Why Sequential Exposition?

This blog (named for the latin of "sequential exposition") has existed for 174 days and yet I have not really made my case for "Why sequential exposition should be the preferred method of exposition." One reason I have not done this is that manufacturing the argument intimidates me some. Much like my room rarely but occasionally (mom and dad usually dropped the hammer before then) would get so messy in my adolescence, that when I finally decided (read: was ordered) to clean it, the most difficult part was standing in the room figuring out where to start.

Quite frankly, there's many ways to skin this cat.

But since I actually consider cat skinning a public service, I will give this an initial introductory attempt, and then seek to build on it from here.

1. I had considered laying out all the advantages to sequential exposition, but I've already started that process. It can be read here and I hope to continue to add to it. (If some of the pastors I have requested from ever check out this blog...yes, I'm still waiting for your list!)

2. I also considered an autobiographical series explaining how I have been transformed from arrogant, self-absorbed, glory stealing story teller to one who delights in the power not being mine but God's. I have come to understand what "preach the Word," "not coming with cleverness of speech," and "having nothing to boast in, save the cross" truly mean, and lectio continua has been an essential element in that development. Not only has the congregation benefited from lectio continua, but a specific member of the congregation (read: me, the preacher) has benefited the most. This series may come down the road, but not at this point.

3. If lectio continua (sequential exposition) is all about letting the Word speak, how can you advocate this form above others when the Scriptures do not do that? I'm summarizing a series of questions asked, but it also must (I would hope) become the question that every faithful preacher asks. If my methodology comes from a source outside the Scriptures, do I then make that source in authority to the Scriptures? Therefore, we must ask the question, do the Scriptures give any examples or commandments that tell us we should be doing lectio continua?

Just some "quick hit thoughts"

1. I think there are Biblical examples. Nehemiah 8 is a glorious example. Ezra stands up and reads from the book of the law. The Levites "explained the law" (8:7) and were "translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading" (8:8). Clearly, Ezra is reading through the text, for it isn't until the second day that the people come to Leviticus 23. In that context then, we realize that Nehemiah 9 is not merely a retelling of the history of Israel, but is the response of the people after walking through the Word of God. Clearly, Ezra (as one who had "set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to practice it and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel--Ezra 7:10) was not just teaching what he knew, but had instructed the teachers to work through the Law. For some time later (Nehemiah 13:1-3) they come to Deuteronomy 23. It seems that Ezra embraced lectio continua and encouraged the teachers to do likewise. However, this is just one example (of many, I believe...including the example of our Savior) but examples could be simply descriptive, not prescriptive...so it doesn't quite make the case.

2. I believe Paul solemnly charged Timothy to do it. When I read 2 Timothy 4:1-5 the most simple reading leads me to lectio continua. Paul does not tell him to "preach portions of the Word" or "back your beliefs with the Word." He does not even tell Timothy to "preach the portion of the Word that you think people need on that particular week." In fact, his exhortation toward "in season and out" I believe speaks to more than just a commitment to always preaching the Word, but also speaks to a commitment to a particular text, even if our human wisdom leads us to believe it may not be "relevant" right now. Of course, I am willing to admit this is based upon debatable exegesis (to which this small paragraph does not give justice) so this argument could be ignored as well.

3. But ultimately, I don't believe I have to make such a case.

While I believe I can show examples of lectio continua from the Scriptures and though I do believe that is the nature of Paul's command to Timothy, I do not believe the Scriptures had to state "Preach thou verseth by verseth" nor that I must show how Galatians is actually an exposition of 2 Samuel (it's not, by the way) to make my case for lectio continua. Ultimately, I think the argument that I must prove examples and exhortations from Scripture to make it permissible (or even to be favored) is slightly flawed thinking. Here are a few reasons (again, I attempt to keep them brief) why I would make such a claim:

This is a different era. This is not a statement of covenants or dispensations, but merely an acknowledgment of Hebrews. The author states:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.--Hebrews 1:1-4

"Now wait," one may protest, "that only makes a distinction between the periods of preincarnate Christ and incarnate Christ!" First, I merely list that reference to establish that distinctions should be made, but would turn to the second chapter to show another:

For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

One cannot help but notice the us and them language employed in this passage. Clearly, there is not just a distinction between Old and New Testament guys but between us and Apostles. Therefore, if an Apostle had authority and revelation to speak (or write) to a church body without walking through a particular text, I should not simply assume I have equal authority to do so.

It betrays the purpose of Scripture. In one of my favorite passages of Scripture, Jesus explains the purpose of the Word of God:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."--John 5:39-40

If I seek to turn the Bible into a "how to" preaching manual, I miss the intention of the Scripture. Even in the above example from Nehemiah 8, the lesson is not just to obey the Lord by observing the Feast of Booths, but that feast was to direct the people to the God who will "tabernacle" among them (John 1:14). Therefore, Paul does not explain what he means (or his method) toward preaching the whole counsel of God's Word to the Ephesians during his 3.5 year ministry (Acts 20:27). Since Luke's agenda (nor the Holy Spirits) was not to explain how Paul did this, but merely that he did, we must be careful to assume we have all the evidence before us to know how he did do it.

It betrays the logic of literature. Frankly, an appeal for a verse by verse exposition of the text in favor of lectio continua makes the case itself. (Confusing sentence, I know, but hang with me.) An appeal for lectio continua from a text makes the case for lectio continua.

If I pulled one word from fifteen separate verses to construct a sentence stating we should do lectio continua, I would be distorting the text. Similarly, if I produced one sentence from five different texts to produce a paragraph that seemed to support lectio continua, I would be accused (rightly so) of distorting/ignoring context. Why? Because we understand the nature of literature. It is written with sequential thought. The "Therefore" of Romans 12:1 loses its purpose if I ignore all preceding texts. This applies to all literature, not just to Scripture. I would not receive a letter from my wife (or even an email) and determine where I felt like starting...I would start at the beginning. Likewise, a student does not receive a book in English class and begin reading wherever he/she feels, but starts at the beginning of the book. Even in a work that is a compilation (which may therefore allow for various starting places), we begin at a chapter beginning or at the beginning of the article. (Even this blog, for instance. You may have become bored and skipped portions of this article...if you are still even reading to this point...but if something becomes confusing, you will naturally go back and read that which you skipped...knowing I may be building on a previous argument.)

Now Scripture is certainly more than just literature, but it is also most certainly not less. God chose to reveal Himself in written form, and therefore has even ordained the basic laws to literature as part of His means of communication. That's why He starts His revelation at the beginning with "In the beginning..."

Again, I am not advocating that any sermon which is not sequential exposition is not glorifying to God or useful to the saints. (In the comment section of my previous article, I lay out that I do not always use sequential exposition.) Certainly, for an occasional preacher, or a regular preacher in a unique environment, anything he preaches is without surrounding context. However, I simply do not understand why a regular preacher of the text believes he is being faithful to the text when he continually preaches whatever topic or text he feels he should, rather than walking through a book of the Bible as the author (human and Divine) intended it be read. I do not believe I need chapter and verse to make this assertion, for I believe it is an understood conclusion when God chose to have men record His revelation in written form.

This was not intended to close the argument, but could be seen as my opening statements. In short, I've sought to cut the feline into fillets, perhaps in future posts I'll seek to deep fry some of these thoughts.

Steadfast Trust in the Word of the Lord

But the man of God said to the king, " If you were to give me half your house I would not go with you, nor would I eat bread or drink water in this place. "For so it was commanded me by the word of the LORD, saying, 'You shall eat no bread, nor drink water, nor return by the way which you came.'" So he went another way and did not return by the way which he came to Bethel.--1 Kings 13:8-10

Though we know very little about the man of God, if the story ended here, we'd have a pretty impressive situation. He boldly preaches to Jeroboam, stands there as he threatens him, and sticks to his guns even after the king seems to repent. God has told him to get out of Israel and get back to Judah. Certainly, he seems convinced of the Word of the Lord.

However, an older prophet hears of his encounter and runs to intercept him. He invites the prophet to to come to his house and dine with him. At first, the prophet stands his ground, explaining the word he received from the Lord. However, the older prophet assures him that an angel also spoke to him, and told him to bring the man of God home with him. 1 Kings 13:18 tells us, "But he lied to him." Trusting the older prophet, the man of God relents, and heads to his home for food and water.

The result is shocking:

and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, "Thus says the LORD, 'Because you have disobeyed the command of the LORD, and have not observed the commandment which the LORD your God commanded you, but have returned and eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which He said to you, "Eat no bread and drink no water"; your body shall not come to the grave of your fathers.'"--1 Kings 13:21-22

This time, the old prophet does speak the word of the Lord. When the man of God left, he was attacked and killed by a lion. The old prophet goes and retrieves the body and buries him in his own grave.

So the lying prophet receives no punishment. He admires the man of God, for he even requests that his sons bury him in the same grave, once he has died. But the Scriptures do not record for us when that happened. We see no sign of this old prophet being punished for deceiving the man of God.

But the man of God, who stood boldly before the king, refused to stay with the king when he appeared to repent, and yet was fooled by the lie of another prophet? He is killed by a lion. Showing how this was the judgment of God, the lion did not even eat his body, or kill the donkey he had ridden. But he wasn't killed for believing another prophet. He was killed for doubting the Word of the Lord he had received.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.James 1:5-8

It would be so easy to throw stones at this man of God, if not for my own need for spiritual Dramamine. Lately, I began to question my ability to preach. However, this was not concern over my qualifications, study habits or delivery. I began to question the process of exposition. Are all the nay-sayers correct that it simply doesn't work today? (Yes, though the blog is titled lectiocontinua in honor of a passion of mine, I began to wonder if my zeal wasn't placed in the wrong area.)

I have received skepticism from other pastors regarding the "relevance" of exposition. Recently, I had begun to deal with some murmurs within our congregation regarding the effectiveness of exposition. Now, on my vacation, I sat in my cabin assessing three messages I had spoken to fifth, sixth and seventh graders. As I sat there, I was convinced that I was failing. These kids needed more than exposition. What I was given them simply wasn't working.

God would have been perfectly justified to maul me with a lion at that point. (Though in central Wisconsin, a giant mosquito may have been more appropriate.) It would have been an act of grace. He could have simply taken this waffler home.

However, he began to do something else. First, since I have taken Dr. Keith's preacher's challenge, I started my Wednesday morning with this chapter in 1 Kings. Next, I preached a message from Ephesians 1 to the students (on the glory of God's grace). Shortly after the session (and lunch) I then entered into a meeting with all the camp counselors. I waited through a lot of administrative discussion and detail before the man in charge opened the floor to discuss the sessions. There was a brief silence (which felt like years to me, I was just sure no one wanted to speak for they had nothing to say), and then a couple counselors spoke up. There words were gracious and kind. Then others began to speak. The counselors became energized as they began to discuss the conversations they were having with young people. Their compliments were not the "great illustrations," "you're really funny," "my kids liked the story about..." type comments. These were comments about how the kids were engaged, growing and getting it.

And at that point it hit me, "I am that double-minded man." Exposition of Scripture is not a method. It is not simply a way that some men like to preach. I have not fallen into this method simply because it saves time (though I don't waste time wondering "What do I preach next?" I would suggest steady exposition, particularly sequential exposition requires more study time) or because it fits my lack of creativity. The Lord reminded me that I have come to be an expositor for theological reasons. It is the Word of the Lord, I should not doubt it.

I sat there amazed. God had granted me a grace He was not required to give. My motivation for preaching should not be results or affirmation from anyone other than the Lord. The power is not in me, but in His Word. I preached the rest of the week with joy. I returned home renewed to my commitment to exposition. I even found myself longing for a chance to show a nay-sayer that this is a theological issue not methodological. I longed for the chance to help them see the power of the Word of God.

I am sure I will continue to doubt my abilities as a preacher. But I pray to God that He does not allow me to again doubt the power of His Word plainly spoken. He has given me sixty-six books of His wisdom. I should not doubt them.

And most of all, I am thankful for the One who did not believe the lies, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously (1 Peter 2:23), remaining steadfast all the way to the cross to ensure my salvation!

The Bible (you choose) Makes a Difference

While I write, edit, rewrite, edit.... my next post, I thought I would post a link to a pastoral article I wrote our church to try to explain why I prefer (and thus our church uses) the NASB.

Understanding the NIV-NASB Thingy

While I do think an essential part of Biblically faithful preaching is using a Biblically faithful translation. Personally, I do think it is a great aide to a pastor if he preaches from a word-for-word translation, rather than a dynamic equivalence.

And how amazing that we have so many choices in that area! Truly a grace from God!

A Lot of Judgmental Preaching

This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.--Genesis 19:9

Many advisors suggest that pastors emulate the qualities of other careers. Successful pastoring is found by becoming more of a CEO...motivational speaker...counselor...coach...cheerleader...manager...the list could go on and on.

However, there is one he is to avoid at all costs.

Judge

I was told once by a man, "I don't mind if you say the church disagrees with another religion. I don't even mind you saying that you believe the church is right. I just don't think you should say the church believes others are wrong." This kind of statement reveals the tone of today. It's ok if a preacher proclaims truth, but he should do it in a say that doesn't violate another person's opinion. Stacks of books today claim the non-christian is avoiding the church because it is far too judgmental. After all, the central verse in Scripture is Matthew 7:1, right?

How dare you, Lot!

Lot draws the ire of the men from Sodom. This man, an outsider, had the audacity to treat them like they were doing wrong. The men of Sodom were offended, and were prepared to treat Lot worse than his visitors. Who did Lot think he was?

Lot, the outsider.--When Abraham and Lot split up, Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom (13:12). The immediate context (13:13) tells us that Sodom was already "exceedingly wicked and sinning against the Lord." Despite the climate of the city, we are told that Lot eventually moved into Sodom (14:12). But how long had Lot lived in Sodom before the city was destroyed?

We can work backwards a little to see for sure. Just before Sodom is destroyed, Abraham is informed that his wife will have Isaac in a year (18:10). This would place Abraham at 99 years old (21:5). Abram had Ismael at age 86 (16:16). Abram lived in Canaan for 10 years before Hagar conceived Ishmael (16:3). By the battle against Chedorlaomer (more below), Lot is living in Sodom and it appears Abram is still childless. Therefore, depending on when you place the reference to living in Canaan (12:5 or 13:12), Lot has at least lived in Sodom for 13 years and could possibly have lived there up to 23 years. Had he just arrived and immediately started preaching?

Not only were the people of Sodom wicked and sinning against the Lord, their rebellion also spread to government. When the people rebelled against Chedorlaomer and his allies, Sodom started a fight they could not finish. As the kings routed Sodom, they took all their goods and food supply (14:11). Lot was helpless to stop the fight, as he and his possessions were carried away as well. At this point, Sodom could have simply been left devastated except that Abram came to the defense of his nephew. As Abram and his 318 men defeated the kings, he returned Lot, the goods, the supplies and captives. Then, when the king of Sodom offered for Abram to keep the supplies for returning the people, Abram refused. He did not want the king of Sodom to believe he contributed to Abram's wealth (14:23). Therefore, through Lot's relation to Abram, Sodom received their people and supplies back freely. Had he been a total freeloader, not benefiting their society?

Lot the influence. When Abraham pleads for the righteous citizens of Sodom, he "works" God down to the number of ten. For merely ten righteous persons, the Lord was willing to spare the entire community (18:32). Certainly, Lot qualifies as one of the righteous (2 Peter 2:7). Therefore, the city only needed nine other righteous persons to be spared. Lot had a wife, two daughters and two son-in-laws-to-be. Therefore, if he had persuaded his own family to righteousness, only four other righteous people would have been needed. Of course, his son-in-laws were certainly not righteous (19:14), nor was his wife (19:26) and his daughters actions suggest question (19:32). While Lot may have been oppressed and tormented by the sin in Sodom (2 Peter 2:7-8), relief certainly did not come through bringing others to righteousness.

Of course, results are not up to Lot. Perhaps he did preach and seek to influence others. Perhaps he regularly called people to consider the Lord's righteousness. We do not find evidence that he did, however a lack of converts does not mean a lack of his preaching. However, we can at least see that the antagonism Paul faced for changing Ephesus (Acts 19:26-27), would not be due Lot. Had he "ruined" their city, creating lots of changes?

All of these things factor into Lot's "history" with the people of Sodom. Gaining that context, let's consider his actions that created the great offense:

His hospitality--Approaching these men, he urged them strongly to stay the night in his place. He took them in, washed their feet, prepared a feast and provided them lodging. While Lot may have just been showing hospitality, he certainly was aware of the evil that could befall these angels. However, in his plea we do not see him describe the wickedness of Sodom or speak ill of the people. If anything, it appears Lot is quick moving, attempting to keep the guests from even seeing the depravity of the city. He did not present the people in a bad light.

His refusal--Perhaps this was for discretion (to keep from pleading with the citizens before his guests) or perhaps it was to protect his guests, but Lot slips out the door and shuts it behind him. As he speaks to the citizens, he certainly does not consider himself a superior. "Please" can be rendered, "I beg you," placing himself in a subordinate position. He even seeks commonality, calling them "brothers." He begs them to reconsider their evil intentions. Certainly, the term "wicked" may have been the offense. Lot did the unthinkable by suggesting that the rape of male guests by the male citizens of Sodom would be a wicked thing.

His proposal--It really is unfathomable. Perhaps Lot panicked. Perhaps the word "wicked" just hung out there for a second and he could see the disapproval from the men of Sodom. Whatever the reason, Lot next suggests a "compromise." To prevent the men from acting wickedly against his guests, he was willing to offer up his daughters. The statement, "do whatever you like" makes one sick to the stomach. (By the way, where is the protest from the son-in-laws-to-be at this point?) Understanding that some may consider his plea too judgmental, Lot offers a repulsive compromise to the men. He does not call for them to repent of their sexual urges, he simply asks them to redirect them. In fact, by offering his daughters, he seems to tolerate fornication, and by reasoning that he wants to be a good host, he even avoids condemning their homosexuality.

In the end, it certainly appears that Lot has not treated the citizens in a judgmental way.

Their response

(Warning: Understatement Ahead) The people were not pleased. They claim offense at Lot's stance. Has this outsider (resident for over a decade, whose uncle rescued the town) positioned himself as judge? Though vague in his warning, the men still take it as Lot thinking he is better than them. Though offered a compromise, they are not interested in directing their lusts elsewhere, but instead decide to abuse the guests and Lot. Even when the angels rescue Lot and blind the men, they do not turn away, but continue to grope around blindly for the door. In fact, they wear themselves out trying to get in!

So how do we escape being seen as judgmental?

Bottom line: We don't. It's amazing how people have developed techniques over the years which they believe will keep people from being offended...

Don't preach right away. Take your time and get to know a person first. You must first develop a relationship before people will care to listen. (Didn't seem to help Lot.)

Before you preach, you must first meet a person's needs. Whether food, water, shelter, or even cheaper gas, you must first create advantage for them so that they will listen. (Didn't seem to help Lot's case.)

Don't speak with imperatives, simply suggest. (Image their rage if Lot hadn't said please!)

Speak as one of the people. (With "brothers" like Sodom's citizens, who needs enemies?)

Don't speak directly to a sin, but keep it vague. (Again, didn't seem to help.)

Offer incremental, attainable goals. (Imagine Lot's first conversation with his daughters after they found out they were the "alternative.")

Perception is not reality

Certainly, a pastor should not be judgmental. A proper understanding of Scripture attributes all righteousness to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). That righteousness is only credited to us through faith (Romans 4:5). And even that faith is actually a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). We are not superior. We have nothing to boast in but Christ!

But this does not mean a preacher will be immune to the accusation. If one is faithful with the gospel, the message will offend. And if the message offends, people will take it out on the messenger. Certainly, we do not want to act in a way that makes us the offense, but if a person find the message judgmental, there is very little we can do about it.

Lot didn't try a tactic or two to avoid offense, he tried all of them. The message wasn't more palatable. The results weren't greater. It made a mess of his family. And he was still accused of being judgmental.

Juxtaposition--Superman

I ran across this quote two nights ago:

It is Easter morning 2006. And there, lurking in the shadows, is a figure rarely seen in church. It's Superman. Yes, Superman! He who leaps tall buildings in a single bound as he pursues evildoers.

No, wait a minute. It's not him. Actually, it's only the senior pastor. The senior pastor all decked out as Superman, ready to communicate the gospel to a new generation...

...Is this an anecdote plucked from an obscure part of the evangelical vineyard in America? Did it really happen? Is it so bizarre as to be unrepresentative? This incident actually happened in a church that received the Rick Warren award for church of the year. Besides, this co-opting of showbiz, this transformation of Christianity into entertainment, is rapidly becoming the norm today, not the exception. Pastors are straining to outdo each other in becoming as chic and slick as any show in Las Vegas.--David Wells, The Courage to be Protestant, p23-24

Wells' book is incredible. But when I read this section, though he quotes this incident is from 2006, I assumed it had truly become obscure by now. Surely, those days of silliness were shortlived and over, right?

Then I ran across this quote in a blog this morning:

...perhaps the greatest fictional Super Hero of all time. I’m speaking of course of Super Man! Super Man was created by Jerry Siegel and Canadian born artist, Joe Shuster in 1932 while they were both living in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1938, the character first appeared in Action Comics.

This Sunday we will launch into the second half of our Super Heroes series as we study a significant characteristic of what it means to be a Biblical Super Man. These 4 weeks will take us verse by verse through the one chapter New Testament book of Philemon as we discover that real Biblical Supermen know how to forgive. In order to set the mood, everyone on stage will be wearing our Super Man T-Shirts. Word has it that Super Man may make an appearance. It all depends on if we can find a phone booth and if the outfit really fits me (ur...I mean him)!

I'm all for preaching through Philemon (though it is a book about how freedom from sin found in Christ radically transforms all relationships, including slave and master--not a how to guide on being a better man.), but here's hoping that before the pastor dons his cape, he exercises some super discernment.

Beautiful Word of God

The copy of The Jesus Storybook Bible (gloriously subtitled: Every story whispers His name) finally arrived today, and I immediately started leafing through it. The author being Sally Lloyd-Jones, I of course had to know if she is related to THE DOCTOR. She graciously informed me that she is not...at least not biologically. But I also discovered (in her acknowledgments section) that she attends Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

That reminded me, this article (below) was on my old blog, but really should have been posted on this one a long time ago:

Beautiful Word of God

The great beauty of the Word of God (text) is that it speaks about the Word of God (Christ). Tim Keller, in his message during the Gospel Coalition makes this observation:

The basic subject of every sermon ought to be Jesus. Doesn't matter what passage. Doesn't matter Old or New Testament. It's got to be about Jesus. And by the way, before you say, Oh, this is about Old Testament hermeneutics, no, my friend Sinclair Ferguson says, "Most evangelical preachers don't preach Christ. Not only don't they preach Christ from the Old Testament, they don't preach Christ from the New Testament."

Keller then acknowledges this is a bit of an "intramural debate." There are "good men" who deny this issue in preaching and say that Jacob wrestling with God has nothing to do with Christ and should just be about wrestling with God. Keller acknowledges that these are good, intelligent men, but he also states he believes they are wrong.

Keller then spoke of the transforming nature of revealing Christ in the passage. He shared that people are truly transformed when they see God's standard, they see their inability to meet it, and then are met with the fact that Christ fulfilled God's standard. The listener then has hope and desires to please God. It ceases to be out of obligation. Keller continues:

Your preaching with never be doxological and won't even be central unless it is Christo-centric.

Keller explains that at the root of every sin is an inadequate worship of Christ. We got to get them to Jesus. If not, Keller says you will just be "beating on their wills."

Keller then offers this quote from Ferguson:

The preacher has looked into the text, even in the New Testament, principally to find himself and his congregation, not to find Christ. You can even do that in the New Testament, even in the Gospels. The sermon, therefore, is principally about the people in the gospels instead of the Christ Who is the gospel! The more fundamental issue is this question: What is the Bible really about? Is the Bible basically about me and what I must do, or is it basically about Jesus and what He has done. Is the Bible basically about the objective and indicative?

Keller, and Ferguson for that matter, are not advocating sloppy hermeneutics. They are not claiming you "find Jesus in every little twig." You must follow the trajectory of the text to Jesus (which I suppose means you also have to believe the trajectory is toward Jesus).

I have begged others to see this beauty. However, Keller and Ferguson claim this is more of an instinct than a trained discipline. It's not about hermeneutical principles. Do you believe the Bible is basically about you, or about Him?

I believe that once you grasp this, the Bible becomes all the more beautiful. Consider this example from Keller:

Jesus is the true and better Adam

who passed the test in the Garden, His Garden, a much tougher garden, and whose obedience is imputed to us.

Jesus is the true and better Abel

who though innocently slain has blood that cries out not for our condemnation, but for our acquittal.

Jesus is the true and better Abraham

who answered the call of God, to leave all the comfortable and familiar and go into the void, not knowing whither He went.

Jesus is the true and better Isaac

who was not just offered up by His Father on the mount, but was truly sacrificed for us all. While God said to Abraham, "Now I know you love me because you did not with hold your son, your one and only son, whom you love from me," now we, at the foot of the cross can say to God, "Now we know that you love me, because you did not with hold your Son, your only Son, whom You love, from me."

Jesus is the true and better Jacob

who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserved so that we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace, that wake us up and discipline us.

Jesus is the true and better Joseph

who is at the right hand of The King and forgives those who betrayed and sold Him and uses His power to save them.

Jesus is the true and better Moses

who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a New Covenant.

Jesus is the true and better rock of Moses

who struck with the rod of God's justice now gives us water in the desert.

Jesus is the true and better Job

who is the truly Innocent Sufferer who then intercedes for and saves His stupid friends.

Is that a type? See this is not a type, it's an instinct.


Jesus is the true and better David

who's victory becomes the people's victory, though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.

Jesus is the true and better Esther

who didn't just risk losing an earthly palace, but lost the ultimately heavenly one. Who didn't just risk His life, but gave His life. Who didn't just say, "If I perish, I perish," but said, "When I perish, I'll perish for them, to save My people."

Jesus is the true and better Jonah

who is cast out into the storm so that we could be brought in.

He's the real Passover Lamb.
He's the True Temple.
The True Prophet.
The True Priest.
The True King.
The True Sacrifice.
The True Lamb.
The True Light.
The True Bread.


Wow, isn't it beautiful?

or more appropriately...

Isn't He beautiful!!!

The True Interpretation of Scripture

According to the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) [As recorded in Him We Proclaim, p111]:

The True Interpretation of Scripture. The apostle Peter has said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations. Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance. But we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of the like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agrees with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much to the glory of God and man's salvation.

Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their...treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures...

Councils. And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time.

While aware that I have a non-creedal heritage, I appreciate that this confession appears to understand its own limitations. I also appreciate that this confession understands the possible pendulum swing created by the Reformation; that when men tell others to study the Scriptures personally to see if the Church is accurate, some will be tempted to come up with "personal interpretations" (which no one else could affirm).

As I mentioned in the previous post, a confidence in the text can be misunderstood by some as arrogance. Some pastors will be tempted to lead their sheep with unquestionable leadership. They will require their sheep to trust their degree, tenure or higher calling. Certainly this can lead to an unapproachable leader and non-Berean congregation. Others, will lead with a subjectivity, almost breeding suspicion and eliminating true hope and comfort. The leader may appear approachable, but the congregation languishes in subjective "but what does the text mean to me" dialogue.

I fear for the soul of the person who simply trusts that an interpretation of the text is true because a noted pastor said so.

I fear for the soul of the person who clings to personal interpretations despite the fact that others do not see their point from the text.

It seems that the answer is not to attempt to strike a balance, but for the preacher (and the congregation) to remember that we must submit our whole selves to the Word of God...even (especially) our interpretations of It.