Homiletics?

[Esaias]

Another thing to consider is to know those among whom you labour. You have to get to know your brethren, where are they in the Lord? What are their struggles? What are their needs? Pray for them, and allow the Lord to show you what they need. Look for confirmation in your conversations and interactions with them. Ask them if you have to.

Get a feel for where the assembly is at and where the Lord wants it to go, and what small part you can play in helping them get to that next goal.

For example, folks may have entered the doldrums, seeming to have no sense of mission or direction. So they need to be taught the local assembly has a mission, and EACH has a part to play in accomplishing that mission. Be prepared to teach and exhort on the BODY as a BODY with a PURPOSE.

Perhaps people need understanding and enouragement to pray. Teach on prayer. Perhaps they need to see how by getting their prayer life more lined up with the biblical Way they can begin working more in concert with one another as a UNITY, so the congregation can accomplish its God given task.

Perhaps many need to learn how to allow the Spirit to use them in the meeting, or even outside the meeting. The body is after all more than just a meeting once or twice or three times a week! Give them a goal - show them the Scripture and how God sets before them something they can attain to, then show from Scripture how to do it.

Whatever it is, whatever doctrine needs to be taught, whatever Scripture needs to be explained, whatever understanding needs to be had, there must be a practical application. Theology and doctrine without application and practical use is pretty much ... useless.

If you cannot find a practical application for any doctrine of the Bible, then you need to go back to study and prayer! Every message should be an exhortation to BELIEVE and then OBEY the Word. If you are teaching on the Oneness of God and Christ, it is not enough to fill people's minds with theoretical philosophical ideas, and leave it at that. Show them how Christ is God manifest in the flesh, and that as our example He is a picture of what God wants to do IN and THROUGH US. If you are teaching on repentance, give concrete examples of what to repent from and how to do it. Hunt out the things people hide behind, their excuses. Get direct and personal if you have to but always in the Spirit of love and with the assurance that you are in this together with them. Speak TO THE PEOPLE YOU ARE SPEAKING TO. Don't talk about vague unknown anonymous "people out there" but "You and me, right here and now." Don't talk about sin in vague general terms but name it and declare it. And don't talk about faith in vague and general terms either but name it and give concrete examples of faith in real life action.

Don't be afraid to go over the basics. "I don't want to hear about Acts 2:38 again. We need some meat of the Word." You know, ask any skilled person, no matter the art or science, and they will tell you - the advanced stuff is just mastery of the basics. It is good to go back to the milk every now and then. You will be surprised how many people you think ought to be master theologians by now but who have gaps in their knowledge of simple basic doctrines. We are all adults but we all like a good glass of milk every now and then, right? I have suddenly been impressed to spend some time on a super basic fundamental issue that my natural mind would say "No way, that's baby food, they are all way past that" only to have someone thank me later for spending time to explain that basic thing. "I never really understood until I heard it for that tenth time and then it just clicked!"

Expect to repeat yourself over time. I have generally found that about 80% of the ideas that you present in a single message will generally seem to be gone into the aethyr. You will get frustrated if you think everyone is going to absorb 100 percent of what you present each time you present it. People generally require repetition over time. They need to hear something not once in their life but again and again, perhaps from new and varied angles but still the same solid truths. Then it sinks in and becomes part of their understanding.

Which leads to me my next point: Do not flit from topic to topic and subject to subject from one sharing to the next. I have known a wonderful preacher, a GOOD preacher, who can deliver a wonderful message. but I watched as one week he preached something on marriage. then the next week something on prophecy. then the next week something on baptism. then the next week something on managing your time wisely. Then the next week something on deeper prayer. Then the next week something on the fate of the lost. Then the next week something on current events. Each message was good. Each message was solid. But there was no "flow" from one week to the next, so that people started coming just to hear a "good message" rather than actually learning to grow and develop from day to day and week to week. There was no maturing progress over time among many of the saints. Now this wasn't wholly his fault - each saint is responsible for growing and learning in the Lord for themselves - but he was shooting himself in the foot so to say. He was short circuiting his own efforts. So build from one sharing to the next if at all possible. Bring up what was taught last meeting (whether it was taught by you or someone else) and tie it in to today's meeting.

God teaches His people day to day and week to week as a process of growth. In a sense, church is a theological SCHOOL OF MINISTRY, whereby the saints are enrolled in God's classroom to learn how to more effectively manifest His nature in and through their life. No class flies from one subject to the next randomly day after day. If it did nobody could really learn anything. That's not effectively teaching, that's more like flexing oratorical muscle and "crafting sermons" for the sake of crafting neat sermons. At least, that is often the effect it will have.

So discern what God wants the brethren to learn, and what role you play in that, and follow God week to week and month to month and so on. There should be a steady growth and development in both doctrine and practice in the church from one meeting to the next. We have meetings not only to worship God together, but to strenghthen and encourage one another in our journey together on this ship of Zion. We're all fellows on the same ship, that's why it's called "fellowship."

[Esaias]

Now, perhaps we could examine some of the actual preaching material found in the bible to get some tips for our study of apostolic homiletics. I'm going to go through the book of Acts, because that's where we find actual samples of apostolic preachers PREACHING. The Epistles contain homiletic material, but are not "sermons" per se. they are letters. And nobody can preach an entire epistle in one sitting and expect to get much done, it's just too much material. I do not think the Epistles were intended to be "preaching material" for a single event, but were meant by the writers to be read over a period of time, with the elders and teachers unpacking the contents so to say meeting after meeting, and using them as a guide for their own teaching.

And while Jesus is the Preacher Par Excellence, a lot of the "sermons" in the Gospels contain so many situationally dependent factors that I think we should study His methods AFTER we get a glimpse of the apostles. The reason is that the apostles were trained by Him, and so their preaching and teaching should be a reflection of His. The Gospel accounts however are teaching materials developed by the church to function as a sort of catalog of Jesus' words and doctrines, and therefore I think they require a somewhat more studious approach. So, I'm going with a simpler route first, for expediency's sake. I am certainly NOT suggesting we ignore Jesus' methods, I am just saying you gotta start somewhere and the Acts contain simple enough material that we can glean from without needing a college level course in the subject.

So I turn to the first message preached by an apostolic believer after Jesus ascended to Heaven:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(Acts 2:1-4)

The Spirit came into their prayer meeting, and they began speaking in tongues. We know the story, how this was noised abroad and people gathered to see what was going on. So, point number one, if you are gonna preach, you need people to preach to. And that means they need an excuse to come and see what's going on. Which means something needs to actually be going on. What was going on? The outpouring of the Spirit. They were not gathered to have a speaking session, nor did the crowd gather to hear somebody speak. Instead, they were gathered because God was moving, and they were EXPERIENCING the things of God in action. And the crowd showed up to find out what the hubbub was all about.

• We need a Holy Ghost hubbub to provide the occasion for preaching.

And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
(Acts 2:12-14)

God was moving, and people were wondering what is going on. So Peter opens his message. He gets right to the point and doesn't bother wasting time trying to build attentiveness or interest in the audience. God has provided that via the Holy Ghost activity in the meeting. What Peter DOES do however is demand their attention. He tells them "pay attention to what I'm fixing to tell you." He lifted up his voice so as to be heard over the noise, he speaks with authority because he has something important and authoritative to say. And, he is going to explain what is happening, but that is exactly what the audience needs to hear.

• Call people to attention since your message is worthy of their attentiveness.
• Your volume should match both the environment and the seriousness of the message.
• Announce that you are speaking to reveal important divine truths the hearers need to know.

For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
(Acts 2:15-16)

He immediately identifies their previously voiced skeptical objection, and denies it right off the bat. And then immediately proclaims authoritatively that the hubbub is not only a biblical thing, but a prophesied thing. And he begins to go to book chapter and verse to provide biblical backing for what he is claiming.

• Deny any known objections up front to challenge the hearers and help secure their attention and curiosity.
• Get to Bible as soon as possible, and speak authoritatively from Scripture as the herald of God's Message.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 2:17-21)

He then quotes the Scripture that pertain to the situation. He doesn't ramble on, but doesn't just quote one sentence, either. He provides enough Scripture to identify what is happening, and to give warning (signs of judgment) and hope (promise of salvation).

• Scripture passage must be relevant to what God is actually doing.
• Scripture passage should be full enough but not too full.
• Scripture passage should include a theological fact, a warning, and an offer of hope.

A word about that last one. Obviously it's not written in stone, but notice how the Scripture selection Peter used contains three basic and simple elements, which are the three basic and simple elements of any kind of exhortation: a theological, doctrinal, Biblical, Divine Truth stated, followed by a warning that indicates the seriousness of the divine truth just stated, and an offer of hope and encouragement for those who are to be encouraged. That encouragement is the PURPOSE of the preaching. "Things are happening, Truths are being revealed, these things are SERIOUS, and you need to pay attention, and here's the response you need to make to these truths."

If we look at the remainder of Peter's sermon, it actually uses his text from Joel as a basic outline for what he says next. And what he says next, his "preaching", is an expounding of the text ,providing the necessary explanations so the hearers can understand the text and more importantly its application to the audience at this time.

When I get back, I'll try a breakdown of his message and show how it expounds on the Joel text.

[Esaias]

• Scripture passage should include a theological fact, a warning, and an offer of hope.

Looking at Peter's message we see he expounds on these three things. Let's look at the main theological fact that Peter is going to address:

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
(Acts 2:22-24)

He states the basics of the Gospel message concerning Jesus, and states the fact that He was rejected and crucified, yet God raised Him from the dead. Here is the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus in a brief summary format. One should be able to easily and quickly summarise the basic Gospel FACT.

Notice also he doesn't waste any time in identifying SIN and the guilt of the audience. Understand of course who he is preaching to. He is not up at a podium berating the saints because he feels they have been lacking in some duty. Rather, he is preaching to unsaved people who have been drawn by the moving of the Holy Ghost. He doesn't beat around the bush or worry about offending them. He is going to tell them the plain, bald, truth: YOU are guilty of murdering the Holy One of God. The Gospel FACT includes the fact of the sinner's guilt. He also states that even though they killed Jesus, it was "not possible" that He should remain dead. Their sin is thus declared to be a futile gesture against the Sovereignty and Power of Christ. Sin is spoken of not as some kind of sad disease, but as the useless, vain, and hopeless attempts to do the ultimately impossible. Sin never results in what was originally intended by the sinner. Jesus and the Plan of God are unstoppable, so the actions of sinners against Christ are futility writ large.

• Get to the point, stating both the Gospel truth and the sinner's guilt.
• Declare the impossibility of fighting against God.

For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
(Acts 2:25-28)

Once declaring the impossibility of Jesus staying dead, he then proves it by referring to the Psalms. He goes to another text of Scripture to prove what he is claiming, and to show how Jesus is fulfilling prophecies. Thus again the Plan of God is unstoppable, it is prophesied, and the Gospel is the fulfillment of prophecy. To fight against the Gospel is to fight against certain destiny. to ignore Jesus and the claims of the Gospel is to ignore Divine Certainty. The death and resurrection of Jesus is not merely an historical fact (as Peter pointed out in the beginning) but is also a prophesied fact, it was prophesied centuries earlier and came to pass.

• Support claims with Bible
• Show the certainty and inevitability of prophecy coming to pass
• Show that the Gospel is certain and inevitable fulfillment of prophecy

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
(Acts 2:29)

Peter's secondary text from the Psalm was written by David, and most people assumed it applied to David. But Peter shows how this is prophecy concerning Christ. David is dead and buried, and his tomb is with us today. Therefore the prophecy does not apply directly to him, but must apply to the One whom God said He would raise up to sit on David's throne. Obviously, Peter's audience is well familiar with all these themes and concepts. Today, many are ignorant of such things because of a general biblical illiteracy that plagues society. So it may require a bit of time to explain these things to folks. But don't get bogged down in extensive explanations, just spend enough time to get the ideas across and move on to the main point.

• Explain the Scripture according to the level of the audience
• Anticipate and deal with objections

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
(Acts 2:30-32)

Concluding his explanation of David's prophecy, he returns to the FACT of Christ's resurrection. He asserts that he and the brethren are eyewitnesses to that resurrection. It is one thing to expound on a prophecy and its fulfillment. It is quite another to then declare you have personally experienced that bible fact in your own life. Testify whenever possible. A preacher must have a testimony concerning what he preaches. This lends credence and authority to his words. People are more disposed to hear and receive what a person says when they are speaking from personal experience. One must have at least a personal experience of the Resurrected Christ (otherwise, is one even really a Christian?) and this personal testimony ought to be included. Preaching is not just an exercise in intellectual theory. It is a declaration of one's personal experience with the risen Christ. And this experience of Peter and the brethren is that Christ has been both raised from the dead and exalted to the position of authority and Lordship, to sit on David's throne.

Share your testimony, and speak from experience!
Use your testimony to point towards Christ's exaltation as LORD.

(cont. in next post)

[Esaias]

(cont. from previous)

Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
(Acts 2:33-36)

He again refers to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies. He ties in the past historical resurrection event with the Holy Ghost hubbub that drew the crowd in the first place. In other words, this is no mere lesson in ancient history, or even yesterday's news. This has application and impact NOW, right here and now, today! Christ has been exalted and is pouring out what you see and hear today. He also returns to their sin ("whom you have crucified") and contrasts it with Christ's exaltation. They warred and sinned against Christ and killed him, but He has been exalted to the position of Lord and Christ. Their sin has been futile and pointless, and exposes them to danger!

• Connect the Scripture and the Gospel to the immediate situation and circumstance of the audience
• Continue to exalt Christ
• Do not leave sin behind, it must be faced and dealt with

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
(Acts 2:37)

It is interesting that Peter ended his sermon without a plea for people to really do anything. He laid out the Gospel FACT, He supplied the WARNING (the seriousness of what the Gospel FACT implies), and so where is the "hope"? the hope of course was mentioned in his opening text - "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." but he apparently waits to see the effect of his preaching on the hearers. If they had continued to mock and disbelieve, and showed no interest in what he was saying, then appealing to them to go ahead and repent and be saved would have been a pointless waste of time. You cannot close with a call if you have not made an impact. If the hearers are not moved by the presentation of the Gospel message, if God does not send His Spirit to open their eyes and prick their hearts, then any altar calls or calls to repentance will be useless. Of course, one has to have some discernment.

Now, some folks may be moved, while others may be solid as stone, all in the same meeting. But one thing is necessary, and that is this: the preaching of the Word must have an effect on the hearers BEFORE a response can be expected, and therefore the effect should come before the call to respond. If there is no indication of a Gospel effect, then one should perhaps press on until one is achieved. Or else, one may have to simply give a warning. Jesus did, after all, tell His apostles is people don't receive the message, they were not to beg and plead endlessly and whiningly, but to shake the dust off their feet and move on. We as Christians are heralds of the conquering King, not beggars selling cheap merchandise.

• Look for the effect of the Word on the heart and conscience
• Preaching should be directed towards making people DEMAND HOW TO BE SAVED

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
(Acts 2:38-39)

The audience was demanding to know what to do. I do not imagine this was necessarily some kind of question and answer session. I can see it happening that during his preaching, the crowd began to murmur, distressed, "What shall we do?" I can see someone crying out "What do we do?" and others joining in, "Yes, what are we supposed to do? how can we escape the obvious guilt we have?" In other words, there was a definite effect. Whatever Truth one is preaching, it should have an effect and it should (hopefully) generate some sign in the hearers that they want to know "what do I do with this truth now?"

And in the case of an evangelistic message, Peter told them in no uncertain terms what to do, that if they did what he said, they would be saved. He did not say "Come back next week for more info". He did not sugar coat anything. He was clear and definite. He put forward a commitment for them to make as the proper response to the message, and it was no vague abstract thing. It was a very clear, very definite, unmistakably simple course of action they needed to follow. And the offer of hope is repeated. There is a benefit to getting on God's side, there is a good thing that will result if you respond positively to the Gospel Truth. And moreover, that good thing is a Divine PROMISE not only to you, but to your family, and to whoever God is calling through the Gospel preaching.

• Make a call to commitment as clear and concise and complete as possible
• Leave no doubts as to what the hearers need to do
• Restate what good thing will happen if they respond appropriately
• Make clear that good thing is a Divine Promise from God to them personally
  Include their family and household in the Promise

So we see that Peter's sermon followed, albeit somewhat loosely, the pattern of his opening text - a theological FACT or Truth, a warning concerning the significance of that Truth, and an offer of hope. I suspect any message that stuck to that very basic pattern - declare and explain a theological truth, state it's importance, and state a benefit or divinely promised hope of blessing attached to it - will turn out pretty good and effective, assuming the preacher is prayed up and paid up. It's a format that is easily remembered and does not require pages of notes to keep track of:

Depending on the occasion, select a text that is relevant to what god is NOW DOING, find the theological FACT in the text, find a warning that emphases the importance of the FACT, and find God's promise of blessing associated with the FACT. everything else is designed to bring out those three things. Nothing should be included to make up filler or "stretch it out" because you want to speak for a certain amount of time. Rather, everything should be directed to simply making clear the FACT, it's IMPORTANCE, and HOPE, as it applies to the RIGHT HERE AND NOW situation of the audience.

[Esaias]

One final point:

His text related to the Holy Ghost hubbub that drew the crowd, yet his sermon was all about Jesus and the Gospel and how it relates to the crowd. The activity of the Holy Ghost is not the focus of the preaching. It is the OCCASION of the preaching. The Spirit creates a climate in which the GOSPEL about Jesus can be proclaimed with power and effect. And the Spirit confirms the Word preached, not merely with signs and wonders but with opening the hearts of people to receive the Light and Life of God.

Also, as a final note to Peter's preaching, we see that he continued to exhort the crowd to save themselves from this untoward generation. Having presented the proper expected response to the Gospel message, he CONTINUED to press for a response. Once he saw an effect on the people, he wasn't going to back down or stop pressing forward until there was simply nowhere to press to.

To often I have seen where preachers will try to "dial it back" because supper is coming on, or the clock is ticking, or they just don't want to "keep folks up too late". No, no, no! If there is a response at all, ANY indication that someone is responding to the preaching of the Word, press on and keep pressing on until victory has been achieved and a proper, effective and COMPLETE response has been secured.

Press on until THEY tell you to stop, in other words. It is too easy to let conviction slide and fade away. A person under conviction of some Gospel truth may lose that conviction if you back down and start trying to "close the meeting" or "move on to the next phase in the service". I have seen conviction build in a meeting only to watch it vaporise because somebody decided it was time to move on to the song service, or because someone decided it was time to give a dismissal. Don't be that guy!

[Esaias]

Anyone want to take a crack at Peter's next preaching in Acts chapter 3?

[Amanah]

Bro Esaias, I appreciate what you are posting for the young men of this forum to read. I'm just adding a few thoughts as an aside from the topic.

Pastor M was an uneducated young man from the hills of West Virginia who came to start a church in Melbourne because God sent him. He wasn't very eloquent, he was missing a tooth, but he was a man of prayer and fasting. He never went to bible college, but he spent time in the school of prayer and he taught his little bunch how to pray and fast and touch the throne. Pre service prayer was one hour before each service, so most of the church was prayed up and in the spirit before the service began. I know that his messages came from God, because we had confirmation in the Spirit. More than once I knew what the text was going to be before Pastor M started preaching because I felt it in pre service prayer. God confirmed the message preached with souls filled with the Spirit, and people healed and delivered.


1 Corinthians 2
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

[Evang.Benincasa]

Awesome!!!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro Esaias, I appreciate what you are posting for the young men of this forum to read. I'm just adding a few thoughts as an aside from the topic.

Pastor M was an uneducated young man from the hills of West Virginia who came to start a church in Melbourne because God sent him. He wasn't very eloquent, he was missing a tooth, but he was a man of prayer and fasting. He never went to bible college, but he spent time in the school of prayer and he taught his little bunch how to pray and fast and touch the throne. Pre service prayer was one hour before each service, so most of the church was prayed up and in the spirit before the service began. I know that his messages came from God, because we had confirmation in the Spirit. More than once I knew what the text was going to be before Pastor M started preaching because I felt it in pre service prayer. God confirmed the message preached with souls filled with the Spirit, and people healed and delivered.


1 Corinthians 2
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

There is no substitution for the Spirit of God. I surely don't want anyone to think that is what I am advocating. I do not believe preaching requires the rules of classical rhetoric (I would say writing a book might benefit from such skills, though, maybe). But preaching requires the Spirit of God and a working knowledge of the Word of God. The elder you described was effective because he was seeking wisdom from God. A bible college probably would have ruined his ministry, to be honest. In my opinion.

I also have a feeling that he probably learned a lot of the basic stuff from simply being around other Spirit filled preachers coming up in church. A LOT can be learned without being aware you have "learned" anything. I learned more about prayer in a one time prayer meeting with an old elder, just by praying with him, than I did reading any books or hearing any sermons on prayer.

But so many these days seem to be looking for tips, tricks, and information on how to teach and preach, and I think a lot of the information they are getting is faulty. And I think it is starting to show. I believe there is an "art of preaching" and the vast bulk of that art is detailed in the Word itself. I guess what I'm trying to do is just share what I see in the Word on the subject, and what I've seen and experienced myself.

I teach a course on classical rhetoric in our family homeschool. I've taught four kids already and have begun teaching the other three not too long ago. We recently covered the four types of causes, the three types of rhetorical situations and speeches, the basic Arrangement of a speech, we started getting into the Division of the Introduction, the two types of Introductions (prooimion or proemium, and the ephodos) and which one to use depending on the type of cause it is, the three qualities to be secured in an audience and the various methods used to secure those qualities via the Introduction, the five "faculties" of the rhetor that must be developed with examples of each, and various other things as well. We use two primary textbooks with a secondary reference book - Aphthonius' Progymnasmata for practice work, Cicero's Ad Herrennium, and Quintillian's Institutiones, all three of which are about 2000 or more years old.

Yet, as fascinating and as helpful as that is for sitting down and composing an essay or report or writing a speech on some particular topic, I believe homiletics (preaching and teaching of the Bible) goes way beyond mere oratory and the science behind it. In one of the few cases where I agree with Augustine, this is one of them - all the "rhetorical instruction" you need in regard to teaching and preaching is found in the Bible. Other than that, what is needed is to be prayed up and paid up in the Holy Ghost.

Which is why I got into Acts 2 and Peter's sermon. It's a great model for learning how GOD inspires men to preach the Gospel. Not that every preacher must or even should emulate Peter's sermon in every sermon they give, but that what we find in his sermon is all the needed elements of effective apostolic preaching.

It's like prayer. You can't learn to pray effectively from reading a book about prayer. God himself has to teach you. but He has included an awful lot of teaching material and examples in His Word on the subject of prayer. So I take that to mean He has included it in order to help teach us. I believe the same applies to preaching and teaching doctrine. In fact, everything we do as Christians would seem to fit that pattern of requiring the leading of the Spirit, based on the data given to us for our instruction in the Bible.

[Esaias]

I was doing a quick analysis of the preaching and teaching found in the book of Acts, and started noticing things that I'd like to bring up (similarly to what I did with Acts 2 and Peter's sermon there). but before I do, in order to make the results of the analysis intelligible I wanted to do a quick over view of some basic concepts in communication theory. These concepts are being derived from classical rhetoric, of course, since I have found most modern communication theories to be a bit too pedantic and ideologically incoherent.

Most of the following information is derived from Cicero's Rhetorica Ad Herrennium which consists in large measure in simple observations on the nature of human communication.

Types of Speeches

There are generally three broad categories of speeches - judicial or legal (courtroom trial arguments); deliberative (Parliamentary, senatorial, or political argument as well as most other types of persuasion designed to motivate an audience to agree on a course of action); and epideictic or eulogistic speeches in praise (or censure) of some person or thing.

Faculties of the Speaker

A good communicator must be skilled in five basic areas, sometimes called the "Five Canons (measuring rules) of Oratory": Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery.

Invention: the creation or "invention" of matter, that is to say, "what is to be said". This is actually more a case of being able to discover what can be said, and determining what needs to be said, rather than merely "creating" something to say.

Arrangement: the orderly and sensible arrangement of the matter discovered in the first step, with a view to determining "when to say what you are going to say and in what order it will be said."

Style: the proper use of language to most effectively express what is to be said. This is "how" you will say what you say, and covers such things as the right choice of words, phrases, and so forth.

Memory: the methods of committing what is to be said, when it is to be said, and how it is to be said to memory so that one can speak fluidly without losing your train of thought.

Delivery: this covers such things as tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, physical movements, etc, that is to say "how the speech is to actually be delivered to the audience in the most effective way", with a view to making sure your entire presence and manner works with the speech and not against it.

Three Stages of Development:

The speaker (or writer) needs three stages of development to improve their ability: Theory, Imitation, and Practice. Theory covers learning the methods of effective communication. Imitation concerns adapting quality models or examples of good communicators to one's own circumstances. And Practice concerns the diligent application of theory and imitation to developing your abilities in a more independent fashion. This of course is the basic process of learning - you learn "what to do", then you observe someone else doing it successfully and try to imitate what they do, then you launch out on your own (more or less) and by constant repetition you nail it down, getting better with each attempt. It also correlates with a biblical concept of "knowledge, understanding, and wisdom", where knowledge is the "information to be learned", understanding is derived from "observing those skillled in knowledge applying their knowledge to various situations", and wisdom is "adaptive use of understanding to new and unknown circumstances".

A word on Invention

Invention is the phase in which a speaker is determining what is to be said. It requires a knowledge of the situation (the occassion for the speech), the audience (who is being spoken to), the purpose (what do you want the audience to do), a breakdown of the information to be conveyed into component parts so the information can be presented in an orderly understandable way, finding the proofs in favour of your argument, identifying potential objections and their refutations, identifying how to begin and secure the attention and interest of the audience, and how to conclude and secure the desired result (such as a favourable verdict in a court case, agreement in a deliberative assembly, or securing an audience's appreciation of the person you are eulogising, etc).

I'm not going to delve into Invention too much as classical oratory relies heavily on dialectics (Aristotelian logic) which might be great if you have to go to court, but for the unique needs and purposes of homiletics a somewhat different approach to Invention is demanded, which I'll get into a bit later on. It's much simpler, actually, than it may sound.

A word on Arrangement:

Classical speaking arranged a standard speech into several component parts in order, as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Narration (statement of facts)
3. Division
4. Proof
5. Counterproof (refutation)
6. Conclusion

This was generally a standard format for every truly "oratorical" speech whether oral or written. However, deviations were certainly allowed and sometimes encouraged as long as the deviation did not hinder or confuse the communication. In my research through Acts I have seen a common pattern of Arrangement in the preaching and teaching, which while not exactly identical to classical oratorical Arrangement nevertheless seems to suggest a common Biblical method of arranging preaching and teaching material. This is fascinating to me.

A few notes on Arrangement:

The Introduction is designed to get the audience's interest piqued and to secure a well disposed disposition in the audience to hearing the speaker. It is not simply a wooden method of "introducing the topic of the speech" but is meant to actually secure the audience's desire to agree with the speaker. It involves such things as establishing one's authority as a speaker who ought to be listened to, minimising existing prejudice in the audience against what is about to be said, preparing the audience to actually pay attention and follow on, and so forth.

The Narration is the statement of facts, the "what went on that occassions this speech". I have found this part is one of the most important and recurring parts in the Biblical record of apostolic preaching, and there is a reason for it beyond just being a common method of communication in ancient days. More on that in a moment.

The Division is the breaking down of the statement of facts or narration and the issues derived from and found therein. It involves identifying the component parts of the "issue". For example, suppose you are going to argue that the Senate ought to depose Julius because he has become a dictator. To do so you will need to not only give a narration (tell what happened, how he became a dictator, what has been the result, etc) but you will have to break it down, and show how dictatorships are bad for the Republic, how Senates have authority to prevent such tyrannies, have they have a duty to do so, how all citizens have an obligation to oppose tyranny, how it is better to oppose tyranny than to support it, how cowardice in the face of tyrants is less desirable, less honourable, and less expedient than bravery and decisive action, how speed is of the essence because unchecked evil only grows and becomes more powerful, and so on and so forth. In the division you outline these things, giving the reasons why the audience should do what you suggest they should do (or not do what you are trying to get them to not do).

The Proof and Refutation sections of the speech are where you take up all the proofs and supports for the parts detailed in the Division, anticipate objections, and urge various irresistible arguments in favour of your proposed course of action.

The Conclusion brings the audience back to the main point, summarises things, and includes a final exhortation to act in some way on the information presented.

Now, in perusing the book of Acts, as I said, I have found a similar (though somewhat different) method of arrangement that recurs over and over. This leads me to think there is what may be called a Divinely ordained arrangement for preaching and teaching, that is actually rather simple, intuitive, and common sense, yet provides for effective communication of the Gospel Truth to a variety of audiences, pretty much regardless of their educational, social, or other class status. It might fall short of "sophia" as the world understands it (ie "wisdom of the world" which largely meant the ideals and rules of Graeco-Roman classical rhetoric and philosophy) but turns out to be very effective and simple, and combined with the genuinely anointed Wisdom of God (the preaching of the cross) becomes incredibly effective in accomplishing God's purposes.

I'll begin the analysis of book of Acts preaching and teaching in the next post.