The Superiority of Expository Preaching

The unfolding of Your word gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:130 (NASB)

“The end of all preaching is to bring men under the influence of God’s Word; and nothing seems so likely to make men understand the Word as lectures in which the Word is explained. It was so in Chrysostom’s days; it ought to be so again. The idea, no doubt, like every good theory, may be easily ridden to death; and I believe that with ignorant, semi-heathen congregations, a short pithy text often does more good than a long passage expounded. But I have no doubt of the immense value of expository preaching, when people will bring their Bibles to the service, and accompany the preacher as he travels on, or go home to their Bibles after the service, and compare what they have heard with the written Word.” Excerpt from J.C. Ryle’s “Estimate of Manton” in volume 1 of the works of Thomas Manton

Expository preaching is superior to all other homiletic methods. We take as our theme this passage from Psalm 119:130 because expository preaching is nothing other that “unfolding” God’s Word, and we are told here that it is this which gives light and understanding.

The Hebrew word rendered “unfolding” in the NASB is the word pethach, which means “opening” in a figurative sense. This is why other versions render the word as “entrance.” This is an acceptable rendering so long as we keep in mind that it is meant in a figurative sense that implies disclosure rather than a door. Other forms of the word’s root, pathach, mean to open wide (literal or figurative); specifically to loosen, begin, plough, carve: - appear, break forth, draw (out), let go free, (en-) grave (-n), loose (self), (be, be set) open (-ing), put off, ungird, unstop, have vent. And so we can clearly see the point being made by the Psalmist. It is only by opening, unfolding and drawing out the meaning of God’s Word that there can be light and understanding.

There are other passages of Scripture that confirm this view. In Luke 24:27, 31, it was Jesus’ expounding of the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the disciples’ understanding. Acts 17:3 has Paul opening the Scriptures and it was this which the Spirit of God used to bring many of his listeners to saving faith. Nehemiah 8:8 says, “They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.”

Expository preaching takes the actual words of Scripture and sets about to explain them from their context and how all of Scripture teaches the same things. The Puritans were truly models for great preaching. If you have ever read a Puritan sermon, you’ll know what I mean. If you haven’t, you should!

The Puritan model is best seen in the sermons of Thomas Manton. First the text is read. Next, some details of the context and background are given. The text then is broken up into its various clauses and phrases, with all the ramifications explained. This leads to the statement of the passage’s “Doctrine,” i.e., the theological truth which the passage teaches. The body of the sermon is spent expounding this doctrine through references to many other parts of Scripture. The Puritans, like the Reformers before them, believed in the principle that Scripture interprets itself (Scriptura Intrapratatum). This is why they always interpreted a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible. They never came upon a verse and thought, “Wow! This is a new doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible." If you think that a passage is teaching a doctrine taught nowhere else in the Bible, you've misinterpreted it.

This is also why neither the Reformers nor the Puritans like Manton, ever used illustrations drawn from current events. The didn't cross reference the daily newspaper to show how Scripture was being fulfilled, nor did they make references to the latest theater play or local public interest story to demonstrate this or that Christian virtue. If Scripture interprets Scripture, and the passage under consideration really says what I understand it to be saying, then it should be easy to find this verified in many other portions of Scripture.

Finally, the sermon ended with practical applications of the doctrinal truths learned. Puritan sermons were almost always split right down the middle: about half being doctrinal and the other half being practical application.

This is truly the biblical model. Paul’s epistles have this same quality. About midway through you will find a “therefore” that begins a section of applying the doctrinal truths expounded on in the first part of the letter. There is no superior method of preaching.

Appended are three principles that are a great guide in biblical interpretation. I found these in my notes. I didn’t formulate them. If anyone recognizes them and knows the source, let me know. I want to give credit where it s due.

3 Principles of Interpretation

We must aim to allow the Scriptures, in whole and in each of their parts, to function as God intends.

The function or meaning of any individual passage of Scripture should first be sought by attempting to determine what its human author intended in writing it.

Ultimately, our interpretation of any particular biblical passage must acknowledge and take into account the fundamental unity and consistency of God’s whole written word.

Covenant (pt.3)

3. God cannot be properly understood unless He is viewed within a covenantal frame.

God, as Creator, purposes to have a covenant people. When we ask why this is so, the best we can answer is that such a desire for covenantal fellowship corresponds to the relationship of mutual love and honor between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the one undivided essense of the Godhead.

I have already spent a great deal of time in previous posts treating the Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son, which is presupposed by the Covenant of Grace btween God and the Elect. In an article on Covenant Theology (which is the inspiration for many of the ideas in these posts), J. I. Packer demostrates how the Covenant of Redemption clarifies three important truths. He writes:

"1. The love of the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, to lost sinners is shared unanimous love. The tritheistic fantasy of a loving Son placating an unloving Father and commandeering an apathetic Holy Spirit in order to save us is a distressing nonsense.

"2. As our salvation derives from God's free and gracious initiative and is carried through, from first to last, according to God's eternal plan by God's own sovereign power, so its ultimate purpose is to exalt and glorify the Father and Son together. The man-centered distortion that pictures God as saving us more for our sake that for His is also a distressing nonsense.

"3. Jesus Christ is the focal figure, the proper center of our faithful attention, throughout the redemptive economy. He, as mediator of the covenant of grace and of the grace of that covenant, is truly an object of divine predestination as are we whom He saves."

The Westminster Larger Catechism asks: With whom was the covevant of grace made? The prescribed answer is: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed (Q.31).

Standard Reformed statements about salvation almost always go like this: The Father elects, the Son atones for the elect, and the Spirit applies the Son's work to the elect. Unless we view God in this covevantal framework, best illustrated to us in Scripture in the Covenant of Redemption (being a covenant between Persons of the Godhead), we will never understand the reality of God properly. Those who act as if the doctrine of the Trinity is merely a piece of speculation, albeit helpful, know not whereof they speak. One either worships God as One divine essense subsisting in Three Persons, or he is an idolater. Covenant theology best explains and demonstrates the truth of God's nature.

Covenant (pt.2)

2. The Bible cannot be properly understood unless it is viewed within a covenantal frame.

My challenge to those who do not see covenant as the internal framework of Scripture is: Do you not interpret the Bible atomistically? The Bible is never truly understod until it is seen as a unity. In any good story there is a main plot that tells the protagonist's adventures and/experiences. Mnay other subplots may intrude along the way, but they are not the main story and any one of them could be included or excluded without damage to the storyline itself. Likewise, the Bible is the story of God's covenant of grace with His people and how Christ brings this to fruition. All of the historical narratives are there to illustrate God's faithfulness to His promise. Getting sidetracked by subplots is faulty exegesis.

Edgar Allen Poe, in his The Purloined Letter, has his Dupin desribe a game in which the players name places on a map and the others try to locate these places. Dupin relates how, very often, the most obvious places are the ones most easily overlooked. If I name some small island in the South Pacific, you will likely scour the map with such minute scrutiny that you will not notice the words PACIFIC OCEAN plastered across the map in 4 inch letters. We can, in similar fashion, study things like faith, repentance, the death of Christ, the plan of salvation, the person of the God-man, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments, the work of the Spirit, etc and not even notice that all these things are covevantal in nature.

The whole storyline of the Bible is how man's covenant relationship with God was ruined and restored. Understanding Scripture covenantally inform us how all the pieces fit together. The Bible is a unity, not a scrapbook of interesting bits and pieces. We will never understand, and therefore never exegete Scripture properly until we see its covenantal framework.

Covenant (pt.1)

1. The Gospel cannot be properly understood unless it is viewed within a covenantal frame.

Hebrews declares Christ to be the mediator and guarantor of the covenant between God and His elect (Heb. 7:22; 8:6). The Gospel itself is an invitation enjoy a covenant relationship with God. The Church is the covenant community. God's gifts to the Church, such as the preaching of the Word, pastoral care and discipline, the administration of the sacraments, these are all sign, seals, and instruments of the covenant through which the covenant blessings flow to those who believe.

The Bible is the book of the covenant. The preaching of the Word reaffirms to us God's gracious promise that He will be our God and we will be His people. Christ himself, when He instituted the Lord's Table, described His expiatory sacrifice as the fulfillment of the protoevangelion: This is the New Testament (i.e., covenant) in my blood. When Adam sinned and thus violated the covenant of works, God established the covenant of grace by promising a Savior, of the seed of the woman and then demonstrated what this meant by killing animals (showing a substitutionary sacrifice for their sin) and by clothing them in the skins of these sacrificed animals (showing the imputed righteousness of God's elect).

In order to be truly mobile, our bodies require a skeleton. In much the same way, Scripture has an internal framework upon which everything is connected. This internal structure is Covenant. That is why we will never understand the Gospel until we view it covenantally.

The Transmission of Original Sin

Philosophers and thinkers throughout the ages have pondered and speculated on the origin of the soul. Scripture clears all the dust raised by centuries of dispute with one simple sentence: “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” This informs us plainly that the soul originates from God’s creative power. It was not formed from any preexistent matter, but directly ex halitu divino, from the inspiration of God.

Some have held to the theory of traduction from the parents as the best explanation of the origin of the soul. This means that the soul is 'created,' as an almost corporeal substance, at the time and by the mechanism of conception. Some have opted for a simple approach, citing that the life of all other creatures flows from natural generation; hence it is likely that human souls flow in the same way. However, there is a specific difference between rational souls and the “soul-ish” life of any other creature. Since the human soul is an immaterial substance, it cannot possibly derive from a material source. The human soul is a spiritual being, thereby requiring a spiritual origin, which Scripture proclaims God to be.

A second objection that has been raised is this: Though the first soul was made by a direct, immediate creation and inspiration of God, it does not necessarily follow that all subsequent souls must be made the same way. God may have created man with such a power of begetting souls after his own image. The first tree was created with its seed in itself to propagate its kind, and so might the first man. We would respond to this by noting that trees and animals were created out of preexistent material; the soul was not. It was created by a direct, immediate act of God. If we consult Job 33:4, we find Elihu giving an account of his soul with almost the same words Moses gave for the origin of Adam’s soul. He says, "The Spirit of God has formed me, and the breath of the Almighty has given me life." Besides, the soul is immaterial and thus the “seed” of it must be immaterial too, meaning that its origin cannot reside in the body of man. Moreover, whatever is generated by natural means is corruptible; but the soul is not corruptible. So all souls, like Adam’s spring from God by creation.

The best arguments however for this position have usually hinged on the question of the transmission of Original Sin. Yet even these admit of solutions. The first of such objections is that when God creates something, it either comes from His hands pure or impure. If the soul is created pure, how does it come to be tainted with sin? If it comes from his hand impure, how is God not the author of sin?

In order to answer this, it must be first clarified what is meant by the question. If the question is whether souls are pure or impure as soon as they are united with their bodies, the answer is that they are impure. The union of soul and body is what constitutes a child of Adam, and therefore a tainted, impure, sinful creature. If the question be regarding the condition of the soul in the state in which God created them, this is another issue altogether. Baronius writes, “They are created neither morally pure, nor impure; they receive neither purity nor impurity from him, but only their naked essence, and the natural powers and properties flowing there from.” In other words, God does not create the souls of Adam’s posterity in an impure state, because that would make Him the author of sin, which He cannot be since He is the Avenger of it. But neither does God create souls in the state of original purity, for Adam’s sin lost that, and God justly withholds it from all of his posterity. Adam abused to the dishonor of God his original purity and rectitude, thus God may justly withhold it from his offspring. Adam, acting as our race’s Federal Head, voluntarily deprived himself of this rectitude and therefore deprived all his posterity of that original righteousness and purity in which he was created.

A further objection may be raised, namely: How do souls then come to be tainted with Original Sin? If God did not make them impure, how do they become so? The body is material; the soul is spiritual; so, it is held that the body cannot act upon the soul. The body without the soul is a lifeless lump of clay; hence it cannot defile the soul, since without the soul it is dead and cannot act at all.

Admittedly, this is a much harder knot to unravel. There are some things which will forever remain a mystery; this does not prove them false. I do not understand the Hypostatic Union; I do not therefore deny that Christ is Qeanqpwpwv. Besides we should perhaps be more concerned with getting the sin out of our souls than with how it got into them. Nevertheless, I will offer a few observations rather than hide behind the obvious mystery.

I think it is proper to affirm that Original Sin does not adhere to either part individually: it does not come by the soul alone, nor by the body alone. It comes by the union of both body and soul as one person. It is as a union of soul and body that one is a child of Adam, and only as such are we capable of being infected with his sin.

I would question however, the validity of the assumption that the body, being material, cannot act upon the soul. This is a whole lot easier to say than to prove. Indeed, it seems to me that the body can and does act upon and influence the soul. The body affects the soul’s moods as surely as the soul gives the body life. Not only that, but we could instance many cases where the powers of the soul are diminished or hindered by the weakness of the body. The soul of an elderly person with Alzheimer’s disease is the same soul that had full use of its faculties when the body was younger. Deterioration of the body hinders or obstructs the powers of the soul. Nothing is more obvious than that there is a reciprocal relationship between the soul and the body. So while the mystery remains, perhaps we can at least make some sense of this tangled issue.

If one asks how it is that an infant comes to be guilty of Adam’s sin, the answer is that he is guilty because he is Adam’s offspring by natural generation. Why is that infant deprived of the Original rectitude wherein Adam was created? Adam lost it by his sin and could not transmit to his posterity that which he had lost. Why is he naturally inclined to what is evil? This is because he no longer possesses that original purity. One not in possession of that original purity naturally inclines to what is evil. So the propensity toward evil is a necessary concomitant of the defect or loss of original righteousness. All of God's dealings with man are covenantal by nature, thus Adam, standing as the covenant representative of the human race, acted for us all in his rebellion against God in violating the covenant of works. This is the answer to the 'why' of inherited guilt. Natural generation answers the 'how.'