Preaching an expositional sermon is a lot different than studying for one. A lot of times, I can know what the text says and have discovered great implications (at least I think they are great because they have encouraged and/or convicted me); but struggle with how to present the text in such a way that is meaningful and understandable for the listeners. At the same time, I am keenly aware of the danger of overreaching a text or undermining a passage in favor of meaning and understanding. This is the balance beam of preaching an expositional sermon. It is a work in progress for me, and I need God’s Spirit and grace to accomplish this task for His glory.
I have been thinking of what exposition is not lately. I have thought through these things regarding experiences I have had (regrettably also that which I have done), as well as different books I have read. One resource that has caused me to think more about this topic is the book The Nine Marks of A Healthy Church by Pastor Mark Dever.
Exposition is not verse by verse explanation of a text. To the contrary, I wonder if chapter and verse divisions have not done more harm to proper exegesis than help. Preachers tend to divide their texts up in chapter units, and though at times the chapter/verse divides might be accurate, many times meaning is missed when we are afraid to cross chapter and verse boundaries. A common stereotype of expositional preaching is dry, droning reading a verse and then rewording it. Reading the next verse and then rewording it with the occasional pause for application or reflection. I do not think this is true exposition. Genuine exposition is alive as we are coming to a fuller understanding of an entire text (paragraph, sentences, phrases, or even books) and learning of the implications that text has on our lives even today.
Exposition is not void of using other texts. The method of exposition mainly stays on the lines of that particular text, but it is important to show how other texts illustrate or support the main idea of the primary passage. The opposite of that is taking a topic and preaching through various verses or phrases in support of the topic (proof-texting). I do think this can be done at times, but I believe it is dangerous to make this the steady diet of the church. The best illustrations of a Biblical text is another text that supports the premise of the primary passage.
Exposition is not simply restating the text in the preacher’s words. It can be an easy trap especially when the text is difficult to understand, to simply reword the Scripture. This is not giving the sense of the passage. An example of this could be reading Philippians 1:6 “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” And then the preacher saying something to this effect, “We should be confident of this very thing, that He, Jesus, who began the good work in us will perform it until Jesus Christ returns.” True, but all that the preacher has done is restate the text. To preach this text expositionally, there ought to be an explanation of the confidence which resides in the heart of Paul and possibly therefore in the saint and why it is there. How could Paul be confident, and can we be confident of this thing? The previous verses explain that. What is the good work begun in them? When was it begun, how was it begun, who begun it? What does he mean by “good” work? Why is there a completion to this good work and when is it completed? What exactly is the day of Jesus Christ? Is there any significance to verse 7 and Paul’s love for them being related to his confidence in Christ through them? There are hosts of other questions the expositor should be asking, these are just examples to show that it is not enough simply to reword the passage if we are to do proper exposition.
The next post will be positive and practical concerning the presentation of an expositional sermon.
I look forward to more, thanks!