What do you think of when you hear the words "expository preaching"?

[daveleau]

What do you think of when you hear the words "expository preaching"?






Please don't let my writing influence your initial posting, but here are my thoughts:

I think of a pastor looking at Scripture, reading it in context, looking at the history and culture that was in the background, looking at key words in the original language and making the message given in Scripture apply to us today in the way it was meant. The original intended meaning of the author was key in all aspects of research.

God bless,
Dave

 

[ZiSunka]

What do you think of when you hear the words "expository preaching"?

I think of a pastor looking at Scripture, reading it in context, looking at the history and culture that was in the background, looking at key words in the original language and making the message given in Scripture apply to us today in the way it was meant. The original intended meaning of the author was key in all aspects of research.

I think that's pretty much it!

 

[Gold Dragon]

What do you think of when you hear the words "expository preaching"?

Please don't let my writing influence your initial posting, but here are my thoughts:

I think of a pastor looking at Scripture, reading it in context, looking at the history and culture that was in the background, looking at key words in the original language and making the message given in Scripture apply to us today in the way it was meant. The original intended meaning of the author was key in all aspects of research.

God bless,
Dave

I often hear "expository" in contrast to "topical" preaching.

Expository focuses primarily on one text (and related cross references) to discover the topic that particular passage is teaching.

Topical sermons focus on a topic and tries to look through several relevant texts on that topic to see what the entire bible has to say about that topic.

Digging into the historical, cultural, linguistic and literary context are important for both styles.

I think both are valid styles and many preachers mix the two by having a topic and focusing on one primary text about that topic to study while bringing in some of the other key texts related to that topic to give the entire biblical context.

 

[jcright]

What do you think of when you hear the words "expository preaching"?






Please don't let my writing influence your initial posting, but here are my thoughts:

I think of a pastor looking at Scripture, reading it in context, looking at the history and culture that was in the background, looking at key words in the original language and making the message given in Scripture apply to us today in the way it was meant. The original intended meaning of the author was key in all aspects of research.

God bless,
Dave

I never put a title to it, but I think that's the proper way to educate us in what the bible says.

 

[BT]

When I hear the words, "expository preaching" it think of "rightly dividing".

In training for the pastorate I've done some "experimenting" with preaching styles. Unfortunately (for me) most of the times my sermon topics are given to me by the pastor (this bugs me a bit). So anyway I try out different styles of homiletics to figure out which I find more able to get my point across or make the message more clear.

Regardless of how I start I almost always end up back to expository preaching by the mid to end of the sermon. I guess it makes sense, it's how I study, how I teach, how I look at the Bible. I really dislike sermons that are pure anecdotal or have too much joking around. I find that in many churches the pastor feels like (perhaps has been persuaded..) he has to entertain people. When I consider Paul's writings I see his style as expository. He constantly goes back to the OT and explains what these things mean, naturally he goes pretty deep in some places on his own accord as well.
I spent a couple years in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches and I can honestly say that the first time I heard expository preaching (it was in a Baptist church) I was deeply convicted that this was the way the Word of God should be preached. There is no crime in anecdotes and sermons don't have to be (shouldn't be) boring. The Word is alive, it is vibrant and deep. It's only when we start to really dig into that we can fully understand it...


= 2 cents

 

[Gold Dragon]

I really dislike sermons that are pure anecdotal or have too much joking around. I find that in many churches the pastor feels like (perhaps has been persuaded..) he has to entertain people.

I agree with this. I find that my pastors feel this pressure as well and when they go too far to the "entertaining/anecdotal/joking" side of things, I usually consider those their worst sermons.

Sermons should be interesting, can include anecdotes and jokes, but needs to be centred around interpreting scripture and our response to scripture. When done properly, both expository and more topically centred sermons can achieve this.

 

[rural_preacher]

Webster's Dictionary:

Exposition - A setting forth of facts, ideas, etc.; detailed explanation. Writing or speaking that sets forth or explains.


Expository preaching is simply explaining God's Word. It is not explaining our ideas about God's Word or using the Word to justify our opinions or beliefs. It is an exegetical explanation of what God's Word is saying. Such preaching can be done using a variety of styles and approaches based on the personality of the preacher. Just as the writers of Scripture used varying styles based on their personalities yet each one wrote the very words of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Crazy Liz]

At its best, I agree with Dave. At its worst, it is BORING. A pastor taking 2 years to preach "verse by verse" through half the book of Romans. Subjecting the congregation to every detail of his own theological anxieties. A nice-sounding excuse for lack of balance and variety.

: o Did I say that?

 

[Glorianna]

Hmm, you guys all have great insights!

 

[eutychus]

I think expository preaching/Bible study is a great way to:
*confront Scripture in its totality
*get out of our comfort zones by approaching some texts we may find troubling
*allow us to dig into the contexts, background, and original languages
*present the Word of God as its intention millennia ago, and apply it to today

So yeah...that's my summation, added to the above posts' excellent definitions.

 

[Bulldog]

Great posts evryone!

Unfortunatly, pietism has done a large blow to expository preaching amoung many modern-day churches.

 

[rural_preacher]

Great posts evryone!

Unfortunatly, pietism has done a large blow to expository preaching amoung many modern-day churches.

I agree. I often say the purpose of preaching is not pontification, it is edification.

II Timothy 4:2, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine."

 

[david.d]

I agree. I often say the purpose of preaching is not pontification, it is edification.

II Timothy 4:2, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine."

Amen!

 

[GreenEyedLady]

What do you call it when a preacher has no outline, takes a few verses, opens his mouth and begins preaching on those 2 verses? There is no outline, nothing he has in front of him but the Word of God and if the Holy Spirit leads him to another verse, he then goes to that verse in the bible and continues preaching.
GEL

 

[Gold Dragon]

What do you call it when a preacher has no outline, takes a few verses, opens his mouth and begins preaching on those 2 verses? There is no outline, nothing he has in front of him but the Word of God and if the Holy Spirit leads him to another verse, he then goes to that verse in the bible and continues preaching.
GEL

Some would call that lack of preparation and improvisation. Other's would call it preaching by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Either way, I wouldn't call that expository preaching.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Some would call that lack of preparation and improvisation. Other's would call it preaching by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Either way, I wouldn't call that expository preaching.

Hmmmm.
Just wondering how these disiples preached. Did they prepare or just open thier mouths?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hmmmm.
Just wondering how these disiples preached. Did they prepare or just open thier mouths?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that the apostles or current preachers can preach without preparation by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

But to say that just because they didn't prepare and are improvising means that they are preaching by the leading of the Holy Spirit is something I would consider a faulty correlation.

Either way, lack of preparation is not characteristic of expository preaching. That isn't to say that an expository sermon couldn't be preached without preparation and purely by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Does this make sense?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Hmmmm.
Just wondering how these disiples preached. Did they prepare or just open thier mouths?

Well since the disciples were Torah observant Jews, they would have had at least the Torah memorized, that was Jewish schooling, which was called Bet Sefer. If any of them were execptionally gifted, they went on to "secondary school" called Bet Talmud, where they would go on to learn the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures by memory. Paul, being a Jewish rabbi, would have had the whole OT memorized, and not only that there is evidence in Acts 17 and Titus that he was well read and studied other "pagan" literature.

Jesus Himself, a Jewish Rabbi, says in John 15:15 "everything I learned from the Father", that word "learned" in the Greek means "to study diligently". By his stand on issues of divorce and such, one can see where His teachings agree with that of the rabbinic House of Hillel, which I would venture to surmise Jesus studied this rabbi's teachings during His schooling.

So, did they prepare like we prepare, nope. But they were prepared, they knew the Text.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Well since the disciples were Torah observant Jews, they would have had at least the Torah memorized, that was Jewish schooling, which was called Bet Sefer. If any of them were execptionally gifted, they went on to "secondary school" called Bet Talmud, where they would go on to learn the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures by memory. Paul, being a Jewish rabbi, would have had the whole OT memorized, and not only that there is evidence in Acts 17 and Titus that he was well read and studied other "pagan" literature.

Jesus Himself, a Jewish Rabbi, says in John 15:15 "everything I learned from the Father", that word "learned" in the Greek means "to study diligently". By his stand on issues of divorce and such, one can see where His teachings agree with that of the rabbinic House of Hillel, which I would venture to surmise Jesus studied this rabbi's teachings during His schooling.

So, did they prepare like we prepare, nope. But they were prepared, they knew the Text.

I totally agree with this. I am not saying that preperation is wrong and NOT of the holy spirit. Many gentiles saved and preach the word later that did not know all of the text and were probally great preachers as well.

 

[daveleau]

double post