7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 4)

In a sermon titled, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,” delivered by Archibald Alexander to Princeton University, Alexander makes seven observations on the idea of “rightly dividing” Scripture.

The fourth observation is important for many reasons, but especially for the discipleship of the Church. Alexander writes,

Rightly to divide the word of truth, we must arrange it in such order, as that it may be most easily and effectually understood.

Alexander, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,” 125

Alexander is encouraging ministers to help their flock grow through the systematic, progression of biblical doctrines and principles. The wise minister moves from foundational doctrines to deeper truths of the faith, guiding the people of God into a greater awareness of sound doctrine, finer skills in discerning that doctrine, and consistent application of those truths.

“Principles” and “Foundation”

One does not deep dive into the hypostatic union if a believer is a new convert completely ignorant of the basic story of redemption, in other words. There must be basic principles, or to borrow the phrase from Paul in Hebrews, there must be “elementary principles” that are laid as “a foundation” (Heb. 6:1, ESV). Alexander calls them “principles” and “the foundation.”

There is, no doubt, a depressing ignorance of the basics of the Christian faith. Ligonier and Lifeway‘s partnership in the “State of Theology” surveys are as enlightening as they are discouraging. What was once common knowledge of the average churchman is now devoid of many seminaries’ required education.

For example, many books have and are being written presenting basic Trinitarian theology. The Creeds and Confessions of the Church, bathed in the battles of such debates, were gifts to the Church used to her growth in orthodoxy and identification of and separation from heterodoxy.

“Go on to Maturity”

“But he must not,” writes Alexander, “dwell forever on the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, but should endeavour to lead his people on to perfection in the knowledge of the truth” (125).

It is vital the lay down the right foundation, but it is equally vital to move toward greater maturity, in both doctrine and practice. It takes wisdom, patience, and grace to steer the people of God from foundational truths to deeper ones. The wise minister will know the flock over whom God has placed him as undershepherd. He will preach and teach the Word in such a way that both the newer believer and the mature believer are able to be fed.

Closing Remarks

This observation is needed today. Given the theological state of the church, ministers must preach the Word in a systematic and progressive way, building a solid theological foundation and then moving toward the deeper truths of the faith. Here are a few recommendations.

1. Pastors should themselves be given to doctrinal maturity. If they are to aid in people moving past foundational truths to maturity, they must know those doctrines of maturity.
   
2. Pastors should know the flock. They cannot lead them to maturity unless they know where they are at doctrinally. This takes time and effort.
   
3. Use the Creeds and Confessions. These documents of the Church have withstood theological debates, heretical attacks, and the test of time. They are precious tools given to the saints and the shepherds of the church for their growth in maturity. The Apostles’ Creed is simple but not simplistic. It provides a great summary of theology. The Nicene Creed helps expand that apostolic doctrine against the heresies creeping into the church since the days of the apostle John. The other Confessions, the Second London Baptist Confession being the best, in my opinion, are built on those foundations and expand the doctrine and practice, providing an excellent example of maturity in life and doctrine.
   
4. Be patient. One of the best pieces of advice I have received is from Mark Dever (not personally, of course!). He encourages ministers to take a long-view approach to church ministry. Plan on being there at the church for 30–40 years, and this will help taper the impatience of human nature. The pastor, Lord willing of course, realizes that he does not have to “mature” the church overnight. It will take time, time in prayer, time in study, time in preaching and teaching, time in loving the sheep, time in loving the Good Shepherd.

“Rightly to divide the word of truth, we must arrange it in such order, as that it may be most easily and effectually understood,” writes Alexander. May we be pastors who take this observation seriously, to the glory of the Triune God and for the good of His people.

---

Check out the previous posts:

Observation One

Observation Two

Observation Three

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 3)

We have visited Princeton University to listen to Archibald Alexander, the first professor of theology, give a lecture titled, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.” He has given two previous observations on what this means (Observation One and Observation Two). He gives his next observation,

“The skillful workman must be able to distinguish between fundamental truths and such as are not fundamental.”

Archibald Alexander, “Rightly Dividing the Word of truth,” 124–125

Alexander presents the importance of differentiating between fundamental truths and truths that are not fundamental. Alexander’s words here are helpful for two extremes. One follows the path of the Independent, Fundamental Baptist (IFB). In this world (and others like it) everything is a fundamental truth–music, dress, etc. The other extreme treats all doctrines as “not fundamental” to the faith, which is equally as dangerous. Liberal theology would be a good example of this danger.

Fundamentalism–Everything is a Fundamental

First, this is an important aspect of “rightly dividing the Word of truth” to me personally as it relates to the extreme of IFB. I was saved and raised for many years in the IFB. This post will be a little more personal than others, but I hope it will prove helpful to others who have experienced a similar background in the IFB world. As the name implies, IFB churches hold to the “fundamentals” of the faith, such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. (For more on the history of fundamentalism, I highly recommend Justin Taylor‘s article, “The 4 Phases of Protestant Fundamentalism in America.”)

What started on good motives, the desire to stand faithful for the fundamentals of the faith, quickly devolved into naming everything fundamental and separating with everyone who held to different beliefs and/or practices. Taylor writes about this phase of fundamentalism, the fourth phase,

“Within this fourth phase, a somewhat legalistic form of Christianity develops. Strict regulations become unwritten laws. Any capitulation to popular culture is synonymous with the sin of worldliness. Throughout most of the 1970s suspicion was raised against anyone who wore sideburns, long hair, beards, flair-bottom pants, boots, wire-rimmed glasses, or silk shirts. All members of the empire in good standing were required to submit to behavior codes and regulations of personal grooming and fashion.”

To the fundamentals of the faith were added music styles, Bible versions, certain clothing, hair styles, etc. This is the world in which I was raised (not that my parents were like this, they were great!). In my Bible college training, it was common to have preachers mock others for their dress or music standards. In fact, one preacher publicly ridiculed a student for wearing fashionable pants! You were excluded or looked down upon if you did not follow the patterns set by those in the faculty and administration (as well as the churches that supported this college). There are many problems with this approach to the Christian faith, but perhaps the greatest is that it collapses everything into one bowl of confusing “fundamental” soup.

Eschatology provides a good example of differentiating between fundamental truths and truths that are not so. Discussions on the end times are important, but it is not a fundamental of the faith. Believers know that the Scriptures teach that Jesus will return, but the details surrounding that return may be debated. You can be a Christian and be an amillennialist, premillennialist, or even a postmillennialist! There are some in the IFB world, however, that would disagree. You must be a premillennialist, or else you are denying a fundamental of the faith. Why? Because they are not rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Alexander writes, “All Bible truth is important and no part is to be rejected or neglected. But some truths must be known and believed, or the person cannot be saved; while there are other truths which true Christians may be ignorant of, and while ignorant may deny.”

IFB churches, institutions, and pastors in particular, would benefit greatly (both personally and ecclesiastically) if they learned to distinguish between fundamental truth and truth that is not so.

Liberalism–Nothing is a Fundamental

Kevin DeYoung has written an excellent article titled, “Liberalism Is (Still) a Threat to Fundamentalism.” DeYoung’s article focuses on a sermon that was delivered by Harry Emerson Fosdick delivered during the battles between the fundamentalists and liberal theologians, Fosdick being an able representative of liberal theology.

Quoting Fosdick, DeYoung writes, “For him [Fosdick], it was a “penitent shame that the Christian church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs.” Those “little matters” were not little at all, however. They were truly the fundamentals of the faith. Fosdick’s desire to exalt “love” over any and everything was a key mark of liberal theology. However, liberal theologians denied the divinity of Christ, one could not be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word if they denied that fundamental truth, which is ironic because the first and greatest commandment, according to the Lord Jesus, is to love the Lord your God.

We must be careful to avoid this extreme as well. In present culture, holding to any sort of doctrinal standard is looked down upon. The proliferation of “non-denominational churches” is a perfect example of this desire to minimize doctrine (include both fundamental truth and truth not so). Rightly dividing the Word of truth distinguishes between fundamental truth and truth that is not so.

Diagnostic Tool for Distinguishing Truth

I will close with Alexander’s helpful remarks on the “two grand marks of fundamental doctrine.” (125)

First, “that the denial of them destroys the system.” (125) A denial of the virgin birth of Christ, for example, destroys the Christian religion. Likewise, a denial of the premillennial reign of Christ does not destroy the Christian religion.

Second, “that the knowledge of them is essential to piety.” (125) In other words, if I deny this doctrine will I be able to grow in holiness? Deism, the belief that God is no longer involved in the present world eliminates the need to pray. One can easily see how this denial inhibits growth in holiness.

Alexander’s words are most helpful. Rightly dividing the Word of truth involves distinguishing between fundamental truth and truth that is not so. Are you rightly dividing the Word of truth?

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 2)

In our previous post, we introduced the first of seven observations Archibald Alexander made on “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” The second observation is, “It is necessary to divide the truth not only from error, but from philosophy, and mere human opinions and speculations.”

Philosophy

In this warning, Alexander is warning against giving in to too much philosophical speculation. There is nothing wrong with metaphysics. In fact, in another excellent book, Craig Carter’s Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, Carter makes a superb argument that all engage in metaphysical reasoning, it is just a matter of what kind of metaphysics one is using.

Alexander seems to be warning against the empty, merely speculative aspects of metaphysics, devoid of any connection to the Word of God. He writes, “Thus, it often happens, that a sermon contains very little Scripture truth. After the text is uttered, the preacher has done with the Bible, and the hearers are fed, or rather starved, by some abstruse discussion of a subject, not treated of in the word of God; or which there is taken for granted as a thing which requires no discussion, or which is above the human intellect” (124).

Mere human opinions and speculations

Here Alexander is warning against imposing the preacher’s views into the text. He writes, “They are forever connecting with the doctrines of God’s word, their own wire-drawn and uncertain speculations” (124).

One may immediately think of the Pharisees in the earthly days of Christ (cf. Mark 7:13). The Pharisees added their own views to the traditions given in the sacred Scriptures. However, this reminder is needful today.

Many preachers will try to defend their view using Scripture, rather than developing their views from Scripture and then presenting them. In the first, preachers abuse the Word by placing themselves in authority over the Word of God. They do not study it and then interpret it. They find words that are connected with their own views and take them out of context.

In the second, the preacher submits to the Word of God. He submits his views to the truths of Scripture. He studies intently what the Word says and what it means, and after this develops his view, constantly returning it to the Word to measure it against the perfect standard of truth.

Implementing observation 2

How can the preacher avoid this too errors? First, gain a proper view of philosophy and metaphysics. Here Carter is most helpful, “Theology is the study of God and all things in relation to God. Metaphysics is theological when it allows biblical revelation to determine the true ontological nature of reality as it contemplates the biblical teaching on God and all things in relation to God.” (Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, 64)

Carter notes that all people engage in metaphysics, even if they do not know the word nor what it means. Preachers who herald the glorious promises of the Word of God should be biblical philosophers.

Second, preachers should be very careful when inserting their own views into their preaching and teaching. There are few times indeed when the preacher should share “his thoughts.” When it is appropriate to do so, the preacher should make it abundantly clear that what he is saying is truly his own views and not biblical.

By following Alexander’s words, preachers can “rightly divide the Word of truth.”

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 1)

Archibald Alexander, the first professor of theology at Princeton University, preached a sermon titled, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.” In his sermon, Alexander sought to elaborate on Paul’s exhortation for ministers to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). He offers seven observations.

1. The truths of god’s Word must be carefully distinguished from error

Alexander’s first observation addresses the minister’s need to expose false teaching. He is to utilize the Word of God like a scalpel and cut out the rancid, infected teachings that infiltrate the Church.

Although this is not popular today, ministers who seek to divide the Word of God rightly must be willing and able to expose error. In being willing, ministers must realize that they will not nor, if they serve the Lord faithfully, cannot be friends with the world (James 4:4–5). Worldly doctrine is false doctrine and must be called out, both in public and in private.

In being able, the minister must “do [his] best to present [himself] to God as one approved” (2 Tim. 2:15, ESV). Being an able minister means being a master of biblical doctrine. He should be so familiar with right doctrine that the moment a whiff of false teaching enters his nostrils he is on high alert. This requires diligent and consistent study of right doctrine. The Creeds and Confessions of the Church (my personal favorite being the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith) are most helpful. Having faced the test of time and fought the various theological battles, these documents are wonderful, systematic, and doxological presentations of true, God-glorifying and church-edifying doctrine.

The minister must move beyond his own willingness and ability to help teach and train the church, too. Alexander writes, “By a clear exhibition of gospel truth, on all the important points of religion, the people should be so instructed, and so imbued with the truth, that error shall make no impression on them.” (124)

In order to divide the truth of God’s Word rightly, then, ministers must be willing to distinguish truth from error.

---

These observations can be found in further detail in the book The Pastor: His Call, Character, and Work printed by Banner of Truth Trust.

“Was Jesus a Legalist?” A Friendly Response to Alton Beal

Overview of the Post

Alton Beal, current president of Ambassador Baptist College, published a post on his blog titled, “Was Jesus a Legalist?” Mr. Beal attempts to establish this point, “It is okay to have a higher standard than the law.”[1]

His premise is that contrary to modern or worldly thinking, Jesus had high standards. Though He had high standards, Jesus was not a legalist. Acknowledging the typical two-part view of the term legalist, Mr. Beal denies that Jesus taught “salvation by keeping the law” or “that a Christian must maintain the highest standards to keep favor with God.”[2]

Then Mr. Beal makes the argument that Jesus taught “something that every Christian should learn. It is okay to have a higher standard than the law.”[3] He briefly examines the passage and contrasts what the religious leaders were teaching with Christ’s teaching.

Utilizing Matthew 5:27–28, Mr. Beal attempts to demonstrate that Jesus had a higher standard than the Mosaic Law. Consider the words of Jesus:

^“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: ²⁸ But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”^[4]

Then Mr. Beal states, “In each scenario, He made applications that went above and beyond the prescription of the law.”[5] Ultimately, Mr. Beal argues that Christians should follow Jesus’s example and adhere to standards higher than the law to stay “away from the edge.”[6] This type of living will be different than the “borderline living like the world.”[7]

Ultimately, Mr. Beal seems to be appealing to the Lord Jesus’s use of the heart as a way of demonstrating that Christians with high standards are seeking to love God more sincerely.

What is the issue?

This question is an important question and one that requires a multifaceted answer. First, I do not disagree with Mr. Beal’s call for high standards. The Lord is holy (Isa. 6:1–3). No other quality (or, attribute) of God’s is described in this fashion (cf. Isaiah 6:3). For that, I commend Mr. Beal’s post.

Second, I agree wholeheartedly that many Christians seem to want to live as close to the world as possible while simultaneously maintaining their Christian identity. While Mr. Beal and I would see standards differently, I believe this point is correct. Christians must not use their liberty in a way that does not glorify God or that causes their brother or sister to stumble.

Although these are two positive points, I believe there are a couple of serious issues that require some clarification. The first is how Mr. Beal presents Jesus’s understanding of the Law. Mr. Beal writes, “In each scenario, He made applications that went above and beyond the prescription of the law.”[8] The scenarios are the various statements that begin with “ye have heard…” Let us consider these words. It is important to distinguish between application and interpretation. Applications can be different depending upon the circumstances and individual issues. One may apply a verse or truth of Scripture in different ways. The interpretation must be one[10]. Mr. Beal uses the word applications with which I agree. It is his next phrase that troubles me. Jesus made these applications “that went above and beyond the prescription of the law.” In other words, the Law said this (e.g., “You shall not murder”) and Jesus said this, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart.” Jesus went above the “prescription of the law.” The Law was, in effect, limited to the outward. Murder, adultery, oaths, justice, and responses to enemies are all outward. One can visibly see the act of murder. One can physically observe the act of adultery. The same is true of the other issues listed by Jesus.

I do not believe Mr. Beal thinks that the Mosaic Law only focuses on the outward. However, one may take Mr. Beal’s words as teaching just that. If the law merely prescribed outward conformity, then the hearts of many Israelites did not matter. This needs clarification, particularly as it comes from a president of a Bible college training men for the ministry of preaching.

Furthermore, and certainly more significantly, it also presents an inconsistent view with the teachings found in the Old Testament. That is to say, this interpretation of Jesus’s words does not conform to the rest of Scripture. The Law did not merely require outward obedience.[11] The religious leaders, focusing on outward standards, made the Law easier (not easy, as Jesus himself attests, but easier, Matt. 23:1–4 and Luke 11:46).[12]

Luke 11:37–44 demonstrates this as well. The Pharisees were excellent at having “a higher standard than the law” while missing the inner person. They made sure that the outward was clean (11:39–40). Outward conformity to the law did not excuse them from inner conformity, and Jesus condemns them for this failure (11:41). The Pharisees were meticulous tithers as well (11:42a) but ignored the inner expressions of a transformed heart (11:42b). The Pharisees were not addressing the heart, and Jesus calls them out on this neglect. The Law, contrary to the implications of Mr. Beal, is not a simple prescription. The Law does, indeed, focus on the heart. As Philip S. Ross notes, “Despite rumors to the contrary from some New Testament scholars, Jesus’ teaching did not advance, intensify, or supplement moral law, but upheld its full scope and intent.”[13]

To justify higher standards “that emphasized holiness rather than borderline living like the world,” Mr. Beal has misinterpreted the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, potentially pitting the Author of Scripture with the Words of Scripture. As an alumnus of Ambassador Baptist College, I hope that this is simply a misunderstanding that will be clarified in the future. I would love to see current and future students of one of my alma mater’s being taught to exposit, carefully and holistically, the Word of God. If they want to make an application of the law (for higher standards than the law), that is their prerogative (cf. Romans 14:1–12). Those applications should not, however, be forced on other believers (Rom. 14:12–14; 1 Cor. 8).[14] With that said, though, this does not excuse misinterpreting or misapplying Scripture.

Conclusion

Mr. Beal concludes his post with these words,

“Jesus taught a way of living to His followers that emphasized holiness rather than borderline living like the world. This second-mile Christianity is sadly missing today. We need believers who will be more sensitive to God than the world. God’s moral law should cause the Christian to exercise carefulness instead of indifference and recklessness.”[15]

We must interpret and apply the Scriptures in accordance with the whole Word of God. In doing so, we will avoid the dangers of borderline Christianity and simultaneously avoid overloading people with burdens not contained in the Word of God.

John Gill’s words provide an excellent ending. In discussing Christian liberty, and attempting to balance those necessary and unnecessary things, Gill writes,

“Care should be taken, on the one hand, lest such things [meat and drink, cf. Rom. 15:17] should be reckoned indifferent, which are not so; and on the other hand, such as are indifferent, should not be imposed as necessary.”[16]

Postscript

            If you are interested in learning more about Christian liberty, I have a post forthcoming on this matter. Once it is published, I will link it to this post.

---

[1] Alton Beal, “Was Jesus a Legalist?” AltonBeal.com, 29 October 2022, accessed 27 November 2022 (emphasis original). 

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

^[4] The Holy Bible: King James Version., electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. (Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Mt 5:27–28.

[5] Alton Beal, “Was Jesus a Legalist?”

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Alton Beal, “Was Jesus a Legalist?”

[9] Ibid.

[10] This in no way implies that there are different layers of interpretation. For more on this, see the discussion on the three horizons of interpretation from Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant 2nd edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 118–137.

[11] The continued insistence of “circumcision of the heart” demonstrates this.

[12] In order to understand the difference between the ease of outward conformity and the burdens of the Pharisees, one need only look to the Oral Traditions. The Babylonian Talmud presents an abundance of extrabiblical laws that are, both literally and metaphorically, burdensome.

[13] Philip S. Ross, “The Law of God: Preaching the Law as Competent Ministers of the New Covenant,” in William R. Edwards, John C. A. Ferguson, and Chad Van Dixhoorn, eds., Theology for Ministry: How Doctrine Affects Pastoral Life and Practice (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2022), 350.

[14] For an excellent discussion of this, see R. C. Sproul, “The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother,” Ligonier Ministries, 28 July 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjsJvzB7lxs, accessed 7 December 2022.

[15] Alton Beal, “Was Jesus a Legalist?”

[16] John Gill, Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity: Being a System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced From the Sacred Scriptures (Philadelphia: Delaplaine and Hellings, 1810), 369. David Strain also has an excellent chapter on Christian liberty. See David Strain, “Christian Liberty: The Pastor as the Guardian of Freedom,” in William R. Edwards, John C. A. Ferguson, and Chad Van Dixhoorn, eds., Theology for Ministry: How Doctrine Affects Pastoral Life and Practice (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2022), 367–383.

“What is Preaching?” by Ian Hamilton

I have been privileged to meet Ian Hamilton. He is a godly man, a gifted writer, and an excellent speaker. He is gracious as well. One of my favorite parts of Ian Hamilton is his prayers. However, in the monthly Banner of Truth Magazine, Mr. Hamilton asks and answers the question, “What is preaching?”

Of course, in these days, everyone has a variety of opinions on what preaching is. Hamilton offers five clarifications, based upon 2 Timothy 4:2, that I believe are helpful and needed.

“FIRST, PAUL HIGHLIGHTS THE ESSENTIAL CONTENT OF PREACHING”

---

Hamilton writes, “Many Christians are languishing spiritually because they are being starved of the teaching that alone can build them up in their most holy faith.” (2) This almost seems axiomatic, but sadly, it is not. Preaching is not about our lives, it is about Scripture’s implications for our lives. Preaching is not about stories, it is about the Story. Preaching must stem from God’s Word.

“SECOND, PAUL HIGHLIGHTS THE URGENT NATURE OF PREACHING”

---

Preaching should be urgent, because it is an eternal life-or-death matter. If people are to hear the Gospel, it must be preached with urgency. It is not story time with the preacher. It is preaching Christ, and Him crucified. Again, Hamilton offers stinging words, “Humour that is designed to put the hearers at their ease and placard the personality of the preacher should be avoided like the plague!” (5)

“THIRD, WHOEVER THEN IS CALLED, LIKE TIMOTHY, TO PREACH THE WORD IS TO DO SO NOT CASUALLY, FLIPPANTLY, DISPASSIONATELY”

---

There is an inherent importance in preaching. If you were to browse through some of the more popular preachers today, you would find the exact opposite of this. Preachers will do all sorts of acrobatics and theatrics to help “bring home the message.” But this flippant manner demeans the glorious Gospel message.

“FOURTH, PAUL HIGHLIGHTS THE PRESSING PASTORAL APPLICATION THAT LIES AT THE HEART OF AUTHENTIC GOSPEL PREACHING”

---

Hamilton clarifies, “The ultimate aim in preaching the word is not merely to inform and educate the hearers’ minds, but to see their lives transformed increasingly into the likeness of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29, God’s ultimate purpose for his people.” (5)

Fifth (?) “IT IS ONLY TOO EASY TO BE DISTRACTED AND DIVERTED FROM THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY” (7)

---

I put a question mark on this one because it was not as clear. However, the point deserves to be included here due to its emphasis. The preacher’s work is ministry, and more than helping the homeless, meeting with people in the community, and other such duties, the preacher is first and foremost, a preacher.

Excerpts from The Banner of Truth Magazine, June 2018

I would encourage you to subscribe to The Banner of Truth magazine. This June 2018 edition is marvelous (as are all of them).

Jonathan Edwards and Preaching

(image credit)

I recently finished reading The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, by John Carrick. Edwards is by far my favorite preacher. I feel a connection with him through his writings and sermons. When I read one of his sermons, my heart is ushered into the presence of God in sweet and delightful communion. I think that is the main reason I admire the gifted Northampton preacher.

I found one aspect of the book particularly helpful: Edwards’ delivery. Carrick addresses various aspects of the preaching of Jonathan Edwards, from introductions to conclusions and everything in between. His treatment of Edwards’ delivery was a special blessing and encouragement to my soul. I share this with the hope that it may prove helpful and encouraging to someone else.

After spending several pages debunking the myth that Edwards was a boring preacher (pages 409-421), Carrick addresses the views of others on Edwards’ preaching. One gentlemen, a Dr. West of Stockbridge, is reported as answering Sereno Dwight’s question regarding the preaching of Jonathan Edwards with the following words:

               “But, if you mean by eloquence, the power of presenting an important truth before an audience, with overwhelming weight of argument, and with such intenseness of feeling, that the whole soul of the speaker is thrown into every part of the conception and delivery; so that the solemn attention of the whole audience is riveted, from the beginning to the close, and impressions are left that cannot be effaced; Mr Edwards was the most eloquent man I ever heard speak.”[1]

As a younger preacher, I found great encouragement in these words. In the midst of preachers like John Piper, R C Sproul, and David Platt, how in the world could I ever preach like them? My gifts are not like theirs. So, in my focus of other preachers I can easily become discouraged. Paul warns against this type of comparison (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-9 and 2 Corinthians 10:12). I found encouragement, because Jonathan Edwards may not have been the most boisterous preacher of his day (think of the fact that George Whitefield was a contemporary!). Yet, he was still a powerful preacher.

May God encourage our hearts, as we exercise and develop our gifts, to be preachers who faithfully preach the Word of Life.

[1] As quoted from Works, cxc in John Carrick, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2008), 429.

You can access Yale’s online edition of the works of Jonathan Edwards for free, here.

Preach: The Density of Sermons

In Mark Dever’s and Greg Gilbert’s book Preach: Theology Meets Practice, they devote a chapter to “Delivering the Sermon.” Overall the book is simply yet very helpful. This chapter, particularly, was helpful to me.

Under the heading “The Density of Sermons” the authors write, “The point isn’t for your congregation to be able to recall, like human Google searches, every sentence or even every point you made. The point is for the Word to shape their hearts and minds and wills, and that can happen even if they don’t remember the precise words or points you spoke.” (Preach, 124)

This was so helpful to me, because I tend to get discouraged when people don’t remember what I preached about. I read Andy Stanley’s and Lane Jones’ book Communicating to Change and was left with the impression that if people don’t remember the sermon then I have failed as a preacher. I know that was not their point, but that is how I felt.

With that being said, I hope this might help some of my preacher friends.