Not demanding it (our summer series does not qualify as regular sequential exposition), and not seeking to kick over the hornets' nest, but I am wondering...
If Paul wrote Ephesians 3, so as that it followed Ephesians 2, and we trust that the Spirit was moving him along in the process, doesn't it make the most sense to preach Ephesians 3 after preaching Ephesians 2?
Yes, I know the chapter and verse numbers were not added until significantly later. However, in any letter we receive, do we just pick up wherever we'd like, or do we generally start at the beginning and work our way through it? Won't the logic of the author be best preserved in this manner? Wouldn't we trust the Spirit not only to work the proper letters and words into the document, but that even their order would be guided by His hand?
If so, then why wouldn't all preachers who affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures prefer sequential exposition?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Sequential Exposition Question...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If Paul wrote Ephesians 3, at the same time as Ephesians 2, and we trust that the Spirit was moving him along in the process, doesn't it make the most sense to preach Ephesians 3 at the same time as preaching Ephesians 2?
Yes, I know the chapter and verse numbers were not added until significantly later. However, in any letter we receive, do we just read one section one week and then wait another week to read the next section, or do we generally start at the beginning and work our way through it in one sitting? Won't the logic of the author be best preserved in this manner? Wouldn't we trust the Spirit not only to work the proper letters and words into the document, but that even their combination would be guided by His hand?
If so, then why would any preachers who affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures prefer sequential exposition?
brad,
are you advocating that every sermon should be an overview of an entire epistle or book?
while these can be beneficial, i think we miss a lot of the fruit that can be gained by working slowly through the text as well.
technically, he did not write ephesians 3 at the same time as ephesians 2...unless he was writing one text with his left hand and the other with his right. he may have written it all in one sitting (something we have no way of knowing) but there is a reason he laid out his points in preceding verses.
this is the classic case of asking, "what is the 'therefore' there for? when paul, for instance, uses words like "therefore" he is urging us to consider his next point based upon the previous point he has made. it seems the easiest way to make this point is by having already looked at those points in detail.
(again, i am not advocating that "SE" is the only faithful way to preach. it just seems that at times, some want to discount that it does have advantages over other means.) (i'm not saying disadvantages can't be found.)
are you advocating that every sermon should be an overview of an entire epistle or book?
No. Just pointing out that the way in which an epistle is written does not necessarily determine the way it ought to be taught.
while these can be beneficial, i think we miss a lot of the fruit that can be gained by working slowly through the text as well.
I agree 100%
technically, he did not write ephesians 3 at the same time as ephesians 2...unless he was writing one text with his left hand and the other with his right.
:-)
he may have written it all in one sitting (something we have no way of knowing) but there is a reason he laid out his points in preceding verses...
Agreed.
(again, i am not advocating that "SE" is the only faithful way to preach. it just seems that at times, some want to discount that it does have advantages over other means.) (i'm not saying disadvantages can't be found.)
No, you've qualified the statement well. As you know, I've been employing SE this summer myself. Like you say, though there are some disadvantages, the advantages are plenty. Still struggling (and imagine I always will) to discover the best approach or combination of approaches.
Danny,
Good Post! I appreciate your desire to see folks work through the scripture, which gives them a better perspective of context.
I often will try to preach until I get to the therefore, if in fact the therefore is the intended exhortation/application for that passage (i.e. Hebrews chapter 1, with chapter 2:1 etc.) That often means preaching a whole chapter which can be daunting, but I feel it often preserves the intended application.
Thoughts?
i think a strong case can be made for Biblical expositors who vary greatly on the amount of Text they cover in a sermon. some guys are known for covering larger (or smaller) portions of Text than others.
i also think there is great wisdom in a preacher adjusting the length of Text he covers depending on the Text itself.
i would be very nervous about a preacher who says, "i cover a chapter a week, each Sunday" or "i can only faithfully preach 3 verses per Sunday." such statements show a rigidity to preaching that would not be healthy.
no matter how much Text is covered, the context should always be considered, including the context within redemptive history.
Post a Comment