The Message, The Method, and The Messenger

Posted by expedition44 on June 2, 2026

Few practices have shaped the life of the Church more profoundly than preaching. From the public reading of Torah in ancient Israel to the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel throughout the Roman world, the people of God have always been formed by the spoken Word. Yet despite its centrality, preaching often suffers from a crisis of identity. In some contexts, it has been reduced to theological information transfer. In others, it has become motivational speaking wrapped in biblical language. Still elsewhere, preaching is treated primarily as a platform for personality, charisma, or cultural commentary. The result is that many aspiring preachers learn how to construct sermons before they ever wrestle with the deeper theological question of what preaching actually is or the faithful understanding of the text itself. A biblical theology of proclamation requires a more foundational approach. Before discussing outlines, illustrations, delivery techniques, or sermon structure, one must first ask what the preacher has been entrusted to proclaim. The recovery of faithful homiletics begins not with technique but with theology. It begins with understanding the relationship between the message, the method, and the messenger.

The Priority of the Message

Biblical proclamation begins with the conviction that God speaks. This seemingly simple assertion stands beneath the entire biblical narrative. Scripture is not merely a record of religious experiences or theological reflections; it is the testimony of a God who reveals Himself, enters covenant, and addresses His people. The authority of preaching, therefore, does not derive from the giftedness of the preacher, the expectations of the congregation, or the cultural relevance of the sermon. It derives from the God who has spoken and continues to speak through Scripture by the Holy Spirit.¹

This understanding distinguishes biblical preaching from virtually every other form of communication. The preacher does not stand before the congregation primarily as a lecturer, motivational speaker, storyteller, or religious commentator. Rather, the preacher stands as a steward under authority. The task is not to create a message but to faithfully proclaim a message already given. As Paul exhorts Timothy, the charge is remarkably simple and yet profoundly demanding: “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2).²

This reality places significant constraints upon the preacher. The sermon cannot be governed primarily by personal preference, cultural trends, political ideology, or popular opinion. Scripture itself must govern the sermon. The preacher is called to submit to the text before proclaiming the text. As Haddon Robinson famously observed, biblical preaching derives both its substance and authority from Scripture rather than from the ingenuity of the communicator.³ For this reason, faithful proclamation requires more than isolated proof texts or devotional reflections. It demands serious engagement with authorial intent, literary structure, historical setting, canonical context, and theological meaning. The biblical text must be allowed to speak on its own terms before it can be applied to contemporary hearers.⁴

From Information to Transformation

One of the persistent temptations within theological education is to confuse explanation with proclamation. Exegesis is indispensable. Careful interpretation matters. Historical and literary context matter. Yet a sermon is not complete simply because a passage has been explained correctly. Throughout Scripture, proclamation consistently presses toward transformation. The reading of Torah under Ezra in Nehemiah 8 did not merely increase knowledge; it produced conviction, worship, repentance, and renewed covenant identity. The preaching ministry of Jesus consistently called for response. The sermons of Acts repeatedly moved listeners toward repentance, faith, obedience, and participation in the life of the Kingdom. Biblical proclamation aims not merely at understanding but at formation.⁵

This movement might be summarized as:

Text → Meaning → Theology → Proclamation → Transformation

Each movement matters. A sermon that skips theological reflection often becomes shallow moralism. A sermon that neglects application becomes an academic lecture. A sermon that focuses exclusively on application without careful interpretation often descends into subjective spirituality detached from the text. Faithful preaching requires movement through each stage in order that hearers may encounter not merely biblical information but the living God who addresses them through Scripture.⁶ This transformational emphasis also explains why preaching cannot be reduced to intellectual persuasion alone. Paul reminds the Corinthians that his proclamation did not rest merely upon “plausible words of wisdom” but upon a demonstration of the Spirit’s power (1 Cor. 2:4). Biblical preaching occupies a unique space where careful study and spiritual dependence converge. The preacher labors diligently with the text while simultaneously depending upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate, convict, heal, and transform.

The Necessity of Method

If the message concerns what is proclaimed, the method concerns how the preacher moves responsibly from text to sermon. Throughout church history, faithful preachers have recognized that Spirit-led proclamation does not eliminate the need for disciplined preparation. Rather, preparation becomes an act of stewardship. The false dichotomy between study and Spirit remains one of the most damaging assumptions in modern preaching culture. Some preachers lean so heavily upon spontaneity that careful exegesis is neglected. Others become so consumed with academic precision that little room remains for pastoral warmth, spiritual discernment, or Spirit-sensitive application. Scripture consistently calls for both discipline and dependence.⁷

A responsible homiletical method begins with observation. Before asking what a text means, the preacher must first learn to see what is actually present within the text itself. Repeated themes, literary structures, key words, narrative movements, and theological tensions all deserve careful attention. Interpretation then seeks to understand the meaning of those observations within their historical, literary, and canonical contexts. Only after this work has been completed can the preacher move toward theological reflection and contemporary application.⁸ This process is particularly important because the Bible contains multiple literary genres, each requiring distinct interpretive sensitivities. Narrative texts function differently than prophetic oracles. Wisdom literature communicates differently than apocalyptic visions. Epistles differ from psalms. Failure to recognize these distinctions often results in misapplication or theological distortion.⁹

Equally important is the identification of the central burden of the text. Every faithful sermon should emerge from the primary theological claim of the passage rather than from a collection of disconnected observations. Bryan Chapell refers to this as the “fallen condition focus,” while Robinson describes it as the “big idea” of the sermon.¹⁰ Whatever terminology one adopts, the principle remains the same: a sermon should move coherently from the text’s central claim toward the response God seeks from His people. The goal of method, therefore, is not to create rigid formulas but to provide a faithful pathway from biblical text to pastoral proclamation.

The Messenger and the Embodied Word

Perhaps the most neglected dimension of homiletics in contemporary ministry is the formation of the messenger. Modern conversations about preaching often focus almost exclusively upon content or communication techniques. Yet Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that proclamation flows through a person whose life either reinforces or undermines the message being proclaimed.

The New Testament consistently holds life and doctrine together. Paul instructs Timothy to “watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). Peter exhorts elders to shepherd willingly and honorably (1 Pet. 5:1–4). James warns that teachers will be judged more strictly (Jas. 3:1). These passages reveal a sobering truth: the preacher cannot be separated from the proclamation.¹¹ This does not mean that preachers must achieve perfection before they are qualified to speak. Scripture itself presents deeply flawed leaders such as Moses, David, Peter, and Paul. Yet it does mean that character formation matters. Holiness matters. Humility matters. Integrity matters. Emotional health matters. The messenger does not create the authority of the message, but the messenger can certainly obscure it.

In many respects, contemporary ministry culture often rewards giftedness more quickly than character. Charisma can attract attention. Communication skills can generate influence. Yet Scripture consistently prioritizes faithfulness over platform. The greatest dangers facing preachers are not merely theological error but pride, hypocrisy, manipulation, performance identity, and the temptation to use ministry for self-exaltation rather than service.¹² This is why spiritual formation must remain central to homiletical training. Prayer is not a supplement to sermon preparation; it is part of sermon preparation. Dependence upon the Holy Spirit is not an optional charismatic addition to preaching; it belongs to the very nature of biblical proclamation. The preacher is called not merely to explain the Word but to embody its transforming power through a life increasingly conformed to Christ.

A Holistic Vision for Biblical Proclamation

The healthiest vision of preaching emerges when the message, the method, and the messenger remain properly integrated. When the message is emphasized without attention to method, sermons often become disorganized or inaccessible. When method is emphasized without theological depth, preaching becomes technique-driven. When both message and method are present without spiritual formation, preaching risks becoming professionally competent yet spiritually hollow.

The biblical vision is far richer.

The message must remain governed by Scripture and centered upon Christ. The method must move responsibly from text to proclamation through careful interpretation and pastoral application. The messenger must continually submit to the transforming work of the Holy Spirit so that life and doctrine remain joined together. Only when these three dimensions converge does preaching become what it was always intended to be: a sacred act of stewardship through which God addresses His people, forms disciples, builds His Church, and advances His Kingdom.

THINKTANK

One additional practice that deserves far more attention in modern preaching is the role of community in sermon formation. While the final responsibility of proclamation rests with the preacher, the healthiest sermons are often shaped long before the preacher steps into the pulpit. Too many ministers prepare in isolation when God has already surrounded them with gifted people within the Body of Christ. Pastors, elders, teachers, musicians, creatives, counselors, intercessors, and ministry leaders each bring unique perspectives that can enrich the development of a message.

In many ministry contexts, sermon preparation benefits from functioning more like a think tank than a solitary exercise. Weeks before a message is delivered, trusted voices can help identify theological tensions, pastoral concerns, cultural blind spots, practical applications, and potential red flags. Others may contribute research, historical insights, illustrations, testimonies, or ministry implications that the primary communicator might otherwise overlook. Worship leaders often help identify themes that can be reinforced through music. Creative teams can envision visual elements and storytelling opportunities. Pastoral teams can anticipate how different groups within the congregation may hear and respond to the message. This collaborative process not only strengthens the sermon itself but also creates greater unity across the ministries of the church.

Such collaboration reflects a deeply biblical vision of the Church. Paul reminds us that the Body consists of many members, each contributing distinct gifts for the common good. The preacher remains responsible for stewarding the final message, yet wisdom often emerges through the collective discernment of Spirit-filled believers working together. In this sense, sermon preparation becomes an act of communal discipleship rather than merely an individual task.

When practiced intentionally, this process also allows church leaders to think beyond a single sermon and toward the larger formation of the congregation. Through thoughtful planning, scope and sequence, sermon series development, and long-range discipleship goals, leaders can begin to map how individual messages contribute to the overall spiritual development of the church. Rather than treating each sermon as an isolated event, preaching becomes part of a larger strategy of Kingdom formation, helping people move steadily toward maturity in Christ. In many ways, the most effective preaching ministries are not built on great sermons alone, but on communities of leaders prayerfully discerning together what God is saying to His people and how best to shepherd them toward faithful obedience.

Conclusion: Bearing the Weight and Wonder of the Call

At the end of the day, homiletics is not ultimately about sermons. It is about people.

It is about men and women made in the image of God who are longing for hope, truth, healing, direction, reconciliation, purpose, and life. It is about weary souls carrying burdens they cannot articulate, families navigating hardship, prodigals searching for home, disciples seeking maturity, and communities longing to encounter the living Christ. Every week, those people gather before the people entrusted with the ministry of proclamation, and the question remains: will they merely hear a speech, or will they encounter the Word of God? That is the sacred privilege and responsibility of the preacher.

The calling to preach has never been about building platforms, gathering followers, crafting polished presentations, or becoming a religious personality. The preacher is first and foremost a steward. We are entrusted with something that does not belong to us. The message is His. The people are His. The Church is His. The Kingdom is His. Our task is simply to handle the Word faithfully, proclaim it courageously, embody it authentically, and leave the results in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

This is why the message matters. This is why the method matters. This is why the messenger matters.

The message must remain anchored in Scripture because people need more than our opinions. They need a Word from God. The method matters because faithful stewardship requires diligence, discipline, and careful handling of the text. The messenger matters because people are not merely listening to what we say; they are observing the life through which the message is being delivered. Long after many sermons are forgotten, people will often remember whether they encountered a humble servant of Christ whose life reflected the Gospel being proclaimed. For those called to preach, teach, shepherd, disciple, and lead, the challenge is not simply to become better communicators. The challenge is to become people who dwell deeply with Christ. Fruitfulness in ministry has always flowed from abiding before it flows from activity. Before Jesus sent His disciples into the world, He first called them to be with Him. Before there was proclamation, there was formation. Before there was ministry, there was relationship.

The Church does not ultimately need more celebrities, influencers, performers, or experts. The Church needs faithful servants who know the Scriptures, hear the voice of the Spirit, love people deeply, and are willing to spend their lives helping others follow Jesus. It needs shepherds who can handle truth with conviction and people with tenderness. It needs proclaimers who can move responsibly from text to transformation and who understand that every sermon is an opportunity to participate in God’s ongoing work of redemption. If God has entrusted you with this calling, receive it with humility, but also with confidence. The same Spirit who inspired the Word still empowers its proclamation. The same Christ who commissioned His disciples still builds His Church. The same God who called prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, and evangelists continues to raise up laborers for His harvest field.

So study diligently. Pray fervently. Shepherd faithfully. Preach courageously. Love deeply. Remain teachable. Stay near to Christ. And never forget that the goal is not simply to preach sermons, but to make disciples who embody the life and mission of the Kingdom.

May your message be biblical. May your method be faithful. May your life reflect the Gospel you proclaim.

And may the Lord use your words, your witness, and your obedience to bear much fruit for the glory of Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom.

Written with Dr. Steve Cassell

Endnotes

John Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 89.
Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), 13.
Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 21.
Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 27.
Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 11.
Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 43.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 95.
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 31.
Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 19.
Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 35; Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 51.
Timothy Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Viking, 2015), 293.
Eugene H. Peterson, The Contemplative Pastor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 7.

Teaching Philosophy and Theology

Posted by expedition44 on April 10, 2025

I have taught theology and religion in higher education for most of my life and what continually excites me is the continual innovation of theological interpretation. I have taken many years of Biblical language coursework which reflects in me now holding several related degrees, and I often joke that all my years of hard study could be traded for the simple innovation particularly of a good digital interlinear within the last 5 years. As an example, higher education within theology now attempts to better teach how to use linguistic interpretation tools (such as an online interlinear) rather than spending a lot of time actually teaching the language itself.

There are several factors that influence this conversation. In philosophical instruction deduction and induction give us a basis for understanding and learning attribution. Deduction as a construct does not bring forth knowledge any more than induction. [1] Dewey M. Beegle, for instance, opts for a priority of induction (Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 16) and he chides the upholders of inerrancy for having permitted an Aristotelian scholastic method of deductive reasoning to obscure the phenomena of Scripture which, he feels, should have been the foundation on which inductive reasoning could have developed a truly biblical view. [2] Yet he has a place for both. Naturally an inductive study tends to be more exegetical in nature where several textures of interpretation come into play such as 1) inner texture, 2) intertexture, 3) social and cultural texture, 4) ideological texture, and 5) sa‐cred texture. [3] Deductive studies are usually eisegetical which is prompted by a topic, doctrine, or concept. [4] Logos Software specialists and Ben Ho would then deduct that “The deductive method of reasoning moves toward necessary conclusions derived from correct connections between premises premises which are all either given or assumed to be true. The inductive method of reasoning moves toward possible conclusions derived from hypothetical connections between premises (observations) which are selected from among all possible true premises (observations). [5]

Many of these things combined with a better modern world understanding of learning have helped scholars and teachers approach theology and the life applications of studying both biblically and systematically. Bloom’s Taxonomy, for instance, is a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators set for their students otherwise known as learning objectives. [6] Understanding learning styles and fine tuning a taxonomy tailored to theology such as I began explaining through the lens of linguistics has very much changed the shape and applications of religious texts academically and towards a spiritual life application.

It is quite intriguing for religion based on a text that is at most 3500 years old (in some cases) to still be the topic of several new theological revelations. [7] And I say this from historical texture rather than spiritual. I also find that as religious studies, biblical studies and both systematic and biblical theology are all closely related fields; the nature of the scientific approach can change immensely across the different threads. [8] I have found that as time flows different things impact the interest levels of students that you might not get in other humanities. Authorship seems more well read in a spiritual climate, practices, beliefs, and traditions [9] are often greater impacted by culture trends and larger organization input. On one hand the more systematic side of things tends to be objective and academic while the experiences, approaches, applications, and examinations [10] (discussed more often in a taxonomy conversation) often tend to be more of the spiritual nature and difficult to measure. There is also an anthropological, cultural, and sociological texture [11] that influence interpretation both at the level of the intended audience and to our current life application. These tend to carry more faith based or subjective assertations. All of these dynamics have the ability to deepen your understanding of the religion at hand but accomplish the feat in very different methodologies.

I say all of these things, to come to the conclusion that there has never been as exciting as a time in history to teach theology. Unlike the other humanities, this will have the power to change every facet of life as you know it. Your life will truly be transformed by the interpretation of the text.

https://philosophical-theology.com/2024/05/05/deduction-induction-tag/
https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/induction-and-deduction-with-reference-to-inspiration
Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. ISBN 978-1-56338-183-6.
https://www.fastmissions.com/article/inductive-vs-deductive-study
https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/113029-inductive-and-deductive-bible-studies?sso=false
https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/#gsc.tab=0
https://the-bible.net/how-old-is-the-bible/
Carson, D. A. (2018). NIV, Biblical Theology Study Bible, eBook: Follow God’s Redemptive Plan as It Unfolds throughout Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310450436.
Sponsel, Leslie E. (2014). “Spiritual Ecology”. In Leeming, David A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (2nd ed.). Boston: Springer. pp. 1718–1723. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9295. ISBN 978-1-4614-6087-9.
Garrett, James Leo (2014). Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Fourth Edition. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 9781498206594.
Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (January 1998). “The extended mind”. Analysis. 58 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7. JSTOR 3328150.; reprinted as: Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (2010). “Chapter 2: The extended mind”. In Richard Menary (ed.). The Extended Mind. MIT Press. pp. 27–42. ISBN 9780262014038.

Faithful Exegesis – Teaching a better Hermeneutic

Posted by expedition44 on November 9, 2024

Wait what? All that in the one word? -I don’t think so!

Just about every day I scroll through a “BIBLE” meme on Facebook that makes me cringe. I used to comment but I no longer do largely because I think sometimes people don’t interpret the comments as useful, or teaching better theology but as some kind of self-promotion, or “I think I am better than you” type of thing. I think that is unfortunate. I believe part of shepherding and discipleship is a Mars Hill or rabbinical teaching method of being open to constantly learning and working through a better understanding of the test with the giftings of those around you. To keep each other Biblically sharp and accountable to be faithful to the text. Letting people get really loose with the text has led to alot of bad theology and ditch diving. I believe the Bible greatly encouraged textual exploration together within the body. That is what the body of Christ is supposed to do. I have 40 years of deeply studying the Bible under my belt and God has gifted me with a certain learned spiritual intuition of exegesis. I hope it comes as a gift to those that have a learning posture towards the scripture. To those more interested in fighting or finger pointing, or making internet dumpster fires, I am not interested.

THE MEME:

At first glance this probably looks pretty neat. It’s challenging, it looks at the original language rather than an English glossed translation, it comes off as going deeper. So, what’s the problem? Well, it isn’t faithful.

A faithful translation means you let the text speak for the text. You don’t read your own desire into the text. This commonly referred to as good exegesis.

In this case, here are some issues:

One word? Sort of. The text is Genesis 3:9. Start by typing that into a browser followed by the word interlinear. The first link will be the Bible Hub, click it. The word is ’ay·yek·kāh and you will see the [are] is in parentheses. It technically isn’t in the text but linguistically it is- but it is understood such as an understood “YOU” in English. Click the word and you are going to find there is only one occurrence of this “word” or conjunction of words in the Bible. This is called a Hapax Legomenon. The basic hermeneutical law or idea of any Hapax Legomenon is because it is rare don’t read too much into it. See if you can find how it is used outside of the Bible to give you a better understanding of how the text uses it. But in this case, it isn’t a “TRUE” Hapax Legomenon in the sense that if you click the root word above which is Strong’s 335 you will see the root is “ay” in Hebrew which occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. We have a pretty good idea of what it means! There are some words or phrases in the Bible where we don’t even have the root anywhere else and that is a better example of a Hapax Legomenon, but they are both technically considered Hapax Legomenon’s. This one we can see essentially means “where or how” which makes sense in the English translation “where are you?” I would encourage you to read the usage and cultural notes below the word. These are theologically very basic and at times arguable, but still give you a better start. In this case it notes that the word can come with distress or lament. Seems true to this text! It also notes that this particular word is often noted of spiritual locations within the cosmos. Again, true to the text. Most of the time these notes don’t get too controversial and are written by well noted scholars. This is sort of important because there are other similar words in Hebrew that could have been used without a sometimes-spiritual emphasis. We see this importance in Deuteronomy 32 when the text asks “Where are there gods.” It is also used in 1 Samuel 9:18 in regard to the SEER. It is used in 2 Samuel 15:2 in regard to the city which is interesting and could be signified as one of the reasons I believe in ancient times cities were gatherings of fallen spiritual beings and people aligned to their ways and rival to Yahweh. In Job 2 it is used to ask where “the satan” came from. The problem is (as you can see to the column on the right of all the verses using this Hebrew root) there are at least a few texts that don’t seem to take on “spiritual spatial” significance, it just means where? So that tells us we can’t read too much into a sense of cosmic space every time we see the word used. Hermeneutically it may or may not have spiritual bearing. Therefore, we have to determine from the rest of the text whether it does or not. In other words, we don’t have the “RIGHT” to attribute a spiritual significance to the simple text “where” unless something in the rest of the text gives it to us for certain. If the text doesn’t grant it, then we have to determine if we the ability to say it could go that way, but we don’t know for sure. It may or may not have spiritual spatial implications. In this text we already know they are in Eden, so the context gives us the sacred space.

To say that it is one word is accurate (I would have said the same thing), but it’s a bit complicated as in Hebrew bits of different words form one word. This is actually really helpful in determining what one word can mean because we can break the word up and study the microcosm of it. In this case you would think all the things the author of that post says the word means would be great if the word could have been textually broken up that way. The problem in this case is it doesn’t say all those things. We get “where” which (as we already noted) may or likely implies a spiritual search-find. You could take away from the text exegetically that God is “searching us out” or “looking for us” or perhaps even noting that the space is spiritual as I already alluded to. All of those things could be good exegesis. That is what the text gives us. Next, we have the understood {ARE}. We don’t really get anything magical from that. Then we have “you” essentially as formed into the singular word. There is really not much to exegete there either. He is talking to a certain person. DO we have the right to insert our name here? Well, the genre of this text is a historical narrative. Simply telling the story. So no, we don’t really have the right to insert our name. Because God was seeking out Adam in the garden doesn’t give us the textual ability to say He searches us out the same. He may or may not, but the text doesn’t give us that warrant. So here you see the author of the meme breaking some huge theological and hermeneutical laws. He takes a text that isn’t about him and tries to make it about him or us. This is called reading into the text. Using the Bible to twist it into saying what you want it to say without the merit of the text giving you that. Now could it mean that later God will act the same towards you? Yeah, later the text may do that but here it doesn’t. However, if you read the text doing that for others in the story over and over and over you might come to an ontological conclusion that if there are 26 examples of God acting this way in the narrative, we have then maybe he acts this way towards me too! (But to be clear, the text still wouldn’t give us that for certain.) Sometimes people take a lot of latitude to say the scripture means something that the text never gave or intended to give. That seems to be the case here. It simply isn’t good theology or maybe even theology at all. It is saying the Bible says something in a text that doesn’t say that.
“God’s first words after the fall” – We don’t know this either. The Bible doesn’t give us the full account. There may have been other words. Perhaps these are the first words in the Bible after the fall. But making the statement that the author makes in the way that he does isn’t true. Does this seem nitpicky? Maybe but there is a difference, and it matters in biblical interpretation and textual criticism.
This is classic for someone trying to make a doctrine or in the authors words, “a whole theology” over something the text doesn’t say. The text says nothing of the lost. Was Adam lost? We aren’t told that he was. Was he asking for a confession. Later scripture tells us that when we sin, we need to confess, but that isn’t in the text here. What about restoration and redemption? Well, everyone knows God wants restoration and redemption, right? But this text doesn’t go here either. Are you following me? There are texts that talk about redemption and restoration but not this one. In fact, maybe the opposite. This text leads to exile from the garden, that is the opposite of restoration. So what it does tell us is exile may come before restorative acts. That could be a more faithful takeaway than what the author of the meme comes up with. The author improperly says the text means something that isn’t given to us. It is as if the author is trying to write his own Bible and proof text the word to say what he wants it to say. The real problem is that we are saying the word says something that it isn’t. Maybe other places say that, but a better hermeneutic is to only exegete what the text says. Don’t add or fill in anything. There is no context for the takeaways the author asserts over the text.

CONCLUSION

A Faithful reading of the text means we only take away what the text gives us. We can’t read anything else into it. I can’t tell you how many times in a sermon I hear a pastor say “the Bible says this” and goes on to quote a verse that doesn’t say anything close to what the pastor says it said. In many cases we have become all too comfortable with accepting things like this, and it has led to a lot of bad consequences. It seems there are so many people are using the Bible for their own gain saying what they want it to ay and that is unfaithful to the text.

NOTE; The Bible Hub is free, easily accessible and works well. LOGOS is better but is $$$.

Dr. Will Ryan