“Rightly Dividing” More Right Than Ever
Cutting Straight Conspicuously
It has always been essential for preachers to ground their sermons in a text. But I’m persuaded that postmodernity necessitates our doing so far more conspicuously. That is, I believe that the nature of contemporary culture compels us to establish visibly and indubitably that our content is what texts are actually saying. We simply cannot assume any longer that our church members (let alone unsaved visitors) give us a pass and accept complacently that our sermon’s theme, proposition, and points are actually in the text simply because we, their pastors, are preaching as if they were.
For those who aren’t sure what visible, indubitable grounding of sermons in Scripture looks like, Puritan preaching provides a helpful, though certainly not an unimprovable, model. Puritan sermons generally consisted of three parts: doctrine, reasons (or explanations), and uses (or applications). The doctrine was often what we would call a proposition. But rather than simply being announced, it was carved out of the text right before the congregation’s eyes through careful exegesis. Here’s a lightly edited example from the introduction to John Flavel’s message on John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”
We have, First, The incarnation of the Son of God plainly asserted. Secondly, That assertion strongly confirmed.
(1.) In the assertion we have three parts.
1. The Person assuming flesh: O Logos, “The Word.” That is, the second Person in the most glorious Godhead. Called the Word, either because he is the scope and principal matter, both of the prophetical and promissory word, or because he expounds and reveals the mind and will of God to men, as verse 18 explains, The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared or expounded him.
2. The Nature assumed: sarx, “flesh.” That is, the entire human nature, consisting of a true human soul and body. For so this word sarx is used in Rom. 3:20. And the Hebrew word rcb,which answers to it, is used this way in Gen. 6:12. The word “flesh” is used here, rather than “man,” on purpose to enhance the admirable condescension and abasement of Christ; there being more of vileness, weakness, and opposition to “spirit” in this word than in the word “man.” Hence the whole nature is denominated by that part called “flesh.”
3. The assumption itself: egeneto, “he was made.” It is not “he was” (as Socinus would render it, designing thereby to overthrow the existence of Christ’s glorified body now in heaven) but “he was made,” that is, he took or assumed the true human nature (called “flesh” for the reason before rendered) into the unity of his divine person, with all its integral parts and essential properties, and so was made, or became a true and real man by that assumption.
The apostle speaking of the same act, Heb. 2:16, uses another word, “He took on him,” epilambanetai, or he assumed. . . . And when it is said, he was “made flesh,” misconceive not, as if there were a mutation of the Godhead into flesh. For this was performed “not by changing what he was, but by assuming what he was not,” as Augustine well expressed it. As when the scripture, in a like expression, says, “He was made sin,” (II Cor. 5:21), and “made a curse,” (Gal.3:13). The meaning is not, that he was turned into sin or into a curse. No more may we think here that the Godhead was turned into flesh and lost its own being and nature because it is said he was made flesh. This is the sum of the assertion.
(2.) This assertion [“that the word was made flesh”] is strongly confirmed. He “dwelt among us,” and we saw his glory. This was no phantasm, but a most real and indubitable thing. For eskhnwsen en umin, he “pitched his tent,” or “tabernacled with us.” And we are eye-witnesses of it. A parallel to that is 1 John 1:1–3—“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life . . . declare we unto you.” Hence note,
Doctrine: That Jesus Christ did really assume the true and perfect nature of man, into a personal union with his divine nature, and still remains true God and true man, in one person forever.
Because this approach to introducing a sermon is so foreign to our own, we may have to read back through it a couple of times in order to grasp its strengths. Don’t let the Greek words distract you. We can do the same kind of visible exegesis without citing actual Greek or Hebrew expressions.
Here are the take-aways for grounding our messages more visibly in the text.
- Compel the congregation to really look at the text. Often our introductory stories actually distract people’s attention away from the text.
- Explain the text’s exact words and expressions patiently and accurately.
- Present these explanations logically, in an orderly sequence.
- Clarify why these explanations are significant. Under point 1 Flavel explains why Jesus is called the Word, under point 2 he explains why “flesh” rather than “man” is used, under point 3 he carefully differentiates “he was” from “he was made,” alerting his people to the importance of this distinction by warning of a Socinian heresy and by quoting Augustine’s memorable words for distinguishing right and wrong interpretations.
- Use the exact words of our explanations in our sermon theme or proposition.
Here’s the way to increase our preaching’s authority immediately, this very next Sunday—cut the Scripture straight conspicuously.
Dr. Mark Minnick pastors Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina.
(Originally published in FrontLine • May/June 2012. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)