Nehemiah 8:8

William Varner calls Nehemiah 8:8 the first example of expository preaching here. Since I see application as an essential part of exposition, one would need to continue reading in v. 9ff.

The Premier Issue of Expositor Magazine

I recently noted a new bi-monthly publication entitled Expositor here. Having obtained a copy of the premier issue, I am happy to say it is very well done. The production quality is very good. The big guns were called out for this issue with articles by Steven Lawson, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Al Mohler, Sinclair Ferguson, Mark Dever, and others. The articles related to biblical inerrancy and the prophetic word. In the day where many evangelicals are seemingly less committed to inerrancy, one can

appreciate the firm commitment to the inspired and inerrant text expressed in the various articles. That being said, and with that foundation being laid, I hope that future issues will be more devoted to the practice of expository preaching.

You can see the table of contents for the premier issue here and subscribe here.

How to Half Preach the Text

Peter Mead has four excellent posts entitled "10 Ways to Half Preach the Text" here, here, here and here.Make sure to read Peter's entire posts, but here are the ten.

1. Say just enough about the text to introduce what you want to say.
2. Preach from the details, but don’t figure out how they work together to give the main idea.
3. Preach a generic message or idea from what could be any text.
4. Use the content, but ignore the context.
5. Use the context, but ignore the content.
6. Impose a sermon structure instead of letting the text’s structure influence your message.
7. Preach a preferred cross-reference.
8. Preach a plethora of cross-references.
9. Explain it, but don’t apply it.
10. Commentary it, but don’t proclaim it.
  

Reflections from Teaching Jeremiah

I recently wrapped up a twenty-hour exposition of the Book of Jeremiah. Although I have taught surveys of this book, this was my first detailed exposition of the book. As I think through this experience here are five reflections.

1. I found the narrative sections easier to exposit than the prophetic oracles. This may not at first seem all that revelatory, but narratives can be tricky, especially by way of application. The narratives related to the symbolic acts (e.g., the visit to the potter's house) are helped by the fact that the purpose and/or the meaning is given.

2. I think that I would have been better served to spend a bit more time on the front end discussing some recurrent phrases (e.g., "sword, famine, and plague," used around twenty times in the book) and some difficult concepts (e.g., the imprecatory statements).

3. I struggled more than I expected with identifying the person speaking (the prophet, God, the city, the people, the invaders, etc.) in a given oracle. Knowing Hebrew is of some help here, but there are still a number of places where it is ambiguous.

4. Working through the book again has led me to the conclusion that there were at least three recurring sins committed by Judah: (1) rejecting God's Person (idolatry), (2) rejecting God's presence (social injustice), and (3) rejecting God's power (relying on foreign nations rather that the Lord for protection).

5. Working through the book again also helped clarify that Judah failed to remember three important facts involving the past, present, and future: (1) Past: Judah failed to remember what God had done for them (e.g., the Exodus, Conquest), (2) Present: Judah failed to remember that keeping covenant was the responsibility of every generation, and (3) Future: Judah failed to remember that the covenant curses (Deut 28–29) would be a future reality for breaking covenant.

The Plagues of Exodus

See this post on the plagues of Exodus (Exod 7:14-10:29).

Bryan Chapell on Expository Preaching

See this brief, but helpful, discussion on expository preaching by Bryan Chapell.



HT: Cal Habig

What Does Expository Mean?

Peter Mead has an interesting post which wrestles with what we mean when we talk about "expository" preaching or "expository" hermeneutics. Read it here.

Finger-Licking-Good Exposition

Yesterday, I had a post on finger-pointing exposition which discussed the source for the typical disdain for Bible exposition today. Today, I want to discuss some things that I believe make for finger-licking-good exposition. Here is a list for starters.

Finger-licking-good exposition is true to the text, the God of the text, and the preacher of the text.

Finger-licking-good exposition is able to transport Scripture from long ago and far away to right here and right now.

Finger-licking-good exposition exalts God and not the sermon, the audience, and certainly not the preacher.

Finger-licking-good exposition is the culmination of a process which has been bathed in prayer, born in toil, and proclaimed in earnest.

Finger-licking-good exposition is sensitive to the fact that what truly matters is not the felt needs of the congregation revealed through surveys but the real needs of fallen people as revealed through Scripture.

Finger-licking-good exposition understands the difference between the old, old story and once upon a time.

Finger-licking-good exposition touches the head, the heart, and the hands.

Finger-licking-good exposition is the fruit of exegetical study not merely the proclamation of the exegetical study.

Finger-licking-good exposition begins or ends with Christ.

Finger Pointing Exposition

Peter Mead has an insightful post here related to whether the general disinterest in expository preaching today is to be blamed on the fickle culture or faulty practitioners. I suspect that it is less either/or and more both/and. After all, preachers themselves are often children of their culture as well. That being said, Mead's statement that, "People who tell me they don’t appreciate expository preaching are essentially telling me they haven’t heard any worthy of the label," rings true.

The Pressure of Infinite Resources

Peter Mead has a good post on the problem that expositors face in having an abundance of resources readily available for study and preparation. After reading Mead's excellent discussion I would add the following.

First, much of good exposition begins with learning how to ask the right questions of the text and the task. By asking the right questions, you can have a better chance of selecting and utilizing the right resources. Such selection automatically reduces the number of resources needed to do the job. Consistently attempting to be exhaustive will only make one exhausted.

Second, after asking the right questions then a good expositor will learn by experience and training the best resources to find the answers to one's questions. Of course, "best" can be subjective. To this I would offer the following comments. The "best" resources are the resources that we have the ability to use. For example, some critical commentaries are too technical for those who lack sufficient academic training to handle them. The "best" resources are those with which we have found to be helpful in the past. This would include not only specific books, but also specific authors. What do our peers use? The "best" resources might be those which others whose opinions we respect have recommended. The "best" resources might be "best" in the sense that we have them in our personal library orresources which are readily accessible in a local library or online. The "best" resources are typically ones which are theologically sound. This is less important with some tools such as lexicons and grammars, etc., but care should be utilized in commentaries and sources that deal with the text, theology, or application of the text.