John Stott said that beginning preachers need at least twelve hours to prepare one sermon (J. Stott, Between Two Worlds, 259). Tony Merida added, "But even this does not take into consideration the amount of time for meditating late at night, thinking in the car, talking to other preachers, or doing outside reading. Biblical preaching is therefore an all-consuming task. Couple this with the other demands of the pastor’s ministry, and it makes for a laborious process. No wonder Paul told Timothy to give double honor to pastors who work like an ox at “preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17–18) (Merida, Tony. Faithful Preaching, p. 99). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition).
Paul said, "If any man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work." A huge part of that “good work” is sermon preparation. I had a church member say to me once, that preachers had it made because all they worked was 30 minutes on Sunday morning, 30 minutes on Sunday evening, and 30 minutes on Wednesday evening. He had no clue.
Stephen Olford was a teacher of preachers. Billy Graham called him "the man who most influenced my ministry" ("Stephen F. Olford Memorial Page- Biography-1983" Wheaton College. 2005-07-17). When Stephen Olford was pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in New York City, once a year he would take one service and explain to his people all the effort and time it took to prepare one sermon.
What we are studying is the "good work" preachers must do to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Spirit has set us so we can pastorally preach.
So far we have discussed four of the seven steps in preparing a sermon:
Step One: Choose the Passage
Step Two: Study the Passage
Step Three: Choose the Main Point of the Sermon
Step Four: Construct the Sermon Outline or the Divisions
Our next step has four parts called the rhetorical processes:
Step Five: Develop the Sermon Outline with the four rhetorical processes: Explanation, Argumentation of explanation, Illustration, Application (and argumentation of application).
Both Tony Merida and his mentor Jim Shaddix call rhetorical processes “functional elements.” See Merida’s helpful material on rhetorical processes in chapter eight of Faithful Preaching and Jerry Vines and Jim Shaddix’s additional help in chapter seven of Power in the Pulpit.
Let’s say your sermon is on Ephesians 1:13-14 and you have the following main divisions listed below. Your rhetorical processes fall under each main division. Each rhetorical process answers a question your listening congregation is hopefully asking while you are preaching.
The MPS is: We should praise the Holy Spirit for his part in our salvation
Interrogative statement: Why should we praise the Holy Spirit for His part in our salvation?
Transitional sentence: We should praise the Holy Spirit for His part in our salvation because of the following reasons
I. Because the Sealing of the Holy Spirit happens after we hear God’s Word (v. 13a)
A. Explanation. This rhetorical process answers your congregation’s question “What does the verse mean that you just read?”
B. Argumentation. This rhetorical process answers your congregation’s next question “How do you know that is the meaning?”
C. Illustration. Hopefully, your congregation is engaged and asks this question “What does this look like?” “Can you give me a concrete example?”
D. Application. This rhetorical process answers your congregation’s question “What does this have to do with my life?”
II. Because the Sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place when we believe (v. 13b)
Repeat the four rhetorical processes under each main division.
III. Because the Sealing of the Holy Spirit guarantees our future redemption (v. 14a)
Repeat the four rhetorical processes under each main division.
IV. Because the Sealing of the Holy Spirit should cause us to praise God (v. 14b)
Repeat the four rhetorical processes under each main division.
PART ONE: EXPLANATION
I will begin with the first rhetorical process of explanation. This process could be identified with exegesis. Therefore, we need to give some definitions to distinguish hermeneutics, exegesis, and homiletics. I like the way Roy Zuck defines these terms.
Hermeneutics: The science (principles) by which the biblical text is interpreted
Exegesis: The art (application of the principles) of hermeneutics to your text
Homiletics: The science and art of preaching the meaning of the biblical text
Roy Zuck illustrates: “Hermeneutics is like a cookbook. Exegesis is the preparing and baking of the cake, and homiletics is serving the cake” (Roy Zuck. Basic Bible Interpretation, pages 20-22). Hermeneutics is the recipe. Exegesis is following the recipe to bake a strawberry shortcake. Homiletics is serving a big, smothered-in strawberries piece of cake and a freshly brewed cup of forty-weight.
Hermeneutics: Principles of Interpretation
1. Every passage must be interpreted with one interpretation. What is the authorial intention of a passage? Exegesis not eisegesis. Some call eisegesis over-interpreting a passage.
2. Every passage must be interpreted in context (immediate and remote). Which “generation” is Jesus referring to in Mark 13:30-32? The immediate context is the future Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the Tribulation that Jesus just described in 13:24-27. Jesus is not describing His generation which the Preterists contend so that the fulfillment is the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In Jesus’ End Time sermon called the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is describing Israel's future before His Second Coming.
3. Every passage must be interpreted literally or in the normal sense of language. There are two conflicting methods of interpreting Scripture: The grammatical-historical method and the allegorical method. The grammatical-historical method is what is referred to as the literal interpretation of Scripture because Scripture is interpreted in the normal sense of language.
The contrasting method is the allegorical method. I say contrasting because the allegorical method of interpretation does not take language in the normal sense but as John Bright notes, the allegorical interpreter finds “hidden, mystical meanings in the words of the text itself.”[1]
For example, consider the first coming of Christ. The grammatical-historical method of interpretation takes the first coming prophecies of Christ literally i.e., Christ would be born in Bethlehem according to Micah 5:2. The allegorical method also takes the first coming prophecies of Christ literally.
Concerning the second coming of Christ, the grammatical-historical method of interpretation takes the second coming prophecies of Christ literally i.e. Christ will reign for 1000 years according to Rev. 20:1-7. The allegorical method does not take the second-coming prophecies literally.
Covenant postmillennialist, Loraine Boettner, provides an example of allegorizing the millennial passage of Isa. 11:6 which predicts that in the future kingdom, “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb.” Here is how Boettner allegorizes this prophecy for Israel: “A fitting example of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is seen in the change that came over the vicious persecutor Saul of Tarsus, who was a wolf ravening and destroying, but who was so transformed by the Gospel of Christ that he became a lamb. After his conversion, he lost his hatred for the Christians, and became instead their humble friend, confidant, defender.”[2]
Those who practice the literal interpretation see figurative language as illustrations of literal truths. The allegorical method sees figurative language as justification for a method of interpretation. For example, Oswald T. Allis in Prophecy and The Church argued that the presence of figurative language ruled out the literal interpretation of Scripture: “There are three reasons why a thoroughly literal interpretation of Scripture is impossible.” One of his reasons was that “the language of the Bible often contains figures of speech.”[3] Vern S. Poythress has made this same argument in Understanding Dispensationalism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987).
Sometimes the normal sense of language uses figurative language to describe literal realities. Jesus in John 10 declared “I am the door.” He was illustrating that he was the only way into the sheepfold. The figurative illustration does not destroy the literal method of interpretation any more than a metaphor in an editorial piece in a newspaper.
4. Every passage must be interpreted by comparing Scripture with Scripture. The principle of an interpretive center in Evangelical Feminism contradicts this principle. This principle states that one clear or defining passage, such as Galatians 3:25 (which states that in Christ there is neither “male nor female”) should serve as a filter or grid for all other related passages (such as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15). In Galatians 3:25, Paul is discussing salvation. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul is talking about church leadership. Both verses are authoritative in their contexts and do not contradict the other.
5. Every passage must be interpreted in light of progressive revelation and not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament. Dr. Jerry Hullinger writes how Progressive Dispensationalists don’t just elaborate on the Old Testament but through “the complementary method will stress change in earlier revelation. For instance, Paul may know more about the Messiah than Isaiah, but Paul never changes anything Isaiah said.
Another example would be seen in the application of the covenants, particularly the Davidic. While the Old Testament will indicate that the Davidic covenant was made with Israel and that the ultimate Son of David will reign on earth to bring to fulfillment this covenant; progressive dispensationalists assert that this reign finds an initial fulfillment in heaven through the Church. This new data introduces change to the Covenant, it does not give more information about the original promise. Thus, the earth is changed to heaven; the future kingdom age is changed to the present; the human partner of the covenant is changed from Israel to the church, and the blessings are being enjoyed today instead of in the future.”[4]
There are two mentalities concerning explaining a passage
Dr. Mark Minnick, in a lecture on preaching, discussed these two mentalities.
The first mentality asks, “What can I say about this passage?” With this mentality, the preacher is the creator and his tools are tools of addition: Books of illustrations, devotional commentaries, and quotation books.
The other and preferable mentality asks, “What does this passage say?” or “What has God said in this passage?” You have 1129 chapters in God's Word to figure that out. With this mentality, the preacher is the interpreter and his tools are tools of extraction: Lexicons, concordances, word studies, and exegetical commentaries.
Dr. Minnick, in his lecture, spoke of the methodology of exegesis.
The First Step is to find the eternal thematic truth of the passage (every passage is about one truth). Theologians call this authorial intent: The author’s one intent for his original audience.
For example, the one eternal thematic truth of 1 Cor 13 is _____________
The Book of Romans is ____________________________
John 1:1 is __________________
These thematic truths of the above examples will always be using our spiritual gifts with love, the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, and the Word.
The Second Step is to find the fixed number of developmental statements in that passage.
1. Every passage has a limited number of things it says about its theme.
2. How many things does John 1:1 say about the Word? Three and only three.
1) The Word’s Existence in eternity "In the beginning was the Word"
2) The Word’s Relationship with the Father "And the Word was with God"
3) The Word’s Identification with Deity "And the Word was God"
There are Four Ways to Explain a passage. Using these four ways can add variety to this first rhetorical process. All four are the result of using the historical, grammatical hermeneutic.
1. By Positive Definition
What did Paul mean in 1 Timothy 2:12 when he instructed, “I permit not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to learn in silence?” “In silence” [ἡσυχία hesuchia] comes from the same Greek word that is translated as “held their peace” in Acts 11:18. In Acts 11, Peter is defending his actions at Cornelius’ house to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem concerning the Gentiles that Peter had won to Christ at Cornelius' house. When Peter was through explaining what God had done, the convinced Jewish leaders “held their peace and glorified God.” They did not stop talking but stopped verbally protesting Peter’s actions and leadership.
This positive definition helps us understand what Paul tells the church to do when it meets for public worship (which is the context of 1 Timothy 2). Paul is not saying that women can’t talk or speak in church, but he insists that women cease verbally protesting male leadership in the roles of the pastor (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13). This is the Complementary View of church leadership. This view is expressed in the Danvers Statement (signed by Daniel L. Akin, Wayne Grudem, Bruce A. Ware, etc.) produced by The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
2. By Contrast
You can help explain the meaning of Matthew 5:3 where Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor [πτωχοὶ ptochoi] in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” by contrasting the two different Greek words translated “poor”. The Greek word translated “poor” [πενιχρὰν penichran] in Luke 21:2 means the person is so poor he has to work to eat or he has some resources. The other Greek word for poor [πτωχοὶ ptochoi] in Luke 16:20 means the person is so poor he has to beg to eat and he has no resources. The second Greek word is used by Jesus in Matthew 5:3. To enter the kingdom of heaven requires a total poverty of spirit or complete humility. We cannot work nor merit the kingdom. It is totally by God’s grace.
3. By Comparison
In James 4:11, James admonishes believers to “speak not evil one of another.” The same Greek word is translated in the KJV “backbitings” in 2 Corinthians 12:20. This is a picturesque comparison.
When I was about 11 or 12, my grandfather bought me a Shetland pony, one of the meanest animals God ever created. I led the pony from the pasture to the barn to saddle and ride. As I was leading him, he bit me in the center of my back and just held on. I was helpless and in great pain. I was at his mercy until he finally got tired and released me. Often, when someone speaks evil or slanders you behind your back, you experience the emotional pain of backbiting, and you also are at their mercy.
4. By Relationships
By relationships, we mean the context in which the word is used. Roy Zuck mentions several important contexts.
The first important context is the immediate context of a sentence
“Often the sentence in which a word is used clarifies the meaning. The use of the word pen by itself might mean fountain pen, pigpen, or bullpen, but most likely the sentence in which it is used would clarify which is meant.”
Zuck refers to Cotterell’s and Turner’s list of the six different meanings of the Greek word kosmos or “world” according to the immediate context.
1. The whole created universe, including the earth, the heavens, heavenly bodies, etc. (John 17:5).
2. “Mankind,” that is, the “world” of people (John 3:16).
3. The condition of mortal life; “life in the world”(1 Cor 7:31).
4. The beings (human and supernatural) in rebellion against God, together with the systems under their control, are viewed as opposed to God (1 John 2:15-16).
5. The system of earthly and social structures (including its joys, possessions, and cares) (1 Tim 6:7).
6. “Adornment” or “adorning” (1 Peter 3:3).
Another important context is the context of the paragraph or chapter
In Matthew 24-25, Jesus is describing the end-time events of the seven-year Tribulation Period. In the midst of this detailed description, Jesus said, “he that shall endure unto the end the same shall be saved” (24:13). When this verse is lifted from its context, it is said to teach that a person must work to keep himself saved or he can lose his salvation. The context does not talk about spiritual salvation but physical deliverance. Jesus is describing the end-time events and specifically the Tribulation Period in Matthew 24. The persecuted believing Jew in the Tribulation who is not martyred by the Anti-Christ will physically be delivered from the Tribulation and enter alive into the Millennium.
Each of the four rhetorical processes answers a question your audience is asking while you are preaching.
After you read the verses in your main division, Explanation will answer your listener’s first question, "What do these verses mean?" You can answer their question in at least four ways in various ways.
Shaddix gives some good advice in preparing your explanation: “You still are only making notes as opposed to precisely organizing your material. Do not get bogged down just now in trying to find the exact wording you will use in your sermon. Simply note general ideas and thoughts that you will refine at a later point” (Power in the Pulpit, p. 174).
The next rhetorical process and method you develop in your divisions is Argumentation of explanation. I will develop the Argumentation of Explanation in Step Five: Develop the Sermon Outline (Part 2) Argumentation.
[1] John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 79.
[2] Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism, in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse, (Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity Press, 1977), 90).
[3] Oswald T. Allis. Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing), 1969, 17.
[4] Dr. Jerry Hullinger. Classroom notes from BIN720 History of Hermeneutics.
[5] Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor, 1991), 108, 109.