The Bible, the Preacher, and the Spirit (9)

In cases where the formal structure of a sermon is either unnatural or undesirable, these two elements of Scripture reading and exposition are still usually present. We may illustrate this from Philip's encounter with the eunuch:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.

"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth."

The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. (Acts 8:30-35)

The incident involves a conversation and not a formal sermon, which would be a monologue. It is the eunuch who provides the text for the occasion, and it is Philip who then offers the exposition and application. But note that the two elements of Scripture reading and exposition are still present. Thus this is also the model for individual or small-scale outreach.

Incidentally, the passage also illustrates the need for exposition. As our reading of Nehemiah 8 also shows, many people will not understand what a biblical passage means without someone explaining it to them. Of course, as they sit under the ministry of an expositor, they will most likely grow in their ability to understand the Bible for themselves. Even in this instance, we can be certain that as a byproduct of Philip's exposition on Isaiah, many other passages have opened up for the eunuch that were previously ambiguous to him.

The so-called "expository" method is often an excellent way to present the teaching of Scripture. However, the "read and expound" approach should not be identified with or restricted to the expository method in its approach to the text or the structure of its presentation. With all its potential pitfalls, topical sermons can easily adopt the "read and expound" approach, and even the hated "proof-texting" method is used in Scripture more frequently than many homileticians care to admit. But of course, it should go without saying that when you give a proof-text for something, the text better be a proof for whatever you are asserting.

The sermons and discourses that we find in the Bible often do not conform to what is called the expository method. Some principles are never violated, but some of the things that preaching textbooks prescribe, in terms how best to employ a biblical passage or to structure a sermon, are often not followed by Scripture itself.

For this reason, there are at least two dangers in adopting and approving the expository method alone. First, a preacher who does this has, without good reason, limited himself to use only one approach when there might be several others that will help him better communicate his points when it comes to certain texts and topics. Second, it induces the listeners to despise sermons and discourses that are not strictly expository, but that are nevertheless totally scriptural and legitimate in both their contents and methods. Even worse, some who have been taught that only the expository method is acceptable may become confused over those portions of Scripture where it is clearly using some other method to handle biblical passages, and this in turn might cast doubt in their minds regarding the reliability and competence of the biblical characters themselves.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I affirm that every sermon must be biblical in its contents – it must completely agree with the Bible, and every biblical passage must be interpreted in context. In my own preaching and writing, I have – sometimes strictly, sometimes loosely – employed the expository method perhaps more than any other. But I disagree that to be biblical necessarily implies that one must always employ what is called the expository method. We must be careful lest an excellent option becomes a requirement without biblical warrant. There is to be absolute rigidity in faithfulness to Scripture, but some flexibility when it comes to presentation.

(to be continued)