Preaching the Book God Wrote (Part 2)
May 29th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
INERRANCY, EXEGESIS AND EXPOSITION
Postulates and Propositions
Let me propose five logically sequential postulates that introduce and undergird my main propositions. These five ideas also establish the true biblical basis for the doctrine of inerrancy:
1. God is (Gen 1:1; Pss 14, 53; Heb 11:6).
2. God is true (Exod 34:6; Num 23:19; Deut 32:4; Pss 25:10, 31:6; Isa 65:16; Jer 10:8, 10:11; John 14:6, 17:3; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; 1 John 5:20, 21).
3. God speaks in harmony with His nature (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Rom 3:4; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18).
4. God speaks only truth (Pss 31:5, 119:43, 142, 151, 160; Prov 30:5; Isa 65:16; John 17:17; James 1:18).
5. God spoke His true Word as consistent with His true Nature to be communicated to people (a self-evident truth which is illustrated at 2 Tim 3:16-77; Heb 1:1).
Therefore, we must consider the following propositions.
1. God gave His true Word to be communicated entirely as He gave it, that is, the whole counsel of God is to be preached (Matt 28:20; Acts 5:20, 20:27). Correspondingly, every portion of the Word of God needs to be considered in the light of its whole.
2. God gave His true Word to be communicated exactly as He gave it. It is to be dispensed precisely as it was delivered without the message being altered.
3. Only the exegetical process which yields expository proclamation will accomplish propositions 1 and 2.
Inerrancy’s Link to Expository Preaching
Now, let me substantiate these propositions with answers to a series of questions. They will channel our thinking from the headwaters of God’s revelation to its intended destination.
1. Why preach? Very simply, God so commanded (2 Tim 4:2), and the Apostles so responded (Acts 6:4).
2. What should we preach? The Word of God—sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura (1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 4:2).
3. Who preaches? Holy men of God (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; Eph 3:5; 2 Pet 1:21; Rev 18:20, 22:6). Only after God had purified Isaiah’s lips was he ordained to preach (Isa 6:6-13).
4. What is the preacher’s responsibility? First, the preacher needs to realize that God’s Word is not the preacher’s word. But rather:
o He is a messenger, not an originator (euaggelizo).
o He is a sower, not the source (Matt 13:3, 19).
o He is a herald, not the authority (kerusso).
o He is a steward, not the owner (Col 1:25).
o He is the guide, not the author (Acts 8:31).
o He is the server of spiritual food, not the chef (John 21:15, 17).
Second, the preacher needs to reckon that Scripture is ho logos tou theou (the Word of God). When he is committed to this awesome truth and responsibility,
His aim, rather, will be to stand under Scripture, not over it, and to allow it, so to speak, to talk through him, delivering what is not so much his message as its. In our preaching, that is what should always be happening. In his obituary of the great German conductor, Otto Klemperer, Neville Cardus spoke of the way in which Klemperer “set the music in motion,” maintaining throughout a deliberately anonymous, self-effacing style in order that the musical notes might articulate themselves in their own integrity through him. So it must be in preaching; Scripture itself must do all the talking, and the preacher’s task is simply to “set the Bible in motion.” (Packer, Inerrancy and Common Sense, p. 203)
The expression “the Word of God” (logos theou in the Greek texts) is used 47 times in the New Testament. It is what Jesus preached (Luke 5:1). It was the message the Apostles taught (Acts 4:31, 6:2). It was the word the Samaritans received (Acts 8:14) as given by the Apostles (Acts 8:25). It was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter (Acts 1:1). It was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5, 7, 44, 48, 49, 15:35-36). It was the message preached on Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:32, 17:13, 18:11). It was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey (Acts 19:10). It was the focus of Luke in the Book of Acts in that it grew (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20). Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was given from God, that it had not been adulterated and that it was a manifestation of truth (2 Cor 2:17, 4:2). Paul acknowledged that it was the source of his preaching (Col 1:25; 1 Thess 2:13).
As it was with Christ and the apostles, so Scripture is also to be delivered by preachers today in such a way that they can say, “Thus saith the Lord.” Their responsibility is to deliver it as it was originally given and intended.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Amen to this. I am glad we have Dr. MacArthur standing up for the integrity of the Word in this relativistic age.
A question for the preachers here. It seems to me Dr. MacArthur preaches two kinds of sermons. Verse by verse through a book or section of Scripture; and topically, e.g. on prayer, family, true worship, etc. Perhaps the latter type is what he does most.
Would the first be considered “expository” and the latter “topical”? Or would the latter also be a form of “expository”?
I’m not a preacher, and so am not qualified to answer your question, jsb, but I attended a seminar at this year’s Shepherds’ Conference by Rick Holland, called Preaching the Bible the Way God Wrote it. In the seminar, Rick made a case for consecutive (verse-by-verse) exposition. In so doing, he defined a bunch of different approaches to exposition, noting that many of who we would consider the greats (e.g., Spugeon, Edwards, etc.) did not do consecutive exposition. From that point, Rick went through different types of exposition, one of them being topical exposition. In your comment, “the latter,” I think, would be considered topical exposition. I strongly recommend getting the notes (http://www.gracechurch.org/sc/notes2007.asp) or even downloading the audio message of that seminar (https://www.gracechurch.org/sc/MediaAudio.asp?ministry_id=26&dlyear=2007).
Praise God for John MacArthur. I look forward to the day that he stands before the Savior and finds out just how much good he has done in Christ’s name for so many people. Steve Lawson was spot on when he called John “Mr. Valiant for Truth.”
I agree with Mike’s point.
The concern imo is that many of those who go TOPICAL do so by compromising their theology. Read my comment in the first part of this series when I discuss the need for a strong foundation.
Only those who have a strong foundation can move into the more applicational or topical model of preaching. A pastor listening to the needs of his flock and the cultural trends should go topical.
MacArthur has done this after tragic events like the ‘94 earthquake, LA Riots and recent Virgina Tech shootings.
Al Mohler does this daily on his radio program. His ability to sift through topical or cultural issues biblically is because of his deep understanding of theology–a theology that is biblically accurate.
Most should stick with verse-by-verse exposition before going topical. In fact, I would strongly argue that when one teaches v-by-v, it then becomes very topical.
I would suggest for the expositional preacher to slow down and design the weekly bible studies to go deeper to the message taught on Sunday rather than having a bible study leader teach on a seperate message.
There are too many messages taught in most cases (Sunday sermon, Sunday School, weekly bible study, Wednesday night). That is too much knowledge to process and can result in a surface understanding without relational depth (all Bible teaching should have relational significance).
It is unfortunate that some might view verse-by-verse not as applicational as a topical message. Again, this is homiletics.
A good preacher will draw his listeners in by capturing them with the need for understanding the passage taught. If this isn’t done, then the Bible teaching reflects that seen in a Bible school or semianry. The Sunday message should not be taught this way weekly (there are exceptions now and then), but the consistent teaching should be biblcally accurate and applicable. This is the difference between teaching and preaching imo.
Unlike J.I. Packer, the sellout who signed ECT, MacArthur stands firm on the word and is, predictably, often attacked for it. God was merciful to me in my early Christian life to cause me to find the teaching ministry of Grace To You. The countless errors I have been spared and the rich love of the truth I have developed as a reult are limitless. I don’t need ecstatic experiences and wonders, I have learned to be enthralled by the living, written word of God in no small part due to John MacArthur’s faithfulness.
JSB,
It is helpful to distinguish sequential, line-by-line teaching and expository preaching. Expository preaching in its most true sense “exposes” the truth of scripture. And, I think a strong argument could be made that the best consistent way to do that is through sequential line-by-line teaching. But not the only way; a topical sermon or a sermon that traces the development of a doctrine through the Bible, or even a biographical sermon (say on Peter) could be expository.
But, not all topical, theological, or biographical sermons are expository. And, for that matter, not all sequential verse-by-verse sermons are expository either. The link above is a good source for Rick’s similar answer to this question. This Sunday, Rick preached on this exact distinction at Grace. It is not up yet, but it will be posted soon for free download.
Thanks,
Jesse
I have to respectfully disagree with the conclusions that Dr. MacArthur reached through these propositions. Certainly it is true that (1) every portion of the Word of God needs to be considered in the light of its whole. It is also true that (2) it is to be dispensed precisely as it was delivered without the message being altered. But I see no basis for then concluding that expository sermons (as defined in the article) are the only way to accomplish propositions 1 and 2.
Here is my primary point of contention: this is not the style of preaching that we see in the New Testament. In the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7, Jesus quotes from several different passages of Scripture without giving what we would consider a full expository treatment to any of them. Peter’s sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2 references several different passages in a sermon that is probably best categorized as “topical.” Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 also does not fit this definition of being expository.
I know that someone will counter that the Bible doesn’t record the full text of any of these sermons, so isn’t it possible that these messages were more expositional than they appear. While this is certainly possible, the fact remains that as far as I can tell there is not a single sermon in the New Testament that fits Dr. MacArthur’s definition of an expository sermon. How then can we be so dogmatic about this approach to preaching as the “only” valid approach when there are no Biblical examples of this preaching method, and the fact is that most sermons recorded in the Bible would seem to fall into the category of “topical” sermons? I do think that expositional preaching is an excellent approach, but I think that we’re going way too far when we tout it as the “only” way.