“My Approach To Expository Preaching” by John D. Newland

**Each Friday Preaching Truth looks at some aspect of preaching, inviting pastors and scholars to submit articles. Today’s “Preaching Post Fridays” feature is authored by John D. Newland, senior pastor of Fall Creek Church in Indianapolis, Indiana since 2004.

John is a 1990 graduate of the University of Kentucky with a BS in Mathematics. His post-graduate degrees include a Master of Divinity from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, Tennessee (1993), and a Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky (2002). He is currently working on a Ph.D. in preaching and ethics from Southern Seminary. Follow John on  Twitter and on the church Facebook page**

Since my call to preach in 1983, I continue to work to understand preaching and to grow as a preacher. During that time, I have arrived at my non-negotiables about Christ’s charge to preachers, which I have broken down into seven areas for consideration. One, effective expository preaching must flow from a vibrant devotional life. Two, expository preaching must adhere to both the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture. Three, expository preaching must aim towards the complimentary goals of advancing the Kingdom of God and maturing the followers of Jesus. Four, expository preaching must demonstrate precision in selecting the text to fulfill the twin requirements of remaining faithful to the text and addressing the need of the hearers. Five, preaching’s authority originates from the Word of God. This can only be achieved by careful exegesis of the text that remains faithful to authorial intent. Six, expository preaching must package the eternal message of God in a form that enables modern hearers to be convinced of the authority of that message to them and understand its meaning for them. Seven, expository preaching must apply the message of God to the real life of the modern Christ-follower. Such application will necessarily call for faith in God and his Son, Jesus Christ, that empowers the believer to be increasingly transformed into the image of Christ. While I argue for seven key elements to well-rounded expository preaching, this paper will focus on what is required for the preacher to be faithful to the text and authorial intent that produces valid application of the preaching text.

The Preacher’s Faithfulness to the Text

Whatever system a preacher uses for creating a preaching calendar, the expository preacher must exercise considerable care in selecting the texts for preaching. The danger lies in forcing texts to support the theme of the sermon or series in a way that violates or compromises the original intent of the author. Even though my approach to the preaching calendar has been created for the purpose of addressing an occasion within the congregation, the text of Scripture used to address that need must be allowed to speak its enduring and authoritative message into that context. This requires that enough exegetical work be done during the preaching calendar planning to be reasonably assured that the texts selected are not merely proof-texts, nor are they being artificially bent in the direction of the theme. In the end, if I find that if the text does not fit the theme I originally envisioned, I either find another text to fit the theme more naturally, or I modify the theme of my sermon to match the authoritative text of Scripture. My process of exegesis involves the following analyses to get at the author’s intended meaning of the sermon text: unit analysis, syntactical analysis, verbal analysis, and theological analysis. 

Unit Analysis

The “unit analysis” lends the preacher a potent safeguard against misusing a text of Scripture. Daniel Block first introduced me to the unit analysis as a process that can “incorporate both analytical and synthetical tasks designed to help retrieve the [biblical] author’s intended meaning.”¹ He defines the unit analysis as discovering “the identification of more or less independent literary entities within a larger composition. It could involve a story complete in and of itself, or an episode within a more complex account.”² While this kind of analysis focuses primarily on identifying the individual pericopes within a book of the Bible, Block encourages students to apply the process to the entire book. This type of inquiry into the structure of biblical books enables the preacher “to determine the structure of a biblical composition by identifying the units that make up the composition and explaining their relationship to one another and to the composition as a whole. Mastery of the method should facilitate the interpretation of any unit in light of the general flow of the book.”³

Since learning how to perform unit analysis on Scripture, I have completed one for every book in the Bible, except Psalms. This work has proved invaluable to my preaching in numerous ways. First, it provides me a familiarity with the OT that I never imagined possible. Second, I understand clearly and have preserved graphically how a book of the Bible tells its story to the reader and the role each part plays in the telling of that story. Third, my initial assessment of a given text can be checked against the context of a particular passage quickly and easily to make sure I have stayed true to authorial intent. Fourth, I have access to less familiar parts of Scripture in a way that enables me to take my congregation to places they may never have been. These “hidden” parts of Scripture often add facets to God’s message that challenge Christ-followers on new levels. This keeps my preaching fresh and helps my people appreciate the profitability of all Scripture. Even after sixteen years of ministry at one church, repetition of sermon texts has never been a concern.

Syntactical Analysis

Upon selecting the pericope to be preached and understanding its role in the overall framework of the book, I move to analyze the message of the text according to the structure of the paragraphs within it. Walter Kaiser’s method of block diagramming, presented in Toward an Exegetical Theology,has been the most helpful approach I have encountered for understanding the structure of a pericope and its component paragraphs. He defines his approach as an effort “to analyze all the sentences in a paragraph and put them into a graphic design so as to show how they function together as a paragraph and how the arrangement of that paragraph compares with the arrangement of related paragraphs.”⁴

My first examination of the text aims to determine the theme sentence of the passage. If multiple paragraphs are being considered, I seek to identify the theme paragraph first and then chase down its theme sentence, which most likely serves as the theme of the pericope. If I cannot quickly determine the theme sentence with an initial analysis, I resort to a more deliberate effort to explore how each sentence relates to the others. Using a large white board or “MS OneNote” on my iPad makes this process more efficiently edited. As a safeguard, I often reference at least three translations to make sure that an examination of all three yields the same resultant theme sentence. If I am still uncertain after expending this level of energy on the passage, I work to diagram the paragraph in the original languages. If the topic sentence continues to elude me, I consult multiple exegetical commentaries in order to become familiar with the options available. Once the options are known, I return to work in the original languages and come to my own conclusion after much study and prayer. I am stubbornly committed to owning the interpretation of the text for myself. No matter which approach works best for a given text, the purpose of the exercise is to get at the point the author seeks to make. The supporting material is then assessed as to how it clarifies his point. At the conclusion of the sermon’s preparation, I file all my exegetical work according to the text’s reference for reuse. Any written notes are also filed away for future access. After twenty-five years of preaching with this methodology, I have amassed abundant resources from my own work that I continue to use, refine, and expand.

I rarely preach from less than a paragraph, since I consider the paragraph as the smallest unit of meaning in written communication. Only the paragraph can provide enough context to clearly define what words, clauses, and sentences actually mean. Consider the lone sentence, “That car is hot.” In modern American parlance, that sentence can mean multiple things, but absent more context, the reader cannot know what the author actually meant. That sentence may mean that a car has been out in the sun and its temperature has risen to a state of “hotness.” It can also mean that the car is a highly desirable and aesthetically pleasing. More context must be provided in order to understand the meaning of this most basic of sentences. The paragraph furnishes this minimum context that yields the opening for the interpreter to arrive at what the author actually intended by the words chosen. Kaiser leaves us with a cogent warning: “Only an awareness of and respect for the immediate context will keep the exegete from going off the deep end here. The author has the right to define his own words as he wishes to do so—and context is a key to unlocking part of that meaning.”⁵

Verbal Analysis

Only after I have arrived at a general understanding of the context do I drill down into the text at the level of individual words. Words, like sentences, require context to determine the limits of their semantic range in a given text. Words also depend on the paragraph, at a minimum, to clarify their meaning. Often times, my analysis requires a back and forth effort between examining the paragraph and individual words. Each depends on the other for full decipherability.

Another reason I perform syntactical analysis prior to verbal analysis is that I am keenly aware that original language study (Hebrew and Greek) is fraught with difficulty and frequently abused. Too often, the amateur ancient language grammarian (the preacher) presents his nuanced finding that, upon further study, proves to be irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. Early in my own preaching, I look back at various efforts to trumpet my erudition in the languages, only to discover later that I had merely exposed my ignorance. Grant Osborne highlights one issue when he notes, “most [scholars] feel that it is too difficult to discover rules that can cover the various levels of Hebrew grammar at the different stages of its development.”⁶ The Hebrew of Moses differs significantly enough from the Hebrew of Chronicles that a single Hebrew grammar cannot do justice to both eras. If reality is as Osborne suggests, then the busy preacher with only a year or two of Masters level Hebrew needs to tread humbly and carefully. Osborne further notes that Greek studies harbor similar dangers when he warns, “the student of the Word must always realize the state of flux in the Koine and avoid too many rigid conclusions on the basis of grammar. When the context indicates, we may indeed stress a particular kind of case usage; but often precision is missing and we must stress the whole context over a single isolated part.”⁷ Even in word-studies, context reigns as king.

Context limits the semantic range of a word, but not always precisely. Preachers often stray into the land of exegetical fallacies when they go to extremes of either expanding too broadly or restricting too narrowly the semantic field of a given word.⁸ Narrowing the semantic range of a word without contextual warrant runs the risk of not allowing the full weight of the word to convey the author’s intent. Broadening the semantic range of a word, in the face of contextual clues to the contrary, may cloud the author’s point. The words that carry the theological weight of a passage of Scripture must be examined in light of their context and defined appropriately. This calls for restraint on the part of the preacher to make sure that he does not gravitate to a meaning he prefers in favor of the meaning the biblical author intended.

Theological Analysis

Many expositors agree that theological analysis of the text provides the key to unlock the door to the transhistorical message and open the door to the individual rooms of application. Not everyone agrees with how theological analysis should be done. Nevertheless, expository preaching requires theological analysis because “literary and historical interpretation are incomplete as long as they have missed the text’s theocentric focus.”⁹ Theology exposes the significance of the text, but how? Bryan Chapell proposes that preachers “construct our message in such a way as to reveal the grace of God that is the ultimate focus of every text, the ultimate enablement for every instruction, and the only source of true holiness.”¹⁰ Grace becomes the theological lens through which he views every passage of Scripture. He justifies this position through his conviction that every text of Scripture contains “God’s response to an aspect of our fallenness.”¹¹ He combines the overriding theme of God’s grace with the conflict created by human sinfulness to arrive at his guiding theological principle: “the Fallen Condition Focus.” He defines it as “the mutual human condition that contemporary believers share with those to or for whom the text was written that requires the grace of the passage.”² While grace answering human sinfulness certainly dominates much Scripture, I believe this approach is too oppressive to lay over of every passage to be preached. Chapell, himself, contends, “Until we have determined a passage’s purpose, we should not think we are ready to preach its truths.”¹² If there are various purposes in every passage that must be determined, why insist later that “grace” dominates every passage of Scripture? Chapell’s Fallen Condition Focus proves valuable as far as it goes, but I fear that it might be somewhat reductionistic.

Sidney Greidanus argues for a theocentric method of doing theological analysis.¹³ He seems to opt for a basically systematic approach claiming that “theological interpretation emphasizes various facets of biblical interpretation that might be neglected in historical and literary interpretation, particularly that the biblical message is a word from God and a word about God.”¹⁴ He accurately assesses the essence of the Bible’s contents. However, his conclusions add little value to the preacher’s task. The Bible does not simply educate us about God. The Bible tells us how God relates to us and to the rest of His creation. It further reveals how humanity relates back to Him. How we relate to God and how He relates to us is more needful than merely knowing about God.

Juxtaposed with Chapell’s singular lens of grace and Greidanus’ systematic theology lens, Graeme Goldsworthy prefers to use biblical theology to get at the transhistorical message of the preached text. He asserts that his guiding principle for doing biblical theology is “that the center and reference point for the meaning of all Scripture is the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God.”¹⁵ Goldsworthy also distinguishes his approach from Kaiser by stopping short of Kaiser’s use of theology to arrive at principlization. Goldsworthy writes, “From the evangelical preacher’s point of view, biblical theology involves the quest for the big picture, or the overview, of biblical revelation. It is of the nature of biblical revelation that it tells a story rather than sets out timeless principles in abstract.”¹⁶ Certainly, each passage of Scripture chosen for preaching cannot speak beyond the bounds of Canon, but I contend that the single preaching event should be less concerned for the overview and more concerned with the theological point at hand. Goldsworthy continues, “biblical theology is concerned with how the revelation of God was understood in its time, and what the total picture is that was built up over the whole historical process.”¹⁷ No one denies the value of biblical theology as a discipline in its own right, but I argue that the sermon should focus on the theology of the text being preached, not the theology “built up over the whole historical process.”

In 1998, I read and reviewed Kaiser’s Toward an Exegetical Theology for a Doctor of Ministry Seminar led by Daniel Akin entitled: Theological, Historical, and Practical Issues in Expository Preaching. Kaiser prefers to employ biblical theology in his exegesis of Scripture as opposed to systematic theology. He, like Goldsworthy, sought to understand the message of a given passage through the lens of biblical theology. He also allows for antecedent theology to be considered as part of the theological exploration of the text to be preached. I wrote the following evaluation of his chapter on Theological Analysis: 

It would appear that the inclusion of even of antecedent theology in the exegesis of a particular text could possibly add baggage to the text in a similar way that subsequent theology could. This baggage could just as easily impose a meaning upon the author that he never intended. In light of Kaiser’s argument against using systematic theology in exegesis, I believe it would be preferable to focus on the theology presented in the text at hand and relegate all other theology to ‘our conclusions or summaries after we have firmly established on exegetical grounds precisely what the passage means.’¹⁸

I believed my method of theological analysis was right the approach then, and I am even more convinced that it is the right approach now. The text to be preached carries its own theological message and it must be mined, if the text is to be allowed to speak for itself. My methodology centers on asking questions of the text to discover what unique theological contribution it makes to Christian theology. Whatever the particular passage adds needs to be highlighted in its own right. I am less concerned with blunting the theological edges of a given passage so that it fits neatly within the recognized categories of biblical or systematic theology. For instance, if a passage proclaims the sovereignty of God, I seek to present His sovereignty unmuted and invite awe. However, if a passage exhorts human responsibility to obey, I urge and plead with my congregation to choose obedience with all their might or they will face God’s consequences for rebellion. Granted, I cannot preach the theology of a passage beyond the bounds of what is Christian orthodoxy. However, the theological edges should be allowed to remain sharp without being heretical or even obnoxious.

Concluding my assessment of Kaiser, I wrote, “Perhaps there is more that can be done to bridge the gap between exegesis and preaching.”¹⁹ So, I quietly set out to build my own bridge, focusing directly on the theology of the text selected for preaching. I strongly believed in what I was doing, while carrying concerns that I might simply be stubborn or, worse, arrogant.

Studying Grant Osborne gave me confidence that my approach holds substance. In the middle of a discussion on his hermeneutical principles for doing systematic theology, he proffered the requirement that all passages must be exegeted in their context.²⁰ He wrote the following as an aside:

The pastor will make this the core of the presentation. The critical part of this step is not only to ‘exegete’ but to do so ‘in their context,’ for when the biblical statements are artificially placed side by side, the context can be ignored, with the result that the passages take on a life of their own and begin to interpret one another in ways that go beyond the author’s intended meaning or theological emphasis. This leads to another form of ‘illegitimate totality transfer.’ The theologian needs to see which aspect of the issue the passage addresses in its context before considering the larger theological truth that emerges from all the passages placed together.²

Osborne recognizes that the preaching event must focus on the theological message within the historical framework of the text under consideration. Any passage, antecedent or otherwise, runs the risk of contaminating authorial intent. If Osborne strengthened my resolve in my theological methodology for preaching, Abraham Kuruvilla’s work definitely confirmed that I have been on the right track. Kuruvilla downplays the value of deriving the application of a text of Scripture from systematic theology and biblical theology, deeming their generality for a sermon, especially a series of sermons on consecutive texts, as problematic.²¹ He develops the concept of “pericopal theology” as an alternative for discovering the transhistorical intention of a given text. Kuruvilla proceeds to redefine his use of pericope in anticipation of defining his theological hermeneutic, “While acknowledging its more common connotation of a portion of the Gospels, ‘pericope’ is employed here to demarcate a segment of Scripture, irrespective of genre or length, that forms the textual basis of an individual sermon.”²² He describes his method as follows: 

The vantage point of this entire offering is the pulpit, so to speak, not the desk of a Bible scholar or the lectern of a systematic theologian. In other words, the ‘theology’ of this theological hermeneutic is not biblical or systematic theology. Rather, sustaining the focus on preaching, the theology employed is that of the pericope: what the author is doing with what he is saying in the specific pericope chosen for the sermon. What in this unit text of preaching is intended to change the lives of listeners for the glory of God?²³

In other words, modern readers of the Bible do not focus attention on the history behind the narrative of Scripture, we must focus on what the biblical writer says about those historical events. The biblical author has already interpreted the Bible’s history. We must discern the author’s theological interpretation of historical events to gain access to his message to us. Where he differs from Chapell, however, is that “each pericope is portraying, not merely a sin-influenced failure on the part of mankind, but what it means to fulfill a divine demand. In other words, the text does not point out sinful depletion; it indicates what sinless repletion looks like.”²⁴ The text aims to show us more than how we can be fixed; it shows us how we can be holy, an infinitely loftier goal. Kuruvilla’s hermeneutic actually makes Scripture more accessible than we might first imagine. We no longer have to work to recreate the history, sociology, or psychology of the ancient world as precursors for understanding the biblical text. The text itself has preserved all of that world that is necessary for conveying the intended message of the author. Kuruvilla argues that “all literary texts function in this manner and project worlds in front of themselves; thus, a text serves as an instrument of that action.”²⁵ This includes Scripture. Discerning the theology of the text (pericope) provides all the material necessary for building the bridge to the most relevant and life-transforming application. The biblical author is not writing a contribution to theology but delivering a message to his original audience, with an eye towards historical transcendence, through the careful selection of material germane to the purpose for which the text was written.

The Preacher’s Application of God’s Message

The modern congregation yearns for relevance. Most of them long to find solutions for the problems of their lives. While the Bible certainly provides many answers for better living in this broken world, God’s preacher must move the people of God beyond being content with better living to being consumed with Christ-likeness where they live. This can only happen through the application of the transcendent text to the immanent domain of people’s lives.

I have yet to encounter the resource where the writer espouses that the preacher read a Scripture passage and tell the people whatever he wants to say, whether the text bears any resemblance to the instruction or not. Everybody agrees that valid application must be anchored to the authorial intent of the passage preached. Furthermore, every author I read agrees that valid application must also be derived from a theological analysis of the text at some level. Many eschew leaving application “at the level of generalities, abstractions, and universals.”²⁶

Kaiser falls in the camp of those who prefer a more general approach, he calls “principlization.” He writes, “To ‘principlize’ is to state the author’s propositions, arguments, narrations, and illustrations in timeless abiding truths with special focus on the application of those truths to the current needs of the Church. Contemporary applications will often be suggested by analogous applications made by the original writer of the Biblical text.”²⁷ At the time he wrote, Kaiser’s call for application and insistence that it be grounded in the text were momentous for its day. Much work has been done since then to advance the application of Scripture to the contemporary audience considerably. Greidanus moved deeper by calling for a theocentric hermeneutic and suggesting “if preachers wish to pass on the message in its original relevance, they ought to focus on that question behind the text, on the reason why the text was written—its goal or purpose.”²⁸ However, he warned preachers to be “careful not to generalize the issue to such an extent that the point is lost.”²⁹ Chapell blazed a trail for application further and more clearly than anyone up to his time. His development of the “Fallen Condition Focus” served as a beacon drawing out applications from the text declaring: “This is what you must do about that problem, need, or fault on the basis of what this passage means.”³¹ Realizing that grace may not actually be in every text, he attempts to save his argument in a footnote urging preachers to “remember that context is part of text.”²

The intervening years appear to have been mostly filled with interactions between champions for either the methods of Kaiser or Greidanus or Chapell. Enter Kuruvilla. He maintains that application of a text “is the alignment of God’s people to God’s demand, the inhabitation of the world in front of the text by the adoption of that world’s precepts, priorities, and practices.”³² Kuruvilla’s “world in front of the text” comprises the purpose of the biblical author, who has already interpreted the historical account according his own, divinely inspired, theological agenda, evidenced by the material he selects to include in (and exclude from) his text. It is this theological agenda that carries the building blocks of contemporary application from the text itself and not some artificial introduction of Christ or some principle or some category of the disciplines of theology. He warns, “there is the ‘strong danger of ultimate superficiality’ when the ancient text is not allowed to speak for itself and express its primary message.”³³ Kuruvilla challenges preachers to stop looking backstage, stop looking for the back- story, stop looking for what is behind and around the text and start looking at the text. Everything we need is there. What Kuruvilla claims we will find there is the divine demand, which “seeks to mold the people of God into the image of God himself… It is more a world-projecting system than a behavior-directing statute book—it projects a world in front of the text and beckons mankind to abide by this world’s precepts, priorities, and practices.”³⁴ From this divine demand of the text, then, “the task of the preacher is to improvise, delving into the past and suggesting in the present how the past may be creatively exemplified/applied in the future.”³⁵

Kuruvilla has fully developed and remarkably demonstrated what I have rudimentarily attempted for years. If the bounds of the text selected fit the author’s intention and thought unit, then the application should arise out of the pericopal theology of the text. I attempt to use this approach to answer four questions: one, what does God expect us to know from this text; two, what does God expect us to believe from this text; three, what does God expect us to do from this text; four, where and how in our lives do God’s expectations from this text show up? Once I have answers to these questions, I seek to imagine the lives of my people and apply these answers to situations they are likely to face.

Bibliography

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Paternoster ; Baker Books, 1996.

Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.

Cox, James W. Preaching. New York: Harpercollins College Div., 1993.

Decker, Bert, and Hershael W. York. Preaching with Bold Assurance: A Solid and Enduring Approach to Engaging Exposition. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Books, 2003.

Duduit, Michael. Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Academic, 1993.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Kaiser, Walter C. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Klein, Dr William W., Dr Craig L. Blomberg, Dr Robert L. Hubbard Jr, and Kermit Allen Ecklebarger. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Kuruvilla, Abraham. Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2013.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martin. Preaching and Preachers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Olford, David, and Stephen Olford. Anointed Expository Preaching. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Academic, 2003.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Piper, John. Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Publishing Group, 2002.

———. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

Quicke, Michael J. 360-Degree Preaching: Hearing, Speaking, and Living the Word. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Spurgeon, Charles H. Lectures to My Students. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.

Stanley, Andy, and Lane Jones. Communicating for a Change: Seven Keys to Irresistible Communication. 1St Edition edition. Sisters, Or: Multnomah Books, 2006.

Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub Co, 1982.

Sunukjian, Donald. Invitation to Biblical Preaching: Proclaiming Truth with Clarity and Relevance. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007.

1. Daniel I. Block, “Expository Preaching and the Old Testament” (Doctor of Ministry in Expository Preaching Seminar, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, January 11-16, 1999).
2. Ibid.
3. Block, Seminar.
4. Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 100.
5. Kaiser, 85.
6. Grant R Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 48.
7. Ibid., 56.
8. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1996), 57-61.
9. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 104.
10. Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994).
11. Ibid., 42.
12. Ibid., 40.
13. Greidanus, 113-120.
14. Ibid., 120.
15. Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 16.
16. Goldsworthy, 22.
17. Ibid., 26.
18. Kaiser, 140. John D. Newland, “Toward an Exegetical Theology” (book review, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, January 1998), 6.
19. Newland, 7.
20. Osborne, 315.
21. Abraham Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2013), 114.
22. Kuruvilla, 30.
23. Ibid., 25.
24. Ibid., 259.
25. Ibid., 41.
26. Kuruvilla, 137.
27. Kaiser, 152.
28. Greidanus, 173.
29. Ibid., 174.
31. Chapell, 202.[/efn_note} However, Chapell warns the preacher, “the application of an expository sermon is not complete until the pastor has disclosed the grace in the text that rightly stimulates the obedient response of believers.”³⁰Ibid., 209.
32. Kuruvilla, 135.
33. Kuruvilla, 219.
34. Ibid., 189.
35. Ibid., 141.