The conference

I hope not to be exclusivist with this thread, but in some sense I am looking for dialogue mostly with people who were at the AIM/College of Preachers conference last week where Kent Hughes addressed us on the subject of “Breathing Life into Exposition – Preaching from Genesis”, and preached a sample sermon on Genesis 19. Contributions on the broader topic, though, are most welcome from all.

I want to say upfront that I gained enormous respect for Kent Hughes as a man and as a preacher through that conference. I will use his sermon on Genesis 19 (of which I am going to be critical) as an illustration of a broader issue, which in fact dogs most “expository” preaching on the patriarchal narratives of Genesis that I have heard. But I would hate for my wrestling with this topic to be construed in any way as an indictment of a godly servant of Christ, so I felt the need to say that upfront.

The problem

My basic question is in fact whether Kent’s approach to preaching Genesis 19:30-38 was, in fact, expository preaching. In other words, has Kent brought out the meaning of the text of Genesis? It has the appearance of expository preaching because it refers to all the verses in the passage and discusses them. But was he in fact giving an exposition of the text? I will argue that he was in fact teaching his theological paradigm through the text. He was using the text as an illustrative window into another area of Christian belief. I will also argue that this matters!

Now the theological paradigm that Kent taught through the text is entirely Christian. I have no quibbles with what he taught as truth. But I think that the orthodoxy of what he taught only helps deceive us into thinking that Genesis is actually teaching this paradigm, when there is no reason in Genesis itself to believe it does anything of the sort.

The Sample Sermon

Kent preached on the episode where Lot’s daughters get him drunk, commit incest and bear children to him. Basically, Kent spoke of the ‘descent’ of Lot and his daughters into the sin of Sodom from which they have escaped, which he concluded to be a lesson about being in the world, but not of the world, and thus applied against materialism. I hope I have summarized him fairly.

My take on it

Now, Genesis is supposed to be the foundational document of the Jewish and Christian Faiths. Therefore, I think we might reasonably expect that it will actually say what it has to say – even if only by attributing a comment or action to God (the clearly set out plumb-line is God’s opinion). If anyone is writing the first book for a new religious worldview, they ought not assume anything, and I think Genesis clearly heeds this principle. Indeed a book that begins with the idea that God (singular) created the world, and man as the rulers of the world under him, doesn’t give the impression it is assuming its readers are already fully abreast of its assumptions.

So it follows that if Genesis does not comment on the implications of a story, then the story – wait for it - may not in fact have specific implications for us today as a stand-alone story. And so an exposition of the story will not draw out moral implications for materialism, drunkenness, incest, or living in a cave. The story may rightly illustrate those things, but the story is not there to tell us about those things. So truly expository preaching would not go there. Otherwise, the text has not dictated its meaning, the preacher has dictated the paradigm that the text will illustrate. We have not submitted to the word of God as expressed in Genesis, even if the sermon has submitted to the scriptures more broadly (as Kent’s did).

Why is this such a big deal? Because it is (unintentionally) deceptive. It is systematic theological preaching parading as expository preaching. Theological preaching is important, but it is also important that it is presented as that, so that the listener’s mode of being on guard is tailored appropriately. If I can walk away thinking that Genesis 19:30-38 teaches us about the dangers of materialism, I can equally well walk away thinking that it teaches us about the virtues of incest, if the preacher was inclined to preach it that way. Whatever theological paradigm the preacher brought to the text, the text would appear to validate.

Indeed, the very idea that Genesis is only implying its points rather than teaching them basically lays the book open to validate any paradigm you want to bring into it - such is the moral variability of the patriarchs.

There would be no shift of technique from Kent’s for me to preach Genesis 19 as a sermon against incest; in favour of incest; against drunkeness, in favour of drunkeness, in favour of living in caves or against it. There would only be a shift in the paradigm I have imported back into the primary text.

Now some paradigms I import back into Genesis 19 may be more Christian than others, but none of them get us any closer to actually listening to the contribution of Genesis itself. The whole approach is not exposition of a text. It may be sitting under the word of scripture, but it is not sitting under the word of scripture in Genesis. It is using Genesis to illustrate a truth revealed later.

What Kent’s sermon last week did (in company with most other sermons on the patriarchs I have heard) was import into Genesis a Christian belief (anti-materialism) and then treat Genesis as though it were actually written to teach that paradigm. Then he calls that exposition. I call that illustration.

I am not saying it was false teaching. Genesis 19 is not illegitimate as an illustration of the ambiguities of being in but not of the world, nor as an illustration of the risks of drunkenness, nor as an illustration of the ugliness of immorality or the risks of keeping maternally instinctive women trapped in a cave with their father. But it leaves the meaning of Genesis untouched.

Exposition by definition is the drawing out of the text itself. The text of Lot’s incest with his daughters makes no positive or negative comment about his actions. It just reports them, and the outcome (two babies that later father the Moabites & the Ammonites). Thus to say the importance of the text is to imply a judgment on the activity or lives of Lot and his daughters leaves you open to draw whatever implication your prejudice requires.

An attempt at a way forward

Of course, It’s easier to criticize than to come up with alternatives! My thinking on what would be right as ‘expository preaching on Genesis’ is much less developed than my thinking on why I think this model is wrong. But to at least allow others to throw stones back at me, I’ll give my initial thoughts!!

The stories of the patriarchs show the humble beginnings of the nation of Israel, messy and wholly dependent upon God’s patience and grace. Did Moses really expect the people to pick up that incest was wrong from reading Genesis 19? He wouldn’t bet on it - so he spells it out in detailed instructions later in the Torah. It is possible that Moses intended Genesis to be reread with the discovered moral paradigms of the law in mind.

But if the moral paradigms of the law should be read back into Genesis it would only be so that the Israelites grasp their humble beginnings and dependence upon extraordinary grace of God in the face of national (and personal) unworthiness. The moral paradigms of the law may help them to see their unworthiness, but Genesis is not teaching them those concepts – they had to discover them in the other law books.

The concepts that Genesis 12-50 does clearly teach are broad themes – like faith in God’s promises; and total human dependence on God’s gracious dispensation; God’s grace to incredibly fallible human beings; and so on. In that sense the patriarchal narratives have a continuing function with the exodus narrative that forms the clear concept of gracious redemption upon which the responsive moral instruction of the law is based.

I can’t help thinking that each story of the patriarchs in Genesis was not envisaged to have a peculiar application, but rather that the whole sweep of the story is the sum of its intent. Thus our approach of story by story is perhaps unhelpful. Perhaps a preaching series on the patriarchal narratives (Gen 12-50) could involve reading through it in large chunks as a replacement for the sermon, accompanied with short sketches of the themes that emerge. It’s just one idea among many possible approaches, but at least it might actually have a claim to be expository!

My conclusion

The method of finding particular instruction in each story, a la Kent Hughes and most other preaching on the patriarchs I have heard, tends to remove us from exposition and into theological illustration that masquerades as exposition. As such we have given ourselves free license to make the Word of God appear to say (exposition) whatever we think, rightly or wrongly, the broader Word of God says (our theology). If we are committed to reforming our theology by the scriptures, and teaching others to do the same, this model of preaching does not appear to be adequate.

Well, I’m out on a limb. Feel free to cut it off, pull me off it, or join me on it!

G’day Matt.

I was going to go to that conference but something else came up and I couldn’t make it.

What you said makes pretty good sense to me, and I would have to agree with you.

There is a danger in using any type of preaching style in being able to make it say what you want, when you don’t take the whole lot in it’s context.

I think if you were going to preach against materialism, then you would have to make that a topical sermon and there are plenty of better scriptures to illustrate that then using Lot and his Daughters.

Blessings craig

Re: Kent Hughes – Expository preaching on Genesis?

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]The conference

Exposition by definition is the drawing out of the text itself. The text of Lot’s incest with his daughters makes no positive or negative comment about his actions. It just reports them, and the outcome (two babies that later father the Moabites & the Ammonites). Thus to say the importance of the text is to imply a judgment on the activity or lives of Lot and his daughters leaves you open to draw whatever implication your prejudice requires.

I wasn’t there, Matt, but I wonder if I might make some comments? I think you’re spot on that the “in the world but not of the world” approach isn’t a good exegesis. I’ve never looked at the text properly prior to this but here are my thoughts on what’s going on.

I think the key is to understand what the main issue of the Patriarchs is. I think it’s the promise to Abraham and how it will be worked out, the transmission of the promise (the gospel in advance) from generation to generation. You see this in Abram’s struggle with having the child of the promise but not trusting God to make good, in Jacob trying to cheat his entitlement to the promise and so on.

In which case then is not v34 a key verse? “...so we can preserve our family line through our father.”

Lot’s family have just been saved from destruction. Back in Gen 13 they walked out of the promised land to something that they thought would be better. Having been saved the daughters set about restoring the line (so the issue, again, is inheritance) but they do it in a wrong way - just like Abraham did, sleeping with Hagar.

Seems to me that’s the way to be going. Not thought it all through but maybe someone else can spring off that?

David

Don’t want to distract from the Genesis question but I was at the conference on day 1 only, and I was dismayed not to be able to think of a New Testament command or example of expository preaching.

I say dismayed because I am a big fan of expository preaching, do it myself and want to encourage others to do likewise. So it would be great if I could find anywhere in the New Testament which helped me argue for it.

Help!

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Don’t want to distract from the Genesis question but I was at the conference on day 1 only, and I was dismayed not to be able to think of a New Testament command or example of expository preaching.

I say dismayed because I am a big fan of expository preaching, do it myself and want to encourage others to do likewise. So it would be great if I could find anywhere in the New Testament which helped me argue for it.

Help!

Gordon, I think part of it depends on what you think the apostles are doing when they use the OT. I belong to the school that believes that they simply tell us what the original intention of the text was - in this case <i>all</i> of it is really exposition.

A good example would be Peter at Pentecost.

davidould wrote

I belong to the school that believes that they simply tell us what the original intention of the text was - in this case all of it is really exposition.

A good example would be Peter at Pentecost.

Sure, I’m in substantial agreement with you and that is a good example. Still, that is a rather broader definition of expository preaching than I am used to, or than I in fact practice.

I wonder if we are on safer ground arguing for our version of expository preaching on pragmatic grounds (as Kent did under his final point in talk 2, day 1, for those who were there). For those of us as brilliant as Paul or Peter, we can preach like they did. For the rest of us, systematic verse by verse exposition, as a regular diet, helps safeguard in our own preaching what Paul said he was doing in Acts 20:27.

Still, I wonder if it is worth considering that

a. It is possible to preach the whole counsel of God without doing systematic exposition.
b. More seriously, it is possibly to do systematic exposition (or fool ourselves and the congregation into thinking we are) whilst actually watering down the power of God’s word.

As an example, I once heard a tediously boring exposition of Exodus 15 which missed the whole delight of the Israelites in seeing the entire Egyptian army massacred; a theme which I suspect the speaker was at heart very uncomfortable with.

Now this may have been a failure of exposition but I can’t help feeling, more fundamentally, it was a failure of systematic theology and a failure of nerve about the idea that God might judge people.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]davidould wrote

As an example, I once heard a tediously boring exposition of Exodus 15 which missed the whole delight of the Israelites in seeing the entire Egyptian army massacred; a theme which I suspect the speaker was at heart very uncomfortable with.

Now this may have been a failure of exposition but I can’t help feeling, more fundamentally, it was a failure of systematic theology and a failure of nerve about the idea that God might judge people.

Interesting that you should say that. Last year I gave a set of talks to some church planters in India on the subject of the Doctrines of Grace. In particular I was keen to raise their confidence in God and His word and the fact that their priority was to glorify God.

To that end I challenged them, as I do myself, whether they were prepared to preach the plagues on Egypt and destruction of Pharaoh as evangelistic talks! If those events truly glorify God (as scripture says they do, using them as examples) then do we have the courage to preach them as such - that they glorify God?

Bit of a tangent, sorry.

Kent Hughes

Hi Matthew, you said:

Exposition by definition is the drawing out of the text itself. The text of Lot’s incest with his daughters makes no positive or negative comment about his actions. It just reports them, and the outcome (two babies that later father the Moabites & the Ammonites). Thus to say the importance of the text is to imply a judgment on the activity or lives of Lot and his daughters leaves you open to draw whatever implication your prejudice requires.

I wonder how valid this assumption of “no positive or negative comment” comment is. Yes the book of Genesis 12-50 tells the story of how God’s line grew from Abraham, with all it’s turmoil etc, but it was also written I believe by Moses, to lay down their roots before he departed this world, so that the people of Israel entering the land would have God’s instructions for them. Those people entering the land had already had massive problems along the way, including with the Moabites (Numbers 22-25) and the Ammonites (Numbers 21). If I read Genesis 19:37-38 correctly, it does say “of today” indicating when Moses penned it. I believe that it is a very negative comment, because it says in effect “Hey these enemies of ours who have opposed us, they are distant relatives, but look at how they came about! They are the offspring of sin, not the offspring of promise!”
They were conceived in sin & are still sinful. & this then makes the book of Ruth much more understandable, & at the same time it makes the grace & mercy of God so much more marvellous, to think that a Moabitess was in the great grandmother (or there abouts) of King David… & therefore also in the line of Jesus! Wow!

The events in the cave did not have an amoral stance. When Genesis is taken on its own, we may think that that is the case, but when linked into the first 5 books which Moses wrote, it certainly illustrates the evils of sin, and shows that if you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.

The next step after that is to then flow through the the rest of the Bible (including Ruth like I’ve already done), and then to see how the perfect law-fulfilling life, sacrificial death & absolutely amazing resurrection of Jesus changed, modified, heightened or attenuated what happened back then.

Is that helpful?

Rob

I belong to the school that believes that they simply tell us what the original intention of the text was - in this case <i>all</i> of it is really exposition.

A good example would be Peter at Pentecost.

Do texts have intentions? Or their authors? In which case, did the original authors (not to mention editors) of the OT intend for their texts to be read as Peter read them?

Unlikely, I would have thought…

Liberal!!!!!!

[quote author="michael jensen"]

I belong to the school that believes that they simply tell us what the original intention of the text was - in this case <i>all</i> of it is really exposition.

A good example would be Peter at Pentecost.

Do texts have intentions? Or their authors? In which case, did the original authors (not to mention editors) of the OT intend for their texts to be read as Peter read them?

Unlikely, I would have thought…

Well, obviously it’s the author, not the text itself.

As for OT authors intending their texts to be read as Peter (and others) read them; yes, I do believe that they did.

So, for example, when David wrote “you will not let your Holy One see decay” I do not doubt that he was seeing what was ahead, just as Peter tells us he was.

did the author of the Torah foresee that Paul was going to apply “do not muzzle the ox etc” in quite the way he did?

The question behind the question is: is reading the OT Christianly different from just reading the OT? I think so…

Liberal!!!!!

[quote author="michael jensen"]did the author of the Torah foresee that Paul was going to apply “do not muzzle the ox etc” in quite the way he did?

Dunno, depends if you think the writer of the Torah was only thinking about oxen or writing the application of a more general principle.

The question behind the question is: is reading the OT Christianly different from just reading the OT? I think so…

I disagree. The purpose of the OT is to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Or, to put it another way, to not read the OT Christianly is to not read the OT correctly.

Liber—

oh, hang on, I’m out of synch.

David (or should that be david :-), if Deut 25:4 is obviously about salvation in Christ, and this was in the mind of the author of Deut, then how do you reckon he meant Deut 25:3 or Deut 25:5 to apply to salvation in Christ?

(choose either a. or b., 10 minutes reading time allowed)

Deut. 25:3 Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.
Deut. 25:4 You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
Deut. 25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

Thanks to all for your thoughts helping me to think through this.

[quote author="Michael"]did the author of the Torah foresee that Paul was going to apply “do not muzzle the ox etc” in quite the way he did?
The question behind the question is: is reading the OT Christianly different from just reading the OT? I think so…

G’day Michael - certainly I agree that reading the OT Christianly is different from just reading the OT. How that difference manifests itself, however, is an interesting question, and perhaps the core of the issue. If you have the time, I’d love to hear how you would see that difference manifesting itself in practice. Would you start with the OT text, extrapolate where possible what the author seems to be teaching, trace that through the progressive revelation of scripture to the application of those themes in the NT? Or would you start with the NT paradigm and ask the OT to teach it? Or some other way?

[quote author="Michael"]Do texts have intentions? Or their authors? In which case, did the original authors (not to mention editors) of the OT intend for their texts to be read as Peter read them?

Unlikely, I would have thought…

Of course authors have intentions (although our ability to access them is more an exercise in probabilities than certainties). My intention in writing this post is to get you to help me think through this! I agree it is unlikely that the OT authors intended their texts to be read as Peter read them, just as I think it is unlikely that Moses (or Abraham) was thinking “resurrection motif here” as he penned the story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, a la Hebrews.

But I do think that the NT use of OT texts is mostly thematically consonant with the OT text. (Though there are some curly ones I haven’t figured out yet!) The prophets were probing further the relationship between the revealed God and the circumstances of Israel, sometimes receiving special extra revelation, sometimes just applying the existing revelation to current circumstances. Out of that struggle the prophets produce insights that can legitimately be seen as recontextualised, revolutionised and fulfilled in the Christ-event.

But again expository preaching of the prophet, I would have thought, needs to go back firstly to the teaching of the prophet itself (exposition), before working out what it might say today (which takes us through that author’s contribution to biblical & systematic theology to cultural engagement; as opposed to contributing our biblical and systematic theology to that author’s writings and then doing cultural engagement).

What do you think? Am I missing some logic somewhere?

Cheers
Matt