Help for New Expositors: How to Find the Main Idea for Preaching (Part 2)
Image
In my last post, I walked through my method for becoming more familiar with the biblical text through the process of reading, translating, and diagramming. Although at this point much progress has been made, there is still more work to do before we can confidently say we know the main idea of the text. Up to this point the study has been with the Bible alone—no commentaries should have been used thus far. This is important because we want to hear from God what His word says to us without the contamination of outside voices. Although we will need to fight against our own personal ideas and presuppositions being imposed upon the meaning of the text, this would be much more difficult if we had the input of others at this early stage. Now that we have listened to the Word with dependence upon the Holy Spirit, we are now ready to begin answering some of the observation questions we have developed in our reading and translation.
The next step we need to take is to tentatively identify the main theme of the passage. This may be changed as we continue studying, but we should have a good idea of a major theme that has risen to the top of our understanding from our studying at this point. Write this down and set it aside.
Next, choose several commentaries that will speak to the text you have chosen to study. If you need help knowing how to choose a commentary and the differences between some commentaries and others, read my post on how to select a commentary, and just as important, when to use them. You can find that post here.
Now, take out that list of observations and questions that you gathered from reading through your Bible 25 times, and with your commentaries handy, go looking for the answers to the questions and curiosities that you found. Background commentaries will help with the cultural issues you observed, exegetical and critical commentaries will help with linguistic issues that popped up when you translated or read various translations. Try to avoid reading expositional commentaries at this point because they might tempt you to short-cut the process of self-study by giving you the answers too easily. In these types of commentaries, usually built off of sermons, you would find an outline, illustrations, and even application. Plagiarism is still a sin, and is especially grievous in a minister of the Word.
Hopefully as you read the commentaries you had several conclusions confirmed from your own study. It is a special satisfaction that comes when you read the same things you found in your study in the pages of commentaries. It helps you realize that you too can study the Scriptures for yourself! If you find that you had unique ideas or were in disagreement with all or most of the commentaries regarding the main ideas or interpretation of the text, you might want to go back and re-study the passage again. It is possible that you got it right and everyone else got it wrong–possible, but highly improbable. Commentaries act as a check on our study to make sure that we aren’t far off in our conclusions. If you are certain you got it right, make sure that you have strong reasons that are defendable by the text of the Scriptures. God has given to the church many excellent Bible teachers (Eph. 4:11), and we shouldn’t ignore the wisdom given by the Spirit without very good reasons.
After your review of commentaries, you should be ready to put together a textual or exegetical outline. What is a textual or exegetical outline? It is an outline that follows the contours, storyline, or argument of the author. Sometimes this is done through textual markers seen in the original languages or grammar. Sometimes it is suggested by the flow of a narrative and the changing of scenes. It doesn’t have to be pretty, it just needs to accurately hit the high points of the text. Don’t try to alliterate or be fancy–just get the main ideas down. This outline should reflect the totality of the text you have studied. At this point, you may begin to see how you will break up a longer passage to be preached in larger chunks as multiple sermons.
Next, looking at the main theme you wrote down earlier, and your textual outline. What would you say is the doctrinal theme? In other words, what main theological idea rises to the top of this passage? Try to be brief and accurate–“love” is too generic, but “the love of God for the Church” would be more accurate. Think of this as a label for a box that your whole sermon text will fit into. If some of the text doesn’t fit this theological theme, then you need to adjust it and make sure it covers the whole text.
When you have come to the doctrinal or theological theme, ask yourself how well you know this doctrine. Perhaps it is one that you have studied well and in depth and you know what the whole of Scripture teaches about it. Wonderful! You can move on. But if you are lacking in your understanding, it would be best to take a look at a good systematic theology (or two) and read up on the subject. It might be that the doctrine is found in a few places that you will need to review, like our above subject “the love of God for the Church.” There you should look up the “love of God” under the attributes of God, and under “the love of Christ.” You probably would also want to look up this love under the subject of “the Church.” Additionally, you might want to check and see how God’s love for the Church is different from his love for other entities like Israel, unbelievers, and “the world.” Once you have armed yourself with what the whole Bible teaches on your doctrinal subject, you can be assured that you will not say something about your passage that is untrue in another passage you might have been ignorant about. That’s always embarrassing.
Now we are ready to consider forming the preaching proposition or main idea of the sermon. That will need to wait for the next post.
Always Reforming Articles
Reposted, with permission, from Always Reforming.
Richard Bargas Bio
Richard Bargas (BA, Biola Univ.; MDiv, DMin, The Master's Seminary) is the Executive Director of IFCA International and the Editor of the VOICE magazine. He blogs at Always Reforming.
A lot of good advice here. For example, I do think putting off the commentaries for a while is a good idea, though I have somewhat different reasons for that.
I think it’s worth noting, too, that Pastor Bargas looks to me to be aiming for developing skills, not just “getting it done.” In the long run, that’s a worthy aim. So what you do when you’re starting out is not exactly going to be what you do later. But when you’re inexperienced in the process, you have muscles to develop.
So, there are extra steps involved in that.
Brings me to a point that I know many disagree with, but I’m going to put it out there anyway: I frequently do not try to preach the biblical author’s outline. In the epistles I almost always to a kind of diagramming (not the drawing lines kind but the grammatical layout kind). So I have a pretty good idea of what the author’s flow of thought is. It doesn’t usually resemble what I would call an outline. These are epistles. The ‘outline’ often doesn’t look like what I believe a good sermon outline should look like. Sometimes it does.
So here’s where it gets tricky—because, yes, there are hazards. My goal is always to preach a sermon that is entirely consistent with the text and genuinely supported by it—but not necessarily identical to it in structure.
What I mean by that is probably not crystal clear, but it would take a lot of examples possibly to really explain.
There might be some increased risk of eisegesis in this approach. There is certainly some increased risk of hobby horsing. Even if what I preach is always there, I might be harping on the same truth way too much, due to some itch I’ve got, so to speak.
But aiming to replicate the original outline has risks as well. One of them is the risk of forming a message that is much harder for listeners to engage with and absorb.
I’m always very interested in how to talk to the people in the room, and that’s a huge part of what preaching is about. It’s why we don’t just read Scripture to them.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.


Discussion