jesus Say About Bible Study?

In John 5, Jesus is both in trouble and on trial.  He had healed a man on the Sabbath and then made himself equal with God when confronted by the authorities.  His extended speech in verses 19-47 is actually a legal defense speech in what had quickly become a capital trial.  By the time we get near the end of the chapter, Jesus is actually turning the tables and putting the Jewish authorities on the back foot.

Jesus knew that he needed a second witness.  But as the angry leaders looked at this man from Nazareth, they could not see anyone standing with him.  However, he had the best witness of all: God himself.  The problem was on their side though, because according to Jesus, they had never heard God’s voice, nor seen God’s form, and they did not have God’s word abiding in them. 

Bible Study Experts?

Understandably these Jewish leaders would have balked at that diagnosis of their spiritual state.  They, of all people, spent the most time with their nose in the scrolls.  They were the Bible men of their day.  They could quote more of the Old Testament from memory than many Christians today have even read.  And yet, Jesus was right.  Something was missing.  And it meant that their hermeneutical approach was rendered useless.

Did they look at the text?  Every day, at length.  Did they learn what the text meant?  They would say so.  Did they follow through and consider its implications for how they lived?  Fastidiously.  These men were the eminent biblical studies professors of their time.  And yet, in Jesus’ estimation, they did not have God’s word abiding in them.  What was missing?

The Missing Piece

In the Scriptures there is a relational dynamic at play.  The text is about a person, but they did not believe in him.  They refused to come to him.  Jesus immediately drew the contrast between him and them.  He did not live for horizontal glory from people but lived with a total orientation toward his father.  However, they did live for the glory that would come from people.  Because the horizontal dimension meant everything to them, the vertical dimension was missing.  And how did Jesus phrase that vertical dimension in their case?  They did not seek the glory that comes from God.  Which meant that they did not have the love of God in them.  (John 5:37-44)

It is not possible to rightly handle God’s word if the love dimension is missing.  In the next post, we will probe that love dimension.

The Heart of Hermeneutics – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Something is Missing in our Hermeneutics

Something is missing.  Too much training in Bible handling is missing something critical.  Either we get the technical interpretation elements well: such as recognizing the distance between the world of the text and the world of the contemporary reader, and seeing the gaps that need to be crossed (linguistic, cultural, geographical, religious, etc.).  Or, we dump the technical process and lose both textual accuracy and authority as we treat the Bible like an ancient source of contemporary devotional material.

To put that another way, while some are stronger on the “back then” nature of the text, others are too quick to rush to a “for today” impact.  Good Bible handling requires both a “back then” and a “for today” mindset.

We Must Cross the Divide

The traditional inductive approach to the biblical text requires that we cross the divide.  We begin with Look!  This is the observation stage of seeing what is actually in the text.  What was written?  What does the text say?  Then we progress to Learn!  This is the interpretation stage of making sense of the author’s intended meaning.  What did the text mean?  To look at the text and learn what it means requires that we cross a big gap and go “back then” in our minds.

But then we must also cross that divide to “today” and progress to Live!  This is the application stage of seeing the life impact of the text.  What difference does the text make to my life today?

So, we go back then to ask what does the text say?  And also, what did the text mean?  Then, having understood the meaning of the text, we then need to return to today and seek a biblically appropriate answer to what difference should it make? 

Look — Learn — Live

Each stage is critically important. 

We Tend to Favour One Part of the Process

Some so enjoy the academic pursuit that they dwell in the learn stage and seldom let the text change their lives.  Others are so applicational in their approach that they seldom find out what a text really means before they start landing it in daily life.  (Perhaps fewer get stuck in the observation stage.  It seems like people are drawn to interpretation or application.) However, even when people are well equipped to progress through each stage with a well-grounded “back then” followed by an appropriate and diligent “for today” progression, it still seems like something is missing in our hermeneutics.

Applicational Preaching

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So many people seem to want to listen to preaching that is “applicational.” I understand the impulse. After all, who would want to listen to non-applicational preaching? That sounds like preaching that is not relevant to my life and will not make a difference.

Actually, if we are talking about preaching that is relevant to life and genuinely transformative, then I am completely on board with that desire. The problem is that when we talk about “applicational preaching” it can fall short of what we really need. Here are some of the potential weaknesses:

1. Applicational preaching can place emphasis on action points and to-do lists. Now, there is certainly a place for knowing what is expected of us at the end of a sermon. If a passage gives an instruction that applies to us, then we should certainly note it and look to obey it. However, is the Bible primarily an instruction list for life? Some sermons give that impression, but perhaps that is missing something of the richness and purposefulness of God’s revelation.

2. Applicational preaching can point the listener in the wrong direction. When our preaching emphasizes what we must do, then the focus will tend to move toward our own willpower. Sermons that point the listener to their own discipline, their own choices, their own efforts, etc., are not the best sermons. And I don’t just mean they are not the most theologically impressive sermons. I also mean they are not the most effective sermons. Lives are not transformed by to-do lists. They can help, but they remain mostly on the surface. God is in the business of transforming lives from the inside out.

In order to see the full potential of any preaching or teaching ministry, I would encourage you to think about the ABCs of Application. Here is a brief explanation:

Bible Study Mistakes

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I have recently posted a series of videos on common Bible study mistakes. We have probably all made some, or all, of these mistakes. Please take a look and see if these are helpful to you, or to anyone else you know.

Mistake 1: Proof-Texting – It is just so convenient to find a line of text that says what we want to say. But the danger is that we will not see the richness of the text as it was intended to be understood. It seems obvious once you say it, but it is good to remember that what God made it say is always better than what we can make it say! Click here for this video.

Mistake 2: Collapsing Correlations – When you are reading and you see something that reminds you of something else . . . perhaps a saying of Jesus, or a different epistle, and then you collapse both passages in together, then you are collapsing your correlations together. Easily done, but what if that other passage doesn’t mean the same thing? Click here for the video.

Mistake 3: Ignoring Background – Sometimes it is just easier to read the passage and ignore whatever background may be relevant to your study. Who has the time to think about distant geography, ancient customs, and foreign politics? Well, if we want to understand the Bible, we need to make sure we don’t ignore the background. Click here for this video.

Mistake 4: Genre Override – Apart from sounding like a cool concept, what is genre override? It is when you take some of the rules of interpreting a genre and let those rules run roughshod over your interpretation of the passage. “Since this passage is apocalyptic literature…” is the start of many misleading sentences! Of course, we need to be sensitive to the genre, but that is always a support to our being sensitive to the passage. Click here to find out more.

Mistake 5: Imposing Meaning – Our goal in Bible study is exegesis, that is, drawing out the meaning of the text as intended by the author. But when we impose meaning, we are doing eisegesis. That is, reading into the text what we want to see there. God’s Word is better than yours, or mine! Click here for more.

Mistake 6: Isolationist Confidence – Bible study is something we may do on our own a lot of the time. But we must be wary of isolationist confidence. When it is just me and the Bible, I can easily become overconfident in my own opinion. I may be on the right track, but very superficial. Or I might be wandering off into new (therefore heretical) theological territory. We need to think about the role of the community in our Bible study! Click here for this video.

Mistake 7: Tone-Deaf Reading – The Bible is not just a data store that we are to mine for theological truths or applicational points. It is interpersonal communication and so we need to make sure we are sensitive to the writer’s tone as we seek to make sense of what is written. Here is the link to this video.

I will probably add a few more, in due course. As ever with these things, if you are able to like, share, comment or subscribe to the YouTube channel, it is all helpful in encouraging the algorithm to share this content. Thanks!

Here is the playlist that contains these videos, plus others that are all related!

Studying the Bible – Learn!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I have completed a series of videos that detail the Learn phase of the Bible study process. Using 1 Peter 2:1-10, I look at the kind of thinking that goes into learning what a passage means. Good observation of the details in a passage will set us up to accurately learn what the text means as we study to determine the original author’s intended meaning. So, what goes into interpreting a Bible passage?

First, Look! We need to take time to notice what is in our passage. Here is a one-video summary of the Look! stage for this passage. So, onto the Learn stage:

1. Context: Historic – When was the passage written? What was happening at the time? What prompted the author to write it? What can we understand about the relevant cultures, the occasion for the writing, the situation at the time? (Click here for the video.)

2. Context: Written – The passage you are looking at sits within a book and therefore there is a written context to consider. What has come before your passage? What flows out from it? To understand a passage, you have to wrestle with the flow of the whole document. (Click here for the video.)

3. & 4. Content: Details – Remember all the details that we spotted in the Look stage of our study? Now we need to seek to understand them in light of the context of the passage. (Click here for the first video and click here for the second video on details!)

5. Content: Flow – How do the details work together in the flow of thought in this passage? It is so important to not only understand details, but to understand them in their most immediate context! (Click here for the video.)

6. Intent – What did the author intend to achieve through writing this passage? Are there clues within the passage, and are there indications within the book as a whole? (Click here for the video.)

After the Look! and the Learn! stage of Bible study, we will then move on to the Love/Live response (what should the text stir?) Here is a one-video summary of the Love/Live phase for this passage.

I will release another series that uses a different passage but focuses on the Love/Live phase instead of the Learn phase as I have this time. Hopefully, that makes sense! Please subscribe to the YouTube channel so that you can see the new videos as they are released.

7 Ways to Mishandle a Bible Story

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

The Bible is full of stories.  And we preachers are full of ways to mishandle them.  God has richly blessed us with the stories in the Bible.  Each one reveals God’s heart and character. Each story is designed to point our hearts to Him and to stir our faith in His word and character. So, how can we go wrong?

Here are seven ways to mishandle a Bible story:

1. Skip – This is the assume-and-ignore approach.  We can easily assume that everyone knows the story and so we skip the chance to tell the story.  Instead, we put our homiletical energy into preaching about the theological ponderings triggered by the story.  Why do we assume that everyone knows the story?  Actually, why do we assume that what we have to say about it is of more value than what it actually says?  Even if people do know the story, tell it anyway, and let God’s word work in your listeners.

2. Flip – This is the heretical approach.  We can easily misdirect our listeners and end up preaching heresy inadvertently.  Take the story of Zaccheus in Luke 19:1-10 for an example.  It is easy to put all the initiative in Zaccheus’ commitment in verse 8.  Then his salvation is affirmed by Jesus in verse 9.  Voila, we are saved by our own commitment to Christ!  Except, we are not.  Jesus had already taken the initiative in verse 5.  Jesus had already rescued Zaccheus.  The exuberant generosity of verse 8 is a response to God’s grace, not a prerequisite for it.

3. Moralise – This is the fleshly approach.  Since everyone naturally tends toward the notion of earning something with God, we can always and easily jump to what Bryan Chapell calls the “Deadly Be’s” – be like, be good, be disciplined.  So with Zaccheus’ story?  In verse 7 the crowd grumbled.  Let’s not be like them, let’s not grumble.  That verse is in the passage for a reason, but that little life lesson is not the reason.  It is there to emphasize the wonder of what Jesus did for Zaccheus.  It is not there to nudge us towards better behaviour.

4. Lecture – This is the historical-and-cultural-lecture approach.  Use cultural and historical insights to bring the story to life, not to cut the story to death.  How did the tax system work at that time?  How might middle eastern hospitality respond to Jesus’ passing through the town?  Where were sycamore-fig trees in relation to Jericho?  Shine a light on the story and keep telling it, don’t end up giving a series of historical lectures trigged by the details in the story.

5. Over-reveal – This is the punchline-first approach.  So with Zaccheus, you might state the first point as, “Jesus came to save the lost, verses 1-4.”  Oops.  In the passage, verse 10 comes as a surprise.  The whole text has worked to point the reader to Zaccheus’ efforts to see Jesus.  Then in the end it turns out Jesus was the one doing the seeking and the saving.  Why give it away at the start?  Do what the text does.  Don’t “tell the punchline before the joke.”

6. Flatten – This is the lifeless-outline approach.  Again, with the Zaccheus story, your points could be mind-numbingly flat: Jesus seeks the lost, Jesus rescues the lost, and Jesus reassures the lost.  Honestly, I’m bored just writing that outline, even if it is fairly accurate.  While it is true that the story develops in movements, it does not mean that the sermon has to sound like a logical progression through completely parallel points. That outline could work, but it needs a serious injection of energy.

7. Lose – This is the too-many-stories-along-the-way approach.  The story of Zaccheus is a gripping little narrative if it is told well.  But if you use every trigger point to tell another story, you will lose it.  I once knew a tax collector . . . I had a short friend once . . . I have a fun tree-climbing story . . . I remember a grumbling crowd in 1987, etc.  Let other illustrative materials be fairly succinct so that the focus remains on the main narrative of the sermon.

How else might we mishandle a Bible story? Biblical narratives are a dream for us preachers – let’s learn to handle them well so that they can do their mighty work in our hearts and those who will hear us!

________________________

Click on this image to see the YouTube playlist of videos on Bible handling:

Studying the Bible – Look!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I have completed a series of videos that detail the Look phase of the Bible study process. Using the triumphal entry passage in John 12, I look at the kind of details that we need to notice as we look at a Bible passage. The more closely we look at and observe the text, the easier it will be to accurately learn what the text means in the next phase of our study. So, what type of details are we noticing?

1. Who? – Who is being referred to in the passage? How are they being described? Who do the pronouns refer to? This is the first and, in some ways, the most important detail to notice. Why? Because the entire Bible is primarily a revelation of God and so noticing who is in the passage should get us thinking about God from the very beginning. (Click here for the video.)

2. When? – Are there any time references in the passage? Perhaps a time of day, or a point on the calendar. But it is not just about explicit time references, there is also the whole issue of tenses. Is something written with a tense that stands out – perhaps a reference to the past or the future. (Click here for the video.)

3. Where? – Does the passage refer to any locations? These could be geographic (i.e. Jerusalem), or circumstantial (sitting on a donkey), or they could be out of this world (God’s throne). Notice any details to places or locations in the passage. Do you need to check a map to note a specific location? (Click here for the video.)

4. What? – This is a catch-all question! What is repeated? What seems to be significant? What other details are you seeing in the passage? What key terms are being used? (Click here for the video.)

5. Which? – Which other passages are feeding into the passage you are looking at? These could be earlier Biblical content that is being quoted or alluded to in the passage you are studying. Or it could be earlier passages in the same book that are influencing our understanding of the passage we are studying. (Click here for the video.)

6. How? – How did the writer choose to write the passage? Is it a narrative, poetry, or discourse? At the Look stage, we don’t need to conclude why they did it, but we do need to notice how it was written. (Click here for the video.)

After the Look! stage of Bible study, we will then move on to Learn (what does the text mean?) Here is a one-video summary of the Learn phase for this passage. And then there is the Love/Live response (what should the text stir?) Here is a one-video summary of the Love/Live phase for this passage. I will release another series that uses a different passage but focuses on the Learn phase instead of the Look phase as I have this time. Then another focusing on Love/Live. Hopefully, that makes sense! Please subscribe to the YouTube channel so that you can see the new videos as they are released.

That Succinct Single-Sentence Summary

/ Peter Mead / 2 Comments

What is the difference between one sentence and half an hour? That is a key question in preaching.

We work hard to understand a biblical passage. We look at the context, wrestle with the flow of thought, analyse the details, and work out what the author was trying to communicate. Our end goal in studying the passage is to summarize the passage with a succinct single sentence.

However, when we preach, we don’t just say a sentence and sit down. So what makes up the difference? Let’s assume that the single sentence is an accurate summation of the passage. As we prepare the message (the second half of the preparation process), we essentially have two options:

Option 1. We carefully plan how to land that main idea in the hearts of our listeners. What form of introduction will best draw people into the message, making them thirsty for the passage and eager to hear the main idea? When should we present the main idea in the message? Should we repeatedly drive it home using the movements of the message to repeat the presentation of the idea? Or should we create greater anticipation so that once it is stated it will hit deeper? To put that another way, will the main idea be like a series of well placed sniper shots, or will it hit home like a bunker-busting missile? How will we explain the text, prove the points, and apply the truth in ways that reinforce the main idea of the message? In every aspect of content creation, structural formation, and delivery nuance, we seek to make that main idea so clear, transformative, evident from the text and applicationally earthed, that we will genuinely have preached the text before we sit down.

Or . . .

Option 2. We fill the half hour with material that will drown out the main idea. This is where we instead choose to fill the time, not to support the main idea, but at the cost of the main idea. We provide a series of informational segments, background descriptions, vaguely connected cross-references, somewhat amusing anecdotes, random highlights from our exegesis, favourite soapbox digressions, and illustrations that may or may not be well-suited to this particular moment. While most of these could be helpful, if we are not careful they can end up putting down a cover of smoke to keep the main idea from landing. Or we might hide the main idea beneath three or four points that tie to the text, but do not hold together effectively. The listeners will have an array of mini messages from which to select their favourite, but they are unlikely to have noticed the main idea.

While we probably would not consciously opt for option 2, we do so inadvertently when we embark on planning a message without crystallising our main idea first. After all, if you don’t have a sniper bullet or a bunker-busting missile ready to go, surely a random spray of machine gun rounds might hit home?

Moving from the passage to a single sentence is the first half of the preparation process. Moving from a succinct single-sentence summary to a fully formed message is the second half of the process. Let’s be sure to take option 1 as our approach to preaching.

_______________________________________

Have you subscribed to our YouTube channel where we are sharing videos to help with Bible reading and Bible study? This will be a key resource for preachers and those we preach to in our churches. Click here to go to the channel and subscribe.