Old Testament Expository Preaching?
Last week, I had breakfast with a couple of brothers from
12 Symptoms of the Trivialization of the Old Testament in Evangelical Preaching
- Avoidance of the Old Testament.
- Walk-through-the Bible Approaches to the OT.
- The Illustrative Use of the OT.
- The Proof-texting Use of the OT.
- The Selective Use of the OT.
- The Biographical and Psychological Use of the OT.
- The Applicational Use of the OT.
- The Spiritualized Use of the OT.
- Reading the Old Testament Through New Testament Lenses.*
- The Christologizing of the OT.*
- Nonsensical Sloganizing of the OT.
- The Magical Use of the OT.
The asterisk (*) denotes two that are considered questionable by some theologians, but I think overall Dr. Block makes some excellent points in his outline. Dr. Block continues by sharing the reasons and effects such trivialization of the OT has upon evangelical Christianity. So back to my initial question and thoughts. Why is it that so many pastors neglect the Old Testament? Is it just not relevant enough? Are there not commentaries to compile sermon material? Since we are of the new covenant, is preaching from the old covenant unnecessary?
In our conversation, I recall one of my brothers sharing with me that the reason why John Piper does not preach from the OT expositorily is because he does not know biblical Hebrew. Due to his passion not to be a second-hander in his sermon preparation, Piper works with primary sources (that being the original texts) and does extensive work such as sentence diagramming, word study, etc. I admire that in Piper, but I think he would admit that his weakest point in his pulpit ministry is the absence of expository preaching from the Old Testament.
In conclusion, I would add that having a solid biblical theology (not systematic theology) is sorely lacking among even trained theologians. We can systematically present the doctrines of the faith from theology proper to eschatology but have a hard time presenting the redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation while giving due attention to the texts of the Old Testament with just as much labor and precision as we do in the New Testament.
So what are your thoughts? Has this entered your mind? Do you know of any great expositors of the Old Testament you can point me to? Any reasons why the OT is neglected among evangelicals who so emphasize sola Scriptura and the inerrancy of Scripture?
posted by Timmy Brister at 7/24/2006 07:55:00 PM
24 Comments:
Dude, you can't pass over Hershael York!
7/25/2006 05:46:00 AM
Stephen,
First of all, congrats on the marriage! Still on the honeymoon phase?
I must confess, not only have I not heard Hershael York preach on the OT, I have not heard him preach on the NT - that means have not heard him preach period. So, for my sake and possibly others, could you maybe give a few sermon examples or passages maybe that Dr. York has exposited? That would be a great help!
7/25/2006 05:57:00 AM
Mikey,
So what do you think about Graeme Goldsworthy's works? Do you recommend them? If not, what would you recomment for young theologians who want to have a better grasp of the OT in the biblical plot line?
7/25/2006 07:36:00 AM
Re: Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship statement on the emergent church...
Call me a skeptic - but after searching Calvary Chapel's website for the word "emergent" and not finding anything, I wonder whether this statement on the emerging church is authentic.
I've been blessed with the opportunity to serve in and around Calvary Chapels in Southern California over the last 10 years or so, including half a dozen or so occasions at Pastor Chuck's church there in Costa Mesa. The tone and sarcasm in the Emergent Church statement feel a little different than anything I've seen from them.
Anyone have any thoughts on the source of this document?
7/25/2006 02:01:00 PM
Tracy,
I have heard Dr. Moore preach on OT passages, but would you consider his preaching expository? I think Dr. Moore has a very unique style in preaching (and teaching) which I enjoy, but I am not sure it fits the idea of expository preaching. But then again I may be wrong.
Also, the preachers I looking for are those who have preaching through books of the Old Testament. For example, Dr. Steve Lawson (whom I mentioned above), recently preached through Job and Psalm (both messages in each book are now in the Holman Christian Commentary Series). Now, of course one does not have to have their messages turned into a published commentary, but you get the point.
Another reason maybe why preachers today don't preach from the OT is that it is simply not efficient. By that, I mean that even in sermons, pragmatism rules the day. Some thing OT passages simply don't "work." Ironically, if we are more concerned with results than we are being biblical, we could be bowing to the gods of fertility (Baal) rather than YHWH. One must ask how Canaanized the Western Church has become these days . . .
7/25/2006 07:18:00 PM
Oh, and before I forget again (I was supposed to put this on my last comment), below is a URL to go to Dr. Lawson's database of sermons to download. Unfortunately, I don't think his sermons preached at Dauphin Way are not here, but there are many nonetheless. Here it is:
http://www.cfbcmobile.org/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=421&sec_id=377
7/25/2006 07:25:00 PM
Tim,
In regards to Pastor John Piper, I went straight to the man who would know--Tom Steller(he was once Pastor John's student and has served at Bethlehem for over 20 years. In an e-mail, he told me that Pastor John is very competent in the Hebrew text (although stronger in Greek). And Pastor Tom said that one might be suprised at the amount of sermons he's preached from the OT. Although, I'm sure that ya'll have in mind preaching through books. I knew that he had preached through Ruth because I've listened to the audio. Just trying to clarify my pastor's position.
7/25/2006 09:30:00 PM
K. Elijah,
Thanks for the clarification. What I wrote and what my friend shared about Piper was not a slam at all. My friend actually taught Greek at one time at TBI and knows Piper as well. On my end, I don't know him but consider him to have had the biggest influence of any living man today. So that being said, I must be fair as well.
A good exercise to do since all his sermons are available online would be to tally up his sermon texts from 1980 and see what percentage of his preaching expositorily came from the OT. I haven't done this, so I am not going to even guess. And not to pick on Piper either, but he is such a big influence on so many of us, I think that question regarding the OT is one others have inquired about as well.
7/25/2006 10:20:00 PM
Tracy,
Indeed, According to Plan is a good book, but I must admit that there were a few places where I would disagree a bit. Overall I recommend it without reservation. Contrary to systematic theology, Goldsworthy does what is so needed in developing a biblical theology as well (which I mentioned in my post). I think seminaries would do a service to their students if they perhaps considered offering biblical theology alongside systematic theology while encouraging them to incorporate all of God's written revelation in their preaching and teaching.
7/25/2006 10:24:00 PM
K. Elijah,
I just realized that I said "as well" three times in my comment! That's what I get for being in a hurry before rushing to work!
Sorry for the redundancy.
Sorry for the redudnancy.
7/25/2006 10:26:00 PM
I didn't think it was a slam against Pastor John. I was just curious and wanted to find out for myself.
-Elijah
7/25/2006 11:29:00 PM
Elijah,
Cool. I am glad I was not mistaken in my post. BTW, will you be attending the DG National Conference this fall?
I just received an email from S. Anderson about it. I made it a goal to try to read Wells' latest book as well as Driscoll's to prep myself for the conference. I am pumped about it, and the weekly videos were a brilliant idea.
7/26/2006 05:20:00 AM
I still don't think Pastor John would say that he avoids the OT because of a Hebrew defiency. Pastor Tom doesn't think that either. But, he does think that Pastor John would agree that there is an imbalance between to teaching from the OT and NT. Tom pointed out that Pastor John is really good at relating the OT passages to the NT passage that he preaches from.
Yes, I'll be at the conference. I can't wait. I'll be doing some volunteering. Let me know if you'll have any free time. I tried to get Shannon to come, but Woodie's brother is getting married that week.
7/26/2006 01:01:00 PM
Mikey,
When I said there were a few places where I would disagree with Goldsworthy, his position on the OT was one of them. I remember reading his book and saying to myself, "Now, wait a minute . . ." several times.
I recall a conversation I had with Dr Block in which I asked him why the OT texts often get mistreated or overlooked. By this I was referring to the Christological hermeneutic so often employed. He told me that it is important to be Christological in our homiletic, but not in our hermeneutic. I think this is good advice, especially since we must be faithful (as you said) to the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture. If not, would we not be depreciating both?
Three things pop into my mind as well:
1. I am afraid that some conservative thinking evangelicals will think if you don't Christologize every OT text in your hermeneutic, you must be a closet liberal. I wish this weren't the case, but from those whom I have talked to, it appears to be so.
2. In the plotline of progressive revelation and biblical revelation, I believe it is important to emphasize the progression and not only the culmination (in Christ). If we jump past progressive points as they are and appraise their meaning, then would we not have done injustice to the culminating point? It just seems to me that the Son of David and King of the Jews is a historical figure with a heritage and context which should be appreciated in light of the fact that the OT was the Bible Jesus read.
3. In the whole continuity/discontinuity, should we not appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the OT/NT regarding its continuity? By that I mean, should we not evaluate the OT text as it stands without inserting NT interpretation, appreciate its contribution, and then relate it to the NT?
Finally, two books come to my mind that I would like to hear from you about.
1. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright and
2. Giving the Sense edited by David Howard and Michael Grisanti.
Any comments (in praise or criticism) of these works would be appreciated man.
7/30/2006 07:39:00 AM
Mikey,
No, I have not read Giving the Sense yet. It is on my stack of "to read" books (which is getting larger and larger!). I did read Wright's book as extra credit for Block's class and enjoyed it. I really appreciate how he handled the first four chapters of Matthew.
So block is writing a theology of worship, eh? Before he left Southern, I strongly encouraged him to consider writing a book about how studying the OT is so relevant and applicable to current evangelical life. His insight and analysis is spot on. They need a wider audience.
8/01/2006 05:34:00 PM
Mikey,
Thanks for sharing what is going on across the pond. Are some of the other guys part of the group of contributors in the evangelical textual criticism blog?
Indeed, there is much to be optimistic about.
8/02/2006 03:28:00 PM
Jedidiah,
Thanks for the comments man. The issue you raised regarding Dr. Moore is not what the original post is about, so if you would like to discuss this further, let me encourage you to email me. I don't have yours, but you can find mine in the "profile" section on the sidebar. I am not trying to avoid your questions (I have already written a reply), but after thinking through my response, I feel that our conversation could be carried better through email (or even in person since we are members of the same church). I also have realized (unfortunately through past experience) that anything I say or do can and will be used against me (at least in the court of public opinion). Thanks for your understanding.
8/06/2006 03:47:00 PM
Jed,
No, I am sorry, but I do not have your email, but that is okay.
One thing I would mention regarding reading the OT through the lens of Christ is simply to say that it is not the only lens to understand OT Scripture. If you argue that every verse in the OT has to be read through the lens of Christ, do you not think that you will end up forcing Christ in places where he is not implicitly there? There is meaning, significance, and application in the OT that is not a messianic prophecy. There are truths to be ascertained and applied to the Christian life which are not filtered through the lens of the NT or Christ. Yes, ultimately the OT points to Christ in everything in that progressive revelation culminates in the full and final revelation of God in Christ. But I fear that indeed much of the substance and meaning of the OT is trivialized or underappreciated if the only hermenuetical method which you use is what you mentioned. I would argue that it is not either/or as you portrayed but both/and.
8/10/2006 06:13:00 AM
So Jed, do you believe there is no discontinuity between the OT and NT?
Also, to say that when someone says, "I think the Bible says . . ." is really a form of rebellion, am I supposed to take you serious? That would wipe out a whole lot of respected theologians and scholars. While we hold to an infallible Scripture, do you not think that we often can have a fallible interpretation or even method? Such confidence you possess is alarming to me.
From your comments, I believe you have misinterpretated (if not mistreated altogether) the positions of Block and Kaiser. They have not argued that one should ignore the NT or Christological lens for interpreting the OT as you have stated nor have they neglected the authorial intent of God as superintending the Scriptures. Rather, I believe they are arguing for a healthy, balanced hermeneutic which factors in the OT in its historical-grammatical-cultural context in the same way we do with the NT. And yes, we should consider the authorial intent of the human author as well as they were not writing in a vacuum or as a robot. One of the critiques of other religions is their ahistorical nature, if not inaccurate historiography. If we are going to present the Bible as containing historical fact and argue for its reliability (again back to inerrancy and high view of Scripture), then it seems necessary to include this in one's interpretation and hermeneutic, don't you think?
You said, "Why should we avoid Jesus’ and Apostles’ hermeneutic and adopt a hermeneutic coming down the pike from scholarship and its Enlightenment Rationalistic commitments?"
What commitments are you talking about?
Finally, do you believe that there is any prior fulfillment of prophecy given in the OT at least partially within the OT? Does your hermeneutical method all you to glean biblical truth from OT passages from the text themselves without Christologizing them? I am just seeking clarification on this, so please do not take it as spinning the issue . . .
8/10/2006 08:47:00 PM
Jed,
Most certainly, I will be remembering you in my prayers. Furthermore, please regard me as someone who wants to listen and encourage as a fellow brother in Christ if you ever want to talk.
Thanks for clarifying your remarks about rebellion. I understand that the issue where liberals and skeptics have questioned and doubted the certainty and trustworthiness of God's Word. As you have stated, this is not the case for Mikey and me. We are all conservative evangelicals who hold to the inerrancy and authority of God's Word, fully inspired by God and universally binding on all men.
From the rest of your comments, I see very little if any place where we disagree. You have concerns in one direction and I have the other, but we both are esentially saying the same thing. It reminds me when Paul defended sola fide in Galatians and James argued against a faith that isn't saving and active in the believer. They aren't contradicting one another, but defending the biblical position that the salvation which we receive is by faith alone - a faith that works in us and perseveres to the end. Two concerns and safeguards but one central position. I happen to see our discussion along the same lines.
Concerning your questions about Block and Kaiser, I think the best way to substantiate your reservations is to give specific examples where you believe that have the wrong hermeneutical method and present your case. I realize that is not possible to do in a comments section of a blogpost, but it would be helpful to those who want to see evidence for your assertions. As you stated, this is a big issue, and to assert that they are (or could be) wrong is a big assertion. And the bigger the assertion, the more evidence and justification required to bring legitimacy to it. You get what I'm saying . . .
Concerning your last two questions, I'm not exactly sure what you are meaning, especially the second one. How is our hermeutic "mediated through Christ?" Of course any biblical theology must include the Christological lens to interpreting Scripture, but I think you are asking for more than that. How much more I am not sure. Where I am coming from is a desire to have a healthy, robust, and faithful hermeneutic that indeed reveals "the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints" which is Christ in us the hope of glory. This stewardship entrusted to us as ministers and servants means that we are "to make the Word of God fully known" (Col. 1:25-26), or as Paul put it elsewhere "to declare to you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). What Word of God or whole counsel was Paul referring to? My guess is the entire Old Testament. Going back to my original post, this is my desire for us as preachers and teachers of God's Word. Let us be faithful and not shrink back from any of God's Word. As we revel in a time where inerrancy has been firmly held, my prayer is that we will continue to see the fruits of that with preachers who follow through on the convictions of the inerrant Word by preaching all of it as God intended.
8/11/2006 10:06:00 PM
Mikey,
There you go again bringing up N.T. Wright! We'll just have to save that for another discussion.
I tend to agree with Jed that when I first heard Block's assessment of "the just shall live by faith(fulness)", I was taken back a little. Given your textual and linguistic acumen, I am sure you could explain the semantical or translation nuances much better than I can. I would like to get a better understanding of what Block was trying to say there.
Anyway, I agree that we do need to take each issue and refuse to deal with them as second-handers. Yes, I am Reformed in my convictions, but that does not grant me to not be a good Berean. We are to test everything (1 Thess. 5:21) and hold our human allegiances in subjection to our allegiance to God. In the 2000 years of church history, there have been many who have gotten in right and all the more who have gotten it wrong. Even some of the greatest theologians I have issues with in certain matters. So all that is secondary, and we must be mindful of that. Even N.T. Wright. :)
8/11/2006 10:17:00 PM
Jed and Mikey,
I think this has been a profitable discussion, one which I think we will find more similarities than differences. When we parse each position, I think for the most part we are on the same wavelength, and while there are some difference of opinion, we all hold to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture (sola Scriptura) and have God's Word as our governor and guide for doctrine and practice. Let me add that this discussion has been a good learning experience for me as I do not consider myself as learned and equipped as I should be in the field of hermeneutics and OT/NT. So thank you, both of you, for spurring me on in an area of study that I needs much more attention in my life.
My hope is that we can continue to have fruitful and meaningful discussion in the future over important matters in faith and practice, that is, if you guys will be so kind to hang around long enough . . . :)
8/11/2006 10:19:00 PM
Timmy, some of the best OT sermons that I have heard come from Mark Dever. I realize that he usually takes large chunks, but he accuratley deals with the text and applies it to his hearers very well. He provides a great model in this regard. I will admit my bias here, but the best OT preacher that I have ever heard is Dr. Block. I heard him preach a series of messages on Malachi and Jonah. Great stuff.
8/15/2006 12:57:00 AM
Scott,
I have to agree with you on both accounts. My only misfortune is that I have not heard many sermons from Dever in the OT. That's my fault.
One of the most meaningful and personally rewarding studies I did was on the book of Malachi for Dr. Block's class. This was to replace his lectures for that book. However, due to students requests, he preached it on the last day of class. I still remember much of it today.
8/15/2006 04:09:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home