Where We Have Been

I have been sharing with you my own personal method for exegesis.  I have noted how that my exegesis begins with an evaluation of the text in the original languages.  I have shared how that I believe I need to do my own exegesis, and that I should not rely on the work or others, at least for my first unpackaging of a text.  I have also pointed out that what I am looking for in this approach is the grammar of the text.  If you believe in verbal, plenary inspiration as I do, then you must account for not only the words themselves, but how they appear in the text and the linguistic context as a whole.  A word’s meaning is most directly affected by the words that surround it, so grammar must be a chief consideration in interpretation.  In addition, as I work towards a homiletical outline of the text, I want to make sure my homiletical outline mirrors an exegetical outline.  Too many preachers have stood before God’s people to deliver His Word and have misconstrued a text of Scripture by failing to understand the grammar and building their sermon structure based on an English translation! 

A Practical Example

Let me give you an example.  The concepts I write about became incredibly clear to me when I began to study a passage in Ephesians 4.  I wanted to preach on the topic of wise use of our words and how to navigate church relationships, so I turned to Ephesians 4:25-32.  This text is preached on often enough, and I knew it to be a familiar passage for most people who have spent time in church, but my study of the grammar of this passage revealed much that I did not expect.  I have heard this passage used as a text on Biblical communication.  I cannot say where this originated, by have heard this text used to teach four principles for Christ-honoring speech: be honest (speak truth each with his neighbor), keep current (be angry and yet do not sin . . .), attack the problem not the person (let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth), and act, don’t react (all bitterness, wrath, anger . . . must be removed from you).  These are great principles that do indeed come directly from the text.  But this evaluation of the text has a simple yet profound problem: there are five imperatival phrases in the text!  Did you get that?  Five imperatival phrases!  Well how do we get “four principles for Christ-honoring speech” in a sermon when there are five commands in the text?  Somewhere along the line some well-meaning preacher glossed over or sped through his exegetical analysis of the grammar of this text!  What he came away with was no doubt a motivating sermon with four great principles for communication.  The problem is, this person stood up to speak for God but he did not teach the entirety of what God said in this text!

What Happened?

Let us consider how this error came about.  Upon close examination of the passage, one will find the phrase “the one who steals must no longer steal; but rather he must labor . . .”  In the original language of the New Testament, this is a command—an imperative!  It holds the very same weight as all the four principles given above, and yet somehow it has been “left out” of a popular evaluation of the text!  In addition to this, what does “theft” and “labor” have to do with “principles of communication?”  Upon putting all five of these imperatival clauses together, we find that the text is not about communication after all!  Instead, it is about godly relationships.  Paul is seeking to instruct the Ephesian believers concerning how to relate well with one another, and so he gives five principles for Christ honoring relations: be honest, keep current, choose self over others, attack the problem not the person, and act, do not react.  Notice how in relaying those principles I used the original four mentioned above and simply added “choose others over self” to capture the idea of working with one’s hands instead of stealing, but this changes the entire thrust of the text!  Instead of being about communication (though it does address this) the text now becomes a text about relationships as a whole.  If I were to “leave out” that fifth imperative phrase (number three in the text) and simply preach “four principles of effective Biblical communication” then I enter into the pulpit to speak for God and leave out a main part of what God says in the text!  God made this phrase a command for a reason, and not so that I can gloss over it!    

Final Thoughts

This is why I believe pastors must be efficient in working with the original languages of the Scriptures, and this is why I have committed myself to laboring in the text and the languages so as to keep myself from unknowingly adding to or detracting from the sacred Word of God!  We must remember that God holds teachers to a higher standard, and I believe that this accountability necessitates a deeper ability, skill, and knowledge for those who commit themselves to declaring God’s Word to God’s people as pastor/teachers.  Pastors need to make sure that their sermons accurately reflect what is in the text.  We have heard too many preachers give a riveting sermon with passion and flair only to find out that their “three points and a poem” actually was not three points at all; it was a verb and two participles in the original—one main idea and two supporting ideas in the text.  Yet the grammar of the text was not considered and in not doing so this well-meaning, good hearted preacher unknowingly spoke something that God did not say, all because he did not do his work in the languages.  Let us consider the solemn weight of the task to speak the Word of the Lord and be careful to not make the same mistake!