Homiletical Handbook

Donald L. Hamilton

• Publisher: B&H Books
• Year: 1992
• ISBN:
  9781433675010
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Homiletical Handbook is a primer for those who are called to preach. It is intentionally simple in its explanation of the homiletical task and straightforward in getting to the point. It is solid in its theology and biblical in its approach.

PART 1

UNDERSTANDING
OUR HOMILETICAL
TASK

1

THE IMPORTANCE
OF PREACHING

Preachers invest much of their lives in thinking about sermons. If they preach regularly, they are all too aware that their praying, Bible reading, planning, studying, outlining, writing, practicing, and delivery involve a major time expenditure.

The typical evangelical pastor preaches two sermons weekly. He may also be responsible for other presentations, such as a Sunday School lesson or a brief devotional message for a midweek service. Even if he possesses the keenest of minds, the pastor will find that the major part of his work week is spent in study and sermon/lesson preparation. The preacher will most certainly ask himself on occasion, “Is it really worth all the effort?”

Apparently, most preachers believe it is. The extensive Gallup Poll conducted for Christianity Today in 1979 indicated that a large majority of American pastors (56 percent) felt that preaching was one of the most important things they did. (The second closest item was the administration of the sacraments or ordinances, marked by only 15 percent of the respondents.) However, in the same poll, only 10 percent of those surveyed mentioned preaching as being especially successful.¹ Evidently, pastors want to preach well but feel they are not very effective at it.

What Is Preaching?

In his book A Primer for Preachers, Ian Pitt-Watson titles his first chapter “What comes first.”² He explains that he is using these words as a statement, not as a question. Just as he argues that “what?” must necessarily precede the “how?” issue, so it should be understood that “what?” must also precede the “why?” question. If we correctly understand what preaching is, then we can better understand why it should be done and how.

The biblical concept of preaching is centered in one word from the Old Testament and four from the New Testament. Other words come into play, but these predominate. The Old Testament word is naba, which translated into English means “prophesy”; it is used over 110 times. In the New Testament we find kerusso (“to proclaim,” about 60 times), euaggelizo (“to declare good news,” 50 times), kataggello (“to tell thoroughly,” 17 times), and didasko (“to teach,” 97 times). In addition, the New Testament word parakaleo (“to beseech, comfort, exhort,” 103 times) is sometimes used in the sense of preaching, although this is not its usual meaning.

Much of the preaching in the Old Testament appears to involve direct revelation from God. During or after the exile, preaching began to take the shape of textual exposition as a part of synagogue worship. In the New Testament, the terms seem to be used somewhat interchangeably, although kerusso and kataggello emphasize the activity of preaching, while euaggelizo and parakaleo emphasize the nature and purpose of the message being preached.

The inclusion of didasko with the more traditional terms raises the issue concerning the difference, if any, between preaching and teaching. The issue needs to be addressed on two levels: biblical and theological, practical and cultural.

In regard to the former, the distinction between preaching and teaching has been advocated most effectively by C. H. Dodd.³ He argued in favor of a clear difference between the two, saying that preaching (kerusso) had to do with the kerygma (that is, the basic gospel, as found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4), while the concept of teaching (didasko) had to do with didache (that is, the body of doctrine and ethics meant for believers). Thus, in Dodd's view, New Testament preaching was always evangelistic, while teaching involved the doctrinal and ethical matters of Christianity. Preaching was carried on outside the church, while teaching was carried on inside.

Some recent scholarship has disputed Dodd's thesis,⁴ pointing out that the two categories Dodd suggested are not, in reality, all that unique. It has also shown that a careful study of New Testament word usage indicates that kerusso and euaggelizo are sometimes used interchangeably with didasko. (Compare Matt. 4:23, “teaching in their synagogues,” with Mark 1:39, “preached in their synagogues.” The concepts also appear to overlap in texts like Acts 5:42; 28:31; Col. 1:28.)

As far as the practical and/or cultural distinction between preaching and teaching is concerned, several things enter the picture. (1) In some circles, a topical treatment of the text has been called preaching, while an “expository” treatment of a passage is said to be teaching. (2) In some circles, the word preach and its cognates have been thought to communicate too much dogmatism or authority, and the usage of teacher (rather than preacher) has become popular. (The expression “don't preach at me” clearly has a negative connotation.) (3) Some who prefer the term teacher do so because Ephesians 4:11 uses the phrase “pastors and teachers” v to refer to one leadership position in the church. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2 says that the bishop must be “able to teach” (NIV). (4) In some cultures (Japan, for example), a teacher is traditionally looked upon with great respect, and this results in the use of that title in those cultural situations.

Still, is there a difference between preaching and teaching, between a sermon and a lesson? Any supposed difference is not very easy to define apart from our own cultural understandings. Is the supposed difference based on the seating arrangement of the room, the bodily posture of the teacher or preacher, the use of voice, the degree and nature of the audience's participation, the way the passage of Scripture is being handled, the sex of the person doing the talking, or the formality or informality of the setting?

Surely, each of these is arbitrary. Preachers in first century synagogues sat down to address their audiences (see Luke 4:20-21). Does this make them teachers instead of preachers? Some pastors speak to their congregations with great fire and enthusiasm, while others use the pulpit to explain and apply the Word of God calmly and rationally. Must we arbitrarily assign the former to the category of “preacher” and the latter to the category of “teacher”? Suppose that a pastor shares his understanding of a passage and its application with one other person in a discipling situation and then shares exactly the same message with the entire congregation. Is it the difference in setting that makes the initial message “teaching” and the second one “preaching”? J. I. Packer shows that euaggelizo is used of Paul when he speaks to a synagogue gathering in Pisidian Antioch and to groups gathered in the marketplace at Athens. It is also used of Philip speaking to the Ethiopian eunuch in a chariot.⁵

Obviously, arriving at a clear distinction between preaching and teaching is difficult, if a distinction does in fact exist. It seems that every attempt to show a difference between the two concepts ends in inconsistency. While using the term teaching to refer to classroom situations may be helpful, particularly where there is verbal interaction among the participants, the use of both preaching and teaching rightly characterizes the pulpit.

It is preferable to think of both preaching and teaching as the communication of the Word of God—the giving of a message based on the Bible and applied to life today. When that is being done before an audience (can we realistically limit the size?) with the speaker having taken the initiative in formulating what he is saying, it can be called preaching.

Traditionally, preaching has been carried out in the mode of speech making. The word sermon comes from the Latin sermo, meaning “a speech or a talk.” Most preaching, therefore, will be carried out in a monologue with some measure of formality. Remember that this recognition is more cultural than biblical.

We return to the larger question under consideration: What is preaching? In his Lyman Beecher lectures delivered at Yale more than 100 years ago, Phillips Brooks said: “Preaching is the communication of truth by man to men. It has in it two essential elements: truth and personality.”⁶ Though Brooks probably never intended for this statement to be understood as a formal definition of preaching, it is probably the most oft-quoted definition of preaching. He is often paraphrased as saying that “preaching is truth through personality,” and this expression is quoted by many from a wide variety of backgrounds.

A variation of Brooks' definition comes from J. Daniel Baumann: “Preaching is the communication of biblical truth by man to men with the explicit purpose of eliciting behavioral change.”⁷ This is an improvement on the former definition, for it includes the concepts of “biblical truth” and specific purpose (“behavioral change”). Although Baumann's definition is somewhat brief, it includes several important concepts.

Haddon Robinson offers a very thorough statement about expository preaching which can be applied to other kinds of sermons as well:

Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, arrived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through him to his hearers.⁸

A definition can only say so much about a subject without becoming awkward and too complicated. Other things must be added to mere definition. In regard to preaching, Packer highlights the following truths:⁹

1. Its content is God's message to man, presented as such.
2. The purpose of preaching is to inform, persuade, and call forth an appropriate response to the God whose message and instruction are being delivered.
3. The perspective of preaching is always applicatory….
4. Authority is also integral to the notion of what preaching is.…
5. Preaching mediates not only God's authority, but also His presence and His power….

Even a casual reflection on the preceding definitions and truths should convince us that preaching really is quite unique. As Pitt-Watson said, “It is sui generis—in a class by itself.”¹⁰

Why Preach?

Having now discussed the nature of preaching, let us turn our attention to the question: “Why preach?” As Packer correctly points out, there is both an objective and a subjective response to the question.¹¹ The objective issue is whether God intends for preaching to continue to be a part of the life and work of the church. This issue is usually discussed in the context of the great communication advances made in the 20th century. Is not pulpit monologue at least slightly out-of-date in comparison to television and film? Are not techniques such as small-group dialogues or multimedia presentations more likely to be effective? Even if it is granted that preaching has had a tremendous effect on church history, and subsequently on world history, has it not lived beyond its real usefulness?

The Objective Response

Actually, this is not a question uniquely new to the present generation. James W. Alexander, a pastor and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, expressed concerns about the demise of preaching well over one hundred years ago:

I fear none...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Table of Contents
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Bibliography