Where We Left Off
In my last post, which was an “introduction” to this series, which I’ve called “nuggets and nuances”, I talked about the importance of the Biblical languages and why I use them. I noted that I believe I need to do my own work in the text and not rely on the exegesis of others. Certainly, I do use commentaries, listen to sermons, and read books. But this is not where I start in my exegetical method; I start with the text!
My Methodology
So, what does this look like for me? I mentioned already how that every text is different, and every genre requires a unique approach. Based on this, my linguistic work will look differently based on the author, passage, and genre. By and large, when I am preaching or teaching from the New Testament, I begin with a translation. This is true especially for epistolary literature, where I attempt to have the entire book translated from Greek to English by the time I begin a sermon series over that book. I do this because I believe to interpret a passage, I need to immerse myself in the passage, and not just in the English. So many items are lost in translation! Key words or themes that appear in the Greek or Hebrews that would “clue us in” to key elements in the book are many times lost when a letter is translated from Greek to English. I want to be able to work with the text before those items are lost.
This of course is also an extension of my view on inspiration. I believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, meaning that each word and its syntax, not just the key themes, were written by divine inspiration. As I read the text as it was originally written (as best preserved in our current available copy of the original) I am able to see how the Holy Spirit masterfully structured even the grammar of the text to communicate what God intended. Speaking of grammar, that is what I am looking for when I do my translation work. Word studies have a purpose, but Greek in particular uses so many multifunction words used in various contexts that I have found word studies to only be of limited value; what I am really after is the grammar! I will oftentimes take my translation and put it into a block diagram or sentence diagram so that I can visualize the structure. Again, this stems from my view of inspiration—if God inspired the grammar and syntax, not just the words themselves, but how they actually appear in the text, then I want to make sure I can understand what parts of speech were used and why. This then becomes the basis for my movement from exegesis and hermeneutics to exposition and homiletics. If I am to stand up for God and speak His Word, and even break a paragraph or pericope into main points with supporting arguments, I had better make sure I have the structure of the text right! This is where so many pastors fail. Many a man has stood before the people of God to proclaim the Word of God, but they did not study the grammar of a text and therefore actually spoke something that God did not speak. Oftentimes the grammar of a text is not evident in an English translation, therefore it remains extremely important that interpreters “put in the time” to work with the languages!
Other Genres
I have shared my approach to epistolary literature, but what about other genres? How does my linguistic work change depending on the genre? What about Old Testament for instance? Again, this depends on the passage, but in much of the Old Testament I might not perform a full translation of the text. Narrative for instance, whether Old or New Testament, is not as much about the structure as it is about the story—so block diagramming is going to be of little help. Oftentimes one will deal with more than a few verses at a time—sometimes even chapters! A full translation every week might not really be feasible in this scenario, so some sort of “linguistical triage” must be performed. Here I would seek to focus on key words or phrases in the narrative that appear to carry significant meaning. For instance, in the book of Jonah, as Jonah runs from God, the author gives very intentional verbiage in relation to God’s pursuit of Jonah. We read of God performing specific actions in this narrative—“The Lord sent a storm . . . the Lord provided a fish” etc. I would focus on some of those types of nuances and not as much a full translation (though I did do one last time I preached through Jonah). These action words are given to us intentionally in the text, and they clearly communicate to us that this story was not spiraling out of control; God was pursuing Jonah! Considering a different genre, I would perform a full translation and perhaps even a diagram if I were to teach a psalm—perhaps one of the “pocket psalms” that can be easily taught in one sermon, as opposed to one like Psalm 119 which is a different type of psalm altogether. In the end the genre determines the approach, but even the genre does not warrant a full translation and diagram, I am still working in the original languages of the text to find nuances not apparent at face value.
Final Thoughts
This is my method; this is the method I was taught in seminary; this is the method used by some of the best pastors I have ever had. But everyone does utilize their own approach to Scripture! I am simply trying to outline my own so as to present it as a thoroughly text-based approach that puts what is written the text first and seeks to honor a high view of inspiration. Next time I plan to give you some practical examples—some nuggets and nuances if you will, to help illustration why I interpret the Bible the way I do and why I believe homiletics begins with exegesis, and exegesis must begin with an analysis of the original languages.
