Sundays: 9:00 AM Sunday School | 10:30 AM Worship Service

Watch Live

|

Contact

|

App

|

Sunday School

Lesson 1: Literal Hermeneutic and Expository Preaching, Overview

Speaker
David Capoccia

Now Playing

Watch Video Save MP3 Save PDF


Slides / Handouts

PDF document available for this sermon.

Your browser doesn’t support PDF embedding.

Download PDF

Reading Tools:

Aa

Auto Transcript

Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

Summary

The literal grammatical-historical-rhetorical hermeneutic is the only proper method for interpreting the Bible, and expository preaching is its necessary outworking. This lesson launches a new series on defending doctrinal distinctives by establishing the foundational principle that Scripture must be interpreted according to the plain sense of human communication, paying attention to grammar, historical context, genre, and structure. Through a practical exercise with Jeremiah 29:11, we see how the literal hermeneutic uncovers the author’s originally intended meaning rather than imposing our own meaning onto the text.

Key Lessons:

  1. The literal hermeneutic does not mean taking every word woodenly — it means interpreting the Bible according to the normal rules of human communication, starting with the plain sense and moving to figurative meaning only when context demands it.
  2. Faithful Bible interpretation requires attention to four elements simultaneously: literal (plain sense), grammatical (words and syntax), historical (occasion and culture), and rhetorical (genre and structure).
  3. The Bible itself models and demands the literal hermeneutic — Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets all interpreted earlier Scripture in a plain-sense, literal fashion.
  4. Expository preaching — authoritatively proclaiming, clearly explaining, and appropriately applying a biblical text — is the only form of preaching that faithfully handles God’s Word.

Application: We are called to approach Scripture with disciplined interpretation rather than reading our own meanings into the text. Whether studying privately or listening to preaching, we should expect and pursue the author’s original intent and then ask how that meaning applies to our lives today. We should put our hope in God’s covenant promises rather than false hopes.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Before this lesson, how would you have interpreted Jeremiah 29:11, and how does understanding its original context change or deepen your view?
  2. Why is it dangerous to practice eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing meaning out), and can you think of a time you may have done this?
  3. How does recognizing that all Scripture is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16-17) — even texts written to ancient peoples — change the way you approach Old Testament passages that seem irrelevant to your life?

Scripture Focus: Jeremiah 29:10-14 (God’s covenant promises to exiled Israel), 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (all Scripture is profitable), Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11 (Old Testament written for our instruction), Nehemiah 8:7-8 (Levites explaining God’s Word), Acts 2:14-41 (Peter’s expository sermon at Pentecost).

Outline

Introduction

Beginning a new series today entitled “Defending Doctrinal Distinctives.”

What Is This Course?

What is this course? Well, this is a course on certain doctrines. Can anybody tell me what a doctrine is?

Teaching.

A teaching. Exactly. Or authoritative teaching. Doctrine might be one of those words you’re like, doctrine? It could maybe sound irrelevant or scary, but don’t think of it that way. Doctrine is simply a summary or a codification of what the Bible teaches. And this is a course about doctrine.

But this is not a fundamentals of the faith course. The doctrines that we cover in this course are not what you must believe to be saved or to be a healthy growing Christian, though some of them are. Also, this is not a membership class. The doctrines that we cover are not what you must believe to become a member at this church or to serve at this church, though again a few of the doctrines are.

Instead, this course is a systematic presentation of the most controversial yet still important doctrines that we do teach at this church. And understand what I mean by controversial: I don’t mean that these doctrines are somehow a departure from biblical teaching, from apostolic teaching—far from it. But they are controversial because though these teachings, though these doctrines are biblical, many professing Christians nonetheless distort, deny, or simply do not understand these doctrines.

“Doctrine is simply a summary or a codification of what the Bible teaches.”

So that’s what this course is. Why this course? I partly answered that question.

Why This Course?

Biblical doctrines that are frequently misunderstood and attacked deserve special attention.

“Biblical doctrines that are frequently misunderstood and attacked deserve special attention.”

Additionally, however, we recognize that even here some of you members and attendees have had questions about certain doctrines or even difficulty accepting certain doctrines that we teach. This course gives the elders, myself included, the opportunity to provide you with a more thorough explanation of these doctrines than we could give you in a one-on-one conversation or as a small portion of a sermon.

We can engage it more directly and more thoroughly. God willing, this course will ground us all better in God’s truth, grow us in unity together, and ultimately grow us in holiness and love for God. Because that is the true intended outcome of doctrine—not just to fill your head, certainly not that, but actually to move you to worship and to move you to obedience.

“The true intended outcome of doctrine is to move you to worship and to obedience.”

How Will We Proceed?

Now, how will we proceed in this course?

Basically, as I said before, systematically because we don’t want to rush with controversial yet crucial doctrines, we plan to take the whole ministry year September to June to go through these doctrines. It’s 15 doctrines to discuss over 37 Sunday school weeks.

Which doctrines will be discussed? I do have a preview on the slide, but it’s probably not readable. I do apologize for that. The writing is somewhat small. That’s the only way I could fit them all on there. Maybe you can see it later when it’s posted with the Sunday school recording.

We’re going to go through a number of doctrines. We’ll just highlight a few as examples.

The topics are listed on the left and the doctrines on the right.

The trinity. We’ll talk about Nicene trinitarianism, a classic or traditional understanding of the trinity. Baptism, believers’ baptism by immersion. That’s the doctrinal stance that we hold to. Roles of men and women, we teach complementarianism. What about hell? We teach hell is conscious eternal punishment. Those are the types of things that we’ll be going over. And you can look at some other ones. And if you look at that list, you’ll know, oh yeah, not everybody agrees with that in God’s church. And that’s the point. That’s why we want to take time to discuss them.

Generally, our approach will be to present each doctrine over two lessons. There will first be a lesson explaining what the doctrine is and supporting that doctrine from the Bible, and then it will be followed up by a second lesson where we answer frequently offered questions or objections to that doctrine.

“Not everybody agrees with that in God’s church. That’s why we want to take time to discuss them.”

We also have scheduled a few Q&A sessions for any specific questions that you come up with that we don’t otherwise cover in the course. You’ll want to write down any questions that come to your mind as we go through these lessons and then send it to the elders so that we know about it and can have time to prepare an answer for one of our Q&A sessions.

So we have a multi-pronged approach to systematically teaching these important doctrines. We have an explanation lesson followed by a defense lesson followed by periodic Q&As.

Questions About the Course

Questions about this course?

I have one question.

Yeah, Mark.

Are there topics that you thought of including that hit the cutting room floor?

Yeah, good question. Are there topics that we thought of including but that didn’t make it into this course? Yes and no. I think we might have actually talked about it a little bit before, but we looked through the whole statement of faith to see if there’s anything that is a frequently debated doctrine that people have questions about.

We didn’t really find any more than these. In fact, I thought maybe we could cut one or two and that would still serve the congregation well, but these seem to be the ones that most fit the category. I did think that maybe we could talk about angels and demons more specifically, but that isn’t so controversial as it is just maybe not really thought about and not understood.

So we’re not talking about that specifically. But all the other ones, I think they fit the category well of what this course is going to be about.

Yeah, Steve, are these—which ones would you say are necessity?

Yeah, okay. Steve asked a good question. Which of these doctrines that I’ve listed are necessity and which ones are squishy? Which ones are maybe not salvific or not as crucial? Certainly the gospel, God, and probably the things related to the Bible are necessity because if you don’t believe those things, then you’ve missed the core part of the faith.

Now, I don’t mean that if you don’t completely understand inerrancy that you can’t be saved. But if you don’t regard the Bible as the word of God and it’s not authoritative, or if you don’t believe the gospel, you’re not a Christian. But these other things like creationism or eschatology, they’re certainly not required to be saved. So in that sense, it’s not a fundamentals of the faith course.

Wow, I didn’t expect so many questions, but all right, Tony.

Tony asks, “Is the idea of this course based on what’s going on in our culture and have a more solid idea of what we believe?” I think partly but not so much. I would say I’m more paying attention to our own experience here as elders in the church and just what’s going on in Christianity as a whole, especially in the west. So this will certainly be impacted by what’s going on in the culture, but this is more about what’s going on in the church.

“This is more about what’s going on in the church.”

All right, allow me to move on. If there are other questions, bring it up, please, afterwards.

Opening Exercise: Jeremiah 29:11

Let’s get into our first doctrine of the series, and we’ll do so by way of a multiple-choice question.

Jeremiah 29:11 famously says, “For I know the plans that I have for you, declares the Lord, or Yahweh—that’s the original word—plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.” My question for you right now is, what does this verse mean? Take a moment to think about it. Don’t answer out loud.

What does Jeremiah 29:11 mean?

Now that you’ve had some time to think about it, in your heads, please select the best answer from among the following options. In answering the question, what does Jeremiah 29:11 mean? Is it A: God has good plans for your prosperity in this life and for your salvation in the next.

B: God has good plans for Israel and covenant love and can be trusted to restore Israel from exile. C: God has good plans for the salvation of the world from sin through Jesus Christ. D: The meaning of this verse changes depending on the reader.

E: Only a supernaturally guided religious leader can give the meaning of this verse. Or F: The meaning of this verse has been lost or is unknowable.

So mentally select an answer from that list which you think best answers the question.

Mike is asking what about the context? I didn’t say anything about that. You can look at the context if you want to determine your answer. I’m just asking you right now. What does this verse mean?

I’m not asking for answers yet. Please just put it in your mind.

I’ve given you time to mentally select an answer. Hopefully you have. We’re going to come back to it later.

The Process of Bible Interpretation

What I just asked you all to do was engage in the process of Bible interpretation. You heard a verse from scripture and were asked to take a position on what the verse means.

But how do you do that? How did you do that? If you did that, unless you were completely lost or you just randomly guessed, you had to choose a method of interpretation that operates according to certain rules or principles.

But which method did you choose? Did you simply go with the answer that felt true to you, that spoke to you? Did you go with the answer you’ve heard others give before, maybe pastors or teachers? Or did you go with the answer that fits the details and the original context of the verse?

“You had to choose a method of interpretation that operates according to certain rules or principles.”

Really, there is only one legitimate method for interpreting the Bible, and it is the method known as historical grammatical hermeneutics or known more concisely as the literal hermeneutic.

If you’re confused by those terms—hermeneutics and hermeneutic—hermeneutics plural is just a fancy word for rules of interpretation, and hermeneutic singular is just a fancy word for method of interpretation.

Today I would like to explain to you the literal hermeneutic and then connect it with its consequent proper form of preaching, which is known as expository preaching. We’re going to spend most of our time on the first topic, a little bit on the second. The elders at Calvary, in accordance with scripture and as noted in our church’s statement of faith, hold both to a literal hermeneutic and to expository preaching.

Let’s talk about what these are.

What Is the Literal Hermeneutic?

Starting first with the literal hermeneutic.

What is the literal hermeneutic? Here’s a definition.

The literal hermeneutic is a plain sense method of Bible interpretation that operates according to the normal rules of human communication and that seeks to understand the original intent of the biblical authors as they express their intent in the texts they wrote. Plain sense method, normal rules of human communication, seeking to understand the original intent of the biblical authors according to what’s in their texts.

“A plain sense method that seeks to understand the original intent of the biblical authors.”

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis

Another way to describe the literal hermeneutic or what rather what it is after is to say that the literal hermeneutic pursues exesus not isogesus.

Can anybody tell me the difference between those two terms?

Okay, Mike essentially has it. Exog Jesus is the process of drawing out bringing out you see the idea of X out or from drawing out the author’s original meaning from the text where is Jesus is the process of reading into a text a meaning foreign to the author’s original meaning.

The literal hermeneutic pursues exesus not isogesis.

“Exegesis draws out the author’s original meaning; eisegesis reads in a meaning foreign to it.”

The Four Elements of the Literal Hermeneutic

To further explain this literal hermeneutic, we can refer to another wordier synonym of the same method. The literal hermeneutic can also be called the literal grammatical historical rhetorical hermeneutics, or to practice literal grammatical historical rhetorical hermeneutics.

Now that’s a lot to say, so you don’t use that term often, but it is synonymous with the literal hermeneutic. These first four terms in the title represent the rules of interpretation, the fundamental rules of interpretation that make up the literal hermeneutic.

Note that these terms are not in chronological order or in order of importance. Rather, those who use the literal hermeneutic should continually be paying attention to all four elements when examining a Bible passage. Let’s briefly examine these four parts of the literal method. The first part is literal. Number one: literal.

“Those who use the literal hermeneutic should continually pay attention to all four elements.”

Element 1: Literal

The literal aspect of the literal hermeneutic does not mean what many people assume it does, which is taking every description of the Bible as actual and denying the use of any figurative language.

What people allege the literal hermeneutic actually means is that if the Bible speaks of the hand of God striking someone, well, God must actually have a hand that he uses to hit a person. And if Jesus says that he is the door of his sheep, John 10:9, then Jesus must be an actual door in addition to being God and a human being. But this is ridiculous and it would immediately cause the Bible to contradict itself.

This is not what we mean by literal in the literal hermeneutic. Rather, it means something different. The literal means that which corresponds to the plain or normal sense of human communication.

When you interpret the Bible, you should approach it with a plain or normal sense of human communication.

When we humans communicate, we always start with the most basic interpretation of someone else’s statement and only proceed to a figurative interpretation if we have a good reason. That is, if the most basic interpretation does not make sense or if there are clues within or surrounding the communication that indicate a figurative understanding is necessary.

“We always start with the most basic interpretation and only proceed to figurative if we have good reason.”

For example, if someone says the baby is on the way, we should start by understanding this statement in its most basic sense, which is what? It might refer to pregnancy or a baby soon coming. The most basic sense is that a particular child, a very young one, is moving or being transported from one place to another, perhaps in the process of birth.

This is the plain, basic, normal sense. This is where we start. However, clues might surround this statement that plainly show us that we should use a more figurative interpretation.

We might see from the greater context that the one making the statement does not have children and is not expecting children and is not interacting with anyone else’s children. Thus, baby must mean something different than its most basic meaning, a human infant or toddler.

If we also learn that the speaker was previously negotiating with a car dealer about purchasing a new and customized sports car, then the meaning of baby becomes clear. What must the speaker mean by “the baby is on the way”? He has a new car. The speaker is describing the soon arrival of his newly ordered car.

That’s a figurative meaning, but it’s one that’s made clear. He uses baby to describe a new sports car. This is plain to us because of the clues that are in and around the statement, particularly around the statement.

Similarly, in the literal hermeneutic, you start with the most basic interpretation of a Bible passage and only move to a figurative interpretation when clues in the context indicate that the figurative interpretation is plainly meant by the original author.

“Only move to a figurative interpretation when clues in the context indicate it is plainly meant.”

Element 2: Grammatical

That’s number one. Number two, grammatical.

And by the way, if you’re interested in these slides, they will be available once the recording is put on the website.

The grammatical aspect of the literal hermeneutic does mean what you probably think it does. To understand a passage’s original meaning, you must pay close attention to the grammar of the passage. That is the words and syntax. What is syntax? It’s just a word for analyzing word order and relationships. What are the relationships between the words? How do they function in the sentence or the passage? And to appreciate the importance of grammar, compare the following two English sentences.

Let’s eat, grandpa and let’s eat grandpa.

These two sentences use the same words and even have the same word order, but they differ starkly in their grammar and thus starkly in their meaning. Can anyone tell me what the grammatical difference is between these two sentences? It’s reflected in the way that I speak it and my inflection, but particularly there is a piece of punctuation that shows us a grammatical difference: a comma.

This comma is highly important because what does the comma indicate about the word grandpa in the first sentence? There is a separation. What does the separation indicate exactly? You’re talking to grandpa. This is direct address or grammatically it’s the vocative case. Grandpa is being invited to a meal. Without the comma, what is the grammatical function of the noun grandpa in sentence two? It’s the direct object. He’s the subject of what’s going to be eaten. He’s being suggested as the meal. This is the accusative case and very alarming for grandpa, I’m sure.

Now, the original languages of the Bible—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—they didn’t use commas, but they did use various particles, word forms, and word endings to indicate grammar, to tell us what a word means and how it is related to other words in the sentence. Our English Bible translations do to some extent faithfully reflect the original grammar of the Bible languages, but the most serious practitioners of the literal hermeneutic will want to do grammatical analysis on the original Bible texts themselves in the original languages.

“The most serious practitioners will want to do grammatical analysis on the original Bible texts themselves.”

So, like I said, the original grammar is reflected in our translations, but you get a better picture and understanding of it by going to the actual texts in Greek, Hebrew, etc. themselves. So literal, grammatical. Number three, historical.

Element 3: Historical

The historical aspect of the literal hermeneutic means paying attention to the historical occasion of a biblical text as well as the cultural environment in which the text was communicated.

The idea here is that if you do not understand the historical circumstances in which a message was originally composed, you will likely misinterpret the author’s intent in writing that message.

“If you do not understand the historical circumstances, you will likely misinterpret the author’s intent.”

The most necessary historical clues for interpretation for any particular section of the Bible are always featured in the Bible itself. Don’t be like, “Oh, I got to become a history scholar if I want to understand the Bible.” No, the history that you most need to understand is already in the Bible. But historical information from outside the Bible can be helpful.

Key historical data that you would want to know for a biblical text includes author, recipients, date, and purpose in writing.

I was newly struck by the importance of the historical aspect of the literal hermeneutic after listening to an audio recording of the Christian classic “Religious Affections” by Jonathan Edwards. This is a book, and I was listening to the audio version of it.

Edwards says in the beginning of his work that he writes to clarify the true signs of religious affection in a person that is genuine salvation versus signs that do not necessarily mean anything. One of the signs that Edwards repeatedly mentions as being no sure sign of a person’s true conversion is a person’s testimony of profound religious experiences and discoveries.

As I kept listening to Edwards, I found myself asking, why does he keep talking about religious experiences and discoveries as not being a sure sign of salvation? But then I remembered from my church history class in seminary when Edwards wrote his work in the 1740s in the American colonies in the latter half of the first great awakening.

What was the first great awakening? It was a movement of Christian revival marked by dramatic conversions and emotional outpourings in reaction to Christian preaching. Indeed, Edwards’ own preaching had a profound effect within that revival movement.

Thus, the purpose of Edwards’ work suddenly became much clearer to me. Edwards does not in his writing seek to discredit the first great awakening or the true conversions that are actually happening in it. But he is aware that many getting caught up in the movement are mere enthusiasts.

Thus, by clarifying what are and what are not reliable signs of a person’s true conversion, Edwards seeks to protect Christians from being unfairly suspicious of true converts and also protect Christians from being unhelpfully affirming of false converts.

In a similar way, those using the literal hermeneutic must work to understand the historical circumstances of the authors, recipients, and subjects of the Bible to understand and better appreciate the biblical texts.

Element 4: Rhetorical

Finally, number four, rhetorical. The rhetorical aspect of the literal hermeneutic means paying attention to the genre and structure of a biblical text. Now, can anyone tell me what genre is?

Style. Not exactly style, but you’re on the right track.

Say again.

Oh, you guys are giving some examples of genre. Genre just means type. And when used to speak of text, we’re talking about types of literature. Genre is an important aspect of everyday human communication. We interpret satirical newspaper articles differently than local laws or even romantic poetry.

“We interpret satirical articles differently than local laws, even though we approach each with a plain sense understanding.”

Even though we approach each type of text with a literal or plain sense understanding.

Genre and Its Nuances

In a similar way, the Bible’s different books employ different genres which, while not determining the meaning or interpretation of the text itself, does alert the interpreter to recognize and be ready for nuances unique to that genre. For example, proverbs will often provide general truths, but do have exceptions.

Narratives will sometimes report behavior that is not necessarily to be imitated. And poetry will often employ emotionally charged figures of speech.

As a practitioner of the literal hermeneutic, you want to be ready for these nuances as you recognize the genre of a text. But critically, you must remember this in following the literal hermeneutic. A text’s genre must itself be determined by clues within the text. Don’t just assume what the genre is before you read it. The genre must be determined by what’s actually in the text.

Also, every genre must still be approached with the same plain sense hermeneutic. You can’t have one hermeneutic for one section of the Bible and its particular genre and then a different hermeneutic for another section of the Bible. No, it has to be literal all the way through. Literal hermeneutic all the way through. A plain sense hermeneutic all the way through, just being ready for nuances to add to your interpretation.

“A text’s genre must be determined by clues within the text. Don’t just assume what the genre is.”

Structure in Biblical Writing

As for structure, the writers of scripture use structure or the organization of their writing as an important indicator of how they wanted their ideas emphasized and communicated.

If you’ve ever been in school, you probably have had to write an essay. And if you’ve written an essay, then you’ve had to think about structure in writing.

In an essay, you need to organize your paragraphs in the most sensible way. You need an introduction. You need a body. You need a conclusion. Your thesis or main idea that you’re trying to prove should appear in your introduction paragraph.

Your supporting ideas should appear in your body paragraphs. Your conclusion paragraph should sum up your idea as an argument. And your supporting paragraphs themselves should have a structure. They should have clear topic sentences that connect to your thesis or main idea.

And the paragraph should be filled with specific supports that back up the topic sentences which back up the thesis.

On top of everything, your paragraphs need appropriate transition words to help your argument flow logically and smoothly.

We make all these structural choices in writing essays to most clearly present our point. And may say, “Please don’t remind me about writing essays. I’m totally done with that. I’m sorry. Just for the sake of analogy.” Broadly speaking, the writers of scripture work the same way as we do in trying to write essays. The authors of scriptures purposefully use structures to clarify and emphasize their messages.

“The authors of Scripture purposefully use structures to clarify and emphasize their messages.”

Therefore, using the literal hermeneutic means working to uncover a Bible book’s or a section of a Bible book’s structure.

How is it organized? How is he putting together his thoughts? And you can recognize structure by two main ways.

Analyze the content of different parts of a text. Say, okay, this is all talking about this right here. This is all talking about this right here, etc. And then pay attention to the grammatical links between those parts, namely transition words. How does he indicate that these two sections of ideas are connected?

And that’s it. These are the four main principles of the literal hermeneutic.

Applying the Literal Hermeneutic to Jeremiah 29:11

Literal, grammatical, historical, and rhetorical. Again, not in an order. You practice all those at the same time in analyzing or interpreting a Bible passage. So let’s now see this in action. Let’s now return to Jeremiah 29:11 and see how the Little Hermeneutic uncovers for us the author’s originally intended meaning. So please turn there in your Bibles if you haven’t already.

Jeremiah 29:11. This is on page 785 if you want to use the Bibles that we’ve provided.

As you look at this passage yourself, two features that should immediately stick out to you as an interpreter in verse 11 are the words “for” and “you.”

“‘For’ is a transition word indicating the author is supplying a reason for something he just said.”

For at the beginning of verse 11 is a transition word indicating that the author is supplying a reason for something that he just said. Meanwhile, “you” is a pronoun, a pronoun whose reference—the person or object for whom the pronoun stands—must have already been mentioned.

Both of these clues show us that to understand this verse, surprise, surprise, we must do as Mike mentioned. We must look at the context. We must look at what comes before and after this verse.

The Historical Context of Jeremiah 29

At the widest level of context in Jeremiah, or at least contained to the book, we discover that this book of prophecy—that’s its main genre—was written by the prophet Jeremiah before, during, and after the fall of the kingdom of Judah to Babylon in 586 BC. Now, recall, or maybe you haven’t heard before, Jerusalem was captured by Babylon three times. It was attacked and captured three times by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

And after each victory, Nebuchadnezzar took a new wave of exiles to Babylon. Every time he attacked, the results were worse for the inhabitants. First, it was kind of light. Second, it was worse. Third, it’s really devastating. And more and more exiles were taken each time.

At the beginning of Jeremiah 29, we get a more specific description of the historical occasion of what goes on in this chapter. In verses 1-9, we learn that Jeremiah writes from Jerusalem to the second wave of exiles who have just arrived in Babylon. So exiles were taken. Jeremiah is still back at home in Jerusalem, but the exiles are now in Babylon. And he writes to them in Jeremiah 29 to give them a two-fold message from God. Basically, number one, settle down in Babylon and prosper there. And number two, stop listening to the false prophets among you.

“To understand this verse, we must look at the context — what comes before and after.”

Who are these false prophets? What are they telling the Judean exiles? We get some hints later in Jeremiah 29.

The False Prophets and God’s Response

Actually, some of the false prophets are identified by name. But Jeremiah 28 is more helpful in understanding the message of these false prophets. The false prophets are telling the exiles that God will soon bring them and their exiled king Jehoiachin back to Jerusalem, even within two years. Guys, don’t settle down. We’re all going to be going back to Jerusalem real quick. God’s going to make it happen.

Jeremiah 29 is God’s response to these false words of deliverance. No, the exile will not be short. It will be long. Therefore, settle down in Babylon.

“The exile will not be short. It will be long. Therefore, settle down in Babylon.”

No, you’re not going back to join the remnant in Jerusalem. They’re soon going to be destroyed or brought into exile with you. And no, you are not my true prophets. These men are not my true prophets. I’m going to bring judgment down upon them soon for their false words and their evil behavior.

So that’s the immediate context of Jeremiah 29:11.

The True Hope of Jeremiah 29:10-14

Yet in the middle of this denunciation of false prophecy and clarification of Israel’s exile, we get Jeremiah 29:10-14.

These verses are a reminder of true hope amid the judgment of exile and the false hope of false prophets. In verse 10, if you’ll look there, God tells the Jewish exiles how long their exile will be. And how long is it? 70 years. Verse 10. When 70 years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill my good word to you to bring you back to this place. Only after 70 years will God fulfill his good word for his people.

And right after verse 10 comes verse 11, the one I asked you about where that transition word for. And remember for means that verse 11 will give a reason for what was just said. What was just said? That God would return Judah from exile after 70 years.

So what is verse 11’s supplied reason for God returning Judah from exile? I know the plans I have for you. Plans for welfare, not for calamity. To give you a future and a hope.

In short, what is God’s reason for returning them from exile in 70 years? Okay, Glenna I think has hit on the main section of the answer. The reason that God supplies is that he has set his love on them.

He has good plans and intentions for them. And we might ask why. It’s not stated explicitly here, but we know from the rest of scripture it’s because he has made covenant with Israel according to Abraham.

He says, “I’m going to make you my people and I’m going to bless you and I’m going to make you a blessing to the whole earth.” So even in exile, I’m not done with you. I’m going to bring you back. You can know that because I have good plans for you. It goes back to Abraham. It goes back to my ancient covenant with you.

The Judeans might understandably be disappointed that the exile will not be as short as they would like, but God assures them that one day they will return because God in grace has determined good for them in the end according to covenant.

“God assures them that one day they will return because God in grace has determined good for them according to covenant.”

Verses 12 to 14 give further promises of blessing from God regarding the future. The nation of Israel will one day be brought to full repentance and to true worship of God. God will restore the nation and God will bring them back not just from Babylon but from all the nations of exile where they have been scattered to return to their land in Judah and to Jerusalem.

Now, will these other promises be accomplished for Judah after 70 years of exile? Not necessarily.

One nuance of the prophecy genre is that sometimes future events are prophesied together without distinguishing which events will happen sooner and which events will happen later. It’s just said this will happen in the future. Certainly, the return from Babylonian exile would happen after 70 years, but the other events are left more open-ended. In fact, we have not seen them come to pass yet.

Nevertheless, the same gracious, loyal love of God that did bring them back after 70 years of exile would also accomplish these other things in the future.

The Correct Answer Revealed

So, let’s come back to my opening question. What is the meaning or author’s original intent of Jeremiah 29:11 according to the literal hermeneutic?

The meaning can be known. It’s not F, and it’s a simple meaning not dependent on the reader nor dependent on some religious authority. We can get rid of D and E. The original context makes clear that these plans are directed towards Israel, not the reader today.

We can get rid of A. And though Jesus is certainly a central part of God’s good plans for Israel in the future, neither Jeremiah 29:11 nor its context make any direct reference to Jesus or the Messiah. Thus, the meaning of Jeremiah 29:11, best described from these choices, is B: God has good plans for Israel and covenant love that can be trusted to restore Israel from exile.

“God has good plans for Israel in covenant love and can be trusted to restore Israel from exile.”

Now, you might ask, okay, that’s nice, but what does that original meaning have to do with me today?

Good question. We’ll come back to that.

Biblical Defense for the Literal Hermeneutic

To what I presented thus far, someone might say, “Okay, you’ve shown us what the literal hermeneutic is, but how do we know it’s the only proper method for interpreting the Bible?” I did make that claim.

Well, aside from the fact that the literal hermeneutic is the only one consistent with normal human communication and that it is the only one that can result in objective rather than subjective interpretation of biblical texts, allow me to present a basic biblical defense for the literal hermeneutic.

“The literal hermeneutic is the only one that can result in objective rather than subjective interpretation.”

Three reasons that the Bible itself calls for a literal hermeneutic.

Reason 1: The Bible Is a Human Book

Number one, the Bible is a human book.

The Bible is a human book. The Bible declares repeatedly that it was written by human writers. You can see some verse references there as examples. God created human language to be understood according to a plain sense method as is evident with God’s own communications in the beginning with Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:3 and is evident by our own human experience across time and today.

Just as we pay attention to grammar, historical context, and the rhetorical form to make sense of human communication in our everyday lives, the biblical writers expected their audiences to do the same. Therefore, the only appropriate hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible is one that takes seriously that the writers of the Bible were human and communicated like humans normally do.

“God created human language to be understood according to a plain sense method.”

Reason 2: The Bible Is a Divine Book

Number two, the Bible is a divine book.

The Bible is a human book, but the Bible is also a divine book. Because humans lie, can make mistakes, or just lack skill in communication, we could not be confident that our hermeneutic would not yield error or contradiction without also recognizing the divine authorship of scripture. Just as the Bible repeatedly confirms human authorship, so the Bible repeatedly confirms divine authorship.

I’ve given you some plenty of cross references for you. The apostles Peter and Paul both testify specifically that God gave his God-breathed word through human authors. It was the humans writing exactly what they wanted, but it was God writing exactly what he wanted at the same time by his spirit.

The implications of divine authorship of the scriptures are extremely important, and we’re going to cover them in another part of our course. They mean that the Bible is inerrant. It is unified. It is authoritative. It is sufficient.

Furthermore, the fact that the Bible is divine means that interpreters can approach the Bible with confidence that everything written in the Bible is true and communicated exactly as God intended through the human authors.

“Everything written in the Bible is true and communicated exactly as God intended through the human authors.”

Reason 3: The Bible Models the Literal Hermeneutic

Number three, the Bible models a hermeneutic. Repeatedly in the Bible, biblical writers take a plain-sense view of what other biblical writers wrote.

To give you just one of many examples that could be offered, Moses writes in Genesis 1 how God created man to rule over God’s created earth. Later, David in Psalm 8 marvels at this plain fact that Moses recorded—that God would make man to rule over God’s creation.

And even later in Hebrews 2, the writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 8 and notes how because of the fall into sin and the curse on the world, man does not rule as God originally intended, as Moses wrote and as the psalmist commented. But one day, man will fulfill his originally given role by the creator through Christ. Christ fulfills what Psalm 8 talks about and what Genesis 1 originally granted.

Thus, the later writers—the psalmist, the writer of Hebrews—they treat previous scriptures in a literal fashion, in a plain, straightforward, common sense fashion.

“Later writers treat previous Scriptures in a literal fashion — plain, straightforward, common sense.”

Jesus Used the Literal Hermeneutic

More specifically, Jesus used the literal hermeneutic. He used a literal hermeneutic when he interpreted God’s word. For instance, in explaining why divorce is wrong, Jesus goes to Genesis 1 and 2 and what God did there and what Moses wrote in comparing unrepentant Israel.

Or no, I’ll say it this way. Jesus used a literal hermeneutic in comparing unrepentant Israel under Jesus’s preaching to repentant Nineveh under Jonah’s preaching. It didn’t go to Jonah and say, “Okay, we got to be allegorical with this.” He said, “This really happened. This is what Jonah did and this is the way the people responded.

And now look at you guys today. You’re not responding though even someone greater than Jonah is here.

And in analyzing the grammar and historical context of Exodus 36, Jesus proved to the Jews in his own day that Moses taught a coming resurrection. Jesus looked at the grammar. He emphasized the historicity of what Moses wrote. And that’s the literal hermeneutic.

And if Jesus and the apostles and the prophets all use the literal hermeneutic, we certainly should too.

“If Jesus and the apostles and the prophets all used the literal hermeneutic, we certainly should too.”

What Is Expository Preaching?

We’ve seen what the little hermeneutic is and why the Bible calls for it, but what is the little hermeneutic’s connection to expository preaching? For the remainder of our time, let’s talk about expository preaching. You’ve all heard the word preaching before.

Biblically, what does it mean to preach?

God’s word.

Yeah. Speak God’s word. That’s not a bad definition.

Proclaim.

Proclaim. Herald. To declare authoritatively.

What is the biblical difference between teaching and preaching?

You want to offer an answer, Mike?

Yeah. So preaching is more of a call to action, exhortation.

Yeah. Well said, Mike. Preaching has more of an idea of a call to action, an exhortation.

In truth, teaching and preaching are often used synonymously, especially in the New Testament. But preaching does indeed have, as Mike said, implicit the idea of an authoritative calling for action or response.

“Preaching has implicit the idea of an authoritative calling for action or response.”

Who Is Called to Preach?

Who has been called to preach according to the Bible?

Preachers. But who are the preachers?

Pastors in one sense, all Christians. All Christians are called to herald or proclaim or to declare authoritatively the gospel and call for a response. You need to believe, you need to repent, you need to obey. But in one specific sense, yes, it is qualified teachers, particularly pastors and elders.

And okay, I haven’t put the references up there, but Ephesians 4:11-16, Titus 1:9, 2 Timothy 2:2, and other verses. Now, what should a Christian teacher preach?

The word of God. Yes, this is not something we’re like, “What am I going to preach on today?” No. It’s God’s word. It’s Jesus’ word. It’s the apostles’ word. You’re not allowed to preach man’s word according to the scriptures if you are a Christian teacher.

“You’re not allowed to preach man’s word according to the Scriptures if you are a Christian teacher.”

How Should a Teacher Preach God’s Word?

All right. We recognize these things that I’ve said thus far, but how fundamentally should a Christian teacher preach God’s word in the church? We know we should preach. We know what he should preach. But how should he preach it?

Well, considering what we’ve already seen today, that God’s word must be understood according to the literal hermeneutic.

How could one faithfully preach God’s word without using the literal hermeneutic? And then explaining to others the results, what you uncovered and how you got there.

“How could one faithfully preach God’s Word without using the literal hermeneutic?”

There is one small problem though, and it’s one we ran into in interpreting Jeremiah 29:11.

The Bible’s Ongoing Relevance

Much of the Bible does not seem immediately relevant to us today. If we use the literal hermeneutic, the books of the Bible were written to ancient peoples in circumstances not quite the same as ours.

What is the point then of teaching to us now what the Bible originally meant to people in the past? That message was for them. How are we going to benefit from that? Shouldn’t you teach us something more relevant?

Well, before going on, we must admit that the Bible actually speaks directly to the issue of its own ongoing relevance.

You have probably heard what Paul says famously to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work. Now, listen to that statement. All scripture, even the things that are written to people that you think are pretty different from you, pretty far removed from you, it’s profitable for your teaching, your correction, your training, your reproof, etc.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”

Whatever was written to ancient peoples is profitable for you.

Paul says the same thing in two other places specifically to New Testament believers. He says, “What was written in the Old Testament to ancient peoples, it was actually written for you, too.” 1 Corinthians 10:11.

Now these things, in the context he’s talking about judgments. These things happened to them, unbelieving Israel, as an example, and they were written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Written for peoples still for your instruction.

Romans 15:4: “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the scriptures, we might have hope.”

Romans 15:4: “Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that we might have hope.”

If the literal hermeneutic only uncovers the originally intended meaning from the original author to his originally intended audience, yet the Bible declares that even what was written in ancient times is meant still for those who come after.

The Preacher Must Apply the Text

What must a faithful Christian teacher do as part of his preaching the Bible?

He doesn’t just uncover the original meaning. What must he also do?

He might use some examples. What are you going to say, Mark?

Uncover the example. Show how that example is relevant. What were you going to say, Mark?

I think what Jesus said in the great commission is we teach them to obey.

So we unpack the implications. I’ve heard people use the phrase, we need to make the Bible relevant. And we don’t need to. We just need to show how it already is. I think that’s what you’re saying.

Exactly. Exactly. You guys are getting it.

These things written to ancient peoples are relevant and they do require obedience. But the preacher must explain how that is. What are the implications of what was originally said to those ancient peoples? How does it apply to you today? Is there an example to follow? Is there an example to avoid?

“We don’t need to make the Bible relevant. We just need to show how it already is.”

Are you to take hold of the same promise? Are you to learn something about God?

Defining Expository Preaching

The preacher must show, just as you said, Mark, how what was written to ancient peoples is relevant. The preacher must apply the ancient text to his present-day listeners. And my friends, that is what expository preaching is.

Expository preaching—here’s a definition—is preaching that authoritatively proclaims, clearly explains, and appropriately applies a biblical text to a group of listeners.

By the way, that term expository just means explaining. And that’s what a preacher does. He explains both the meaning of the Bible according to the literal hermeneutic, but then applies that meaning to his listeners who are there with him, to their lives. I once heard a pastor say expository preaching is a redundant phrase.

There is no true preaching that is not expository. If you’re not explaining and applying the original meaning of God’s word, you are not preaching at all in the biblical sense. You’re doing something else. And that is an accurate statement.

“If you’re not explaining and applying the original meaning of God’s Word, you are not preaching at all.”

Truly, only expository preaching fulfills the many commands of scripture for Christian teachers to exhort and admonish in their public teaching. And I’ve listed some references there. This is because a faithful preacher does not stand as a mere academic declaring what a book says. Rather, the preacher stands like a prophet, a mouthpiece for God, declaring what God says. And when God speaks, God expects a response.

What is the only proper response to God himself speaking? It is belief. It is repentance. It is obedience. It is worship. The preacher calls for that from his listeners and he shows how they can do that.

The Bible Models Expository Preaching

Now, as I’ve said, expository preaching is the logical outcome of the literal hermeneutic and the necessary supplement.

Expository preaching is also the only kind of preaching that can fulfill the Bible’s own commands for Christian preachers and teachers. As the final support for expository preaching, consider that the Bible also models for us this practice. It models for us the literal hermeneutic, but it also models expository preaching.

Much of the Bible is prophets and apostles giving new direct revelation from God. So we don’t find examples of expository preaching everywhere because they didn’t need to do that. They just had a new word from the Lord to give and they gave it.

They weren’t looking at the old word. But there are a few places where they do, and we see examples of expository preaching. I’ll mention three to you—three examples of expository preaching in the Bible. The first is Moses in Deuteronomy 15.

“Expository preaching is the only kind of preaching that can fulfill the Bible’s commands for Christian teachers.”

Example 1: Moses in Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 15. By the way, does anybody know what the name Deuteronomy means?

Second law. It’s from Greek. Second law.

That’s not the original title of the text. It’s just the one that we customarily use for the book. But why would Israel need a second law? Was the first one not good enough?

Well, the reason is the law of Moses is essentially reclaimed in Deuteronomy due to a big change that has taken place for Israel. Namely, the whole rebellious first generation has now died off according to God’s judgment, and the new generation is no longer going to be living in the wilderness but entering Canaan to conquer and live in it.

In other words, the law as previously given by Moses to Israel doesn’t completely apply to Israel’s new situation.

So what does Moses do by the spirit of God? Deuteronomy 15 says, “Across the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law.” Expound this law. Expound. That’s just another word for expository preaching.

He’s going to explain and apply the law that was previously given to a new generation and to their new circumstances. That’s what the book of Deuteronomy is.

Moses proclaims to the new generation the law that was previously given to Israel, but he applies it and Israel’s previous experiences to their new situation so that the new generation will believe in and obey God in a new situation. Moses was an expository preacher.

“Moses applies the law and Israel’s previous experiences to their new situation. Moses was an expository preacher.”

Example 2: Ezra in Nehemiah 8

Second example, Ezra in Nehemiah 8:1-12.

Technically Ezra and those with him.

In this passage, good old Nehemiah, as part of his rebuild and reform program for Israel post-exile, has Ezra, the priest scribe, lead the people in public Torah reading and instruction. He’s reading the books of Moses. But Ezra is assisted by a bunch of Levites. And listen to what these Levites do.

According to Nehemiah 8:7b and Nehemiah 8:8, it says, “The Levites explained the law to the people.” Well, the people remained in their place. They read from the book of the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.

Now, listen to what these Levites are doing according to Nehemiah 8. They’re reading God’s word. They’re explaining it and even translating it for people who cannot read Hebrew anymore so that everyone can understand what is meant by what Moses originally wrote.

This is essentially expository preaching.

And what is the outcome of this preaching? Verses 9 and 12 clarify that the people indeed do understand the reading and they begin to mourn.

Why? It’s not stated specifically, but presumably they begin weeping because they realize how far they as God’s people have strayed from God’s original covenant and what the consequences for the nation have been. But then Ezra and Nehemiah and the Levites, they step in to give the people a new sermon application. They say, “Don’t weep because of what is lost. Rejoice because of what is found. You now have and understand God’s word again. Rejoice.”

“Don’t weep because of what is lost. Rejoice because of what is found — you now have God’s Word again.”

Let’s make this a feast day. And the people do.

Example 3: Peter in Acts 2

Third example, Peter in Acts 2:14-41.

As part of the amazing events on the day of Pentecost, the Apostle Peter, newly indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit, preaches a sermon to the Jerusalem crowd. We presumably have only an inspired summary version of Peter’s sermon in the book of Acts. Yet the content and structure of even Peter’s truncated sermon is instructive.

Peter begins according to Acts 2 by refuting the accusation of drunkenness from some in the crowd with Joel 2:28-32.

Peter asserts that what was prophesied for Israel in the last days has already shown up in first fruits form in this new prophesying of Jesus’s apostles. Peter then preaches the gospel of Jesus to the crowd, but he supports the preaching with an exposition of Psalm 16:8-11.

More specifically, Peter explains that David cannot be talking about himself in this psalm, especially the section that talks about David not seeing decay or corruption in the grave, but instead prophesying about David’s future messianic seed rising from the dead.

Peter explains that this is Jesus. Peter then briefly cites and explains Psalm 110:1 to underscore the exaltation and power of the Messiah Jesus that the Jews all recently crucified.

At this the convicted Jews asked Peter and the other apostles what these Jews should do now. Peter gives them some sermon application: “Repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:40 concludes: “And with many other words, he—that’s Peter—solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’” What are we seeing in this sermon form from Peter? Expository preaching.

Peter quotes the scripture, explains its original meaning, and then he authoritatively applies it to his listeners and calls for a response.

“Peter quotes the Scripture, explains its original meaning, then authoritatively applies it and calls for a response.”

So then if the preachers of scripture in scripture were expository preachers, then we should be too.

Conclusion and Preview

All right, that pretty much is what we have time to discuss today.

In today’s class, I have explained and given the biblical basis for the literal hermeneutic and expository preaching. In the next class, I’ll deal with some frequently asked questions and objections related to these two items.

Questions like, “What are the competing methods to the literal hermeneutic? You say it’s the right one. What are the other ones that compete for people’s use?” We’ll also cover objections like, and maybe you thought of this yourself.

What about the few New Testament passages in which the apostles seem to interpret the Old Testament not according to a literal hermeneutic? Do they interpret the Bible allegorically at times? We will answer both of those questions.

By the way, I should mention because I don’t want this lingering for you. What is the preaching application of Jeremiah 29:11? How is it relevant for us today? Well, we may not be in their exact same situation, but we can be in similar ones, right?

Where we are enduring calamity and we have false hopes presented to us around us. What do we do? The same thing that Israel was exhorted to do. Put your hope in God and his promises and especially his covenant love to bring you good in the end rather than turn to a false hope or turn away from God. That’s at least one way that we can apply the Jeremiah 29:11 passage.

It is quite relevant, quite poignant, quite instructive, but we find it only by going through the literal hermeneutic.

“It is quite relevant, quite poignant, quite instructive, but we find it only through the literal hermeneutic.”

All right, if you have other questions or comments, you can share them with me afterwards. I might answer some of them tomorrow. If you come up to me and say, “What about this?” I might be like, “Oh, we’ll talk about that next time.” That’s okay. I’ll welcome your questions and comments anyways. But let me close our time with a word of prayer.

Closing Prayer

Lord God, we thank you for your word and we thank you that you have condescended to communicate it in a way that we can understand. Not imperfectly, not where we have to say, “Oh, what did the human person mean? And what did God mean?” And we’ll never be able to sift this. No, it’s a human word, but it is a divine word. And you’ve shown us even in your word how to interpret it and how to preach it. Lord, we thank you.

Yet we also recognize that even these wonderful gifts that you have given will not be enough to change our hearts unless you change our hearts. We cannot welcome this word. We cannot understand it as we ought to unless you grant that in our hearts and in the hearts of those we teach. Lord, we pray that you would do that for those that do not yet believe, that you would open their eyes to behold wonderful things in your law.

And for those that do believe, myself and the listeners here today, that you would open our eyes to discover more wonderful things in your law, to understand it, to welcome it, to apply it to our lives. I pray God that you would do this for our good and your glory in Jesus’ name.

Share this sermon:

More from Defending Doctrinal Distinctives