The Living Word
I recently had the opportunity to attend the Parchman Endowed Lecture Series at Truett Seminary at Baylor University. The speaker was Ben Witherington III. I had been trying to find a way to condense my notes on his lectures for inclusion here. Turns out, I don't have to. Ben has felt moved to post the text of at least one of the lectures on his website. Warning: It's long. After all, it was a lecture (which you find here).One of his main arguments is that given the literacy rates in antiquity, written documents were composed primarily to be read out loud to groups and not privately. Paul's epistles should be considered surrogate sermons, the words the apostle would have preached where he present.
I wonder what the implications are for us today. I wonder if it suggests that God's Word was meant to be communicated primarily as Living (spoken) words. (How shall they hear without a preacher?) If this is the case, I think pastors and teachers should take more seriously the art of preaching and learn not just what to say but how to say it clearly and convincingly.
What say you? Is this off base? Are there other implications of this suggestion?
posted by steve | 7:50 PM
12 Comments:
Just a quick comment:
We have been exploring the same idea (NT meant to be heard as opposed to read privately) in my Gospels class at Fuller recently.
Not only do I agree that this has implications for the preacher, but I also think it has implications for our Bible study. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have in-depth study of the scriptures, but I think we are seriously lacking as far as hearing the Word of God spoken to us.
When was the last time we listened to someone read an entire epistle, or the gospel of Mark, to us in its entirety?
After all, this is how the first audience would have experienced it.
The Redundancy Department of Redundancy just informed me that I'm doing a good job, as witnessed in my last comment regarding entirety.
After I read this post, and Ben's as well, I found myself trying to sound out the Bible when I read. I must say, it is quite the different read when you understand that the words you are saying are the words God is saying. I've memorized large chunks of the Bible before, but I have said them mostly with a dull tone of voice, allowing for faster memorization. Going back and trying them again as an oracle of God is powerfully different. I'm glad you pointed this article out Steve.
In the article however, the author stated, "Failure to recognize the rhetorical signals in numerous NT documents has led to many
false conclusions especially when it comes to the letters and homilies of the NT."
I am having a hard time seeing what those would be or entail. How can someone reading the Bible without catching the rhetoric signals come to different or errournous conclusions? And also, Steve, how can someone reading the Bible come to errornous conclusions reading silently, if you are implying this?
I did not see the term "surrogate sermon" in Ben's article. Is this his term or yours?
I suppose this should be more clearly defined. I do not know if surrogate would be correct since this implies some sort of substitute, and if the letter amounts to "the words Paul would have preached," then I suppose the only thing that qualifies as surrogate would be the person reading the letter out loud--the sermon itself would not be substitutionary (if we say it is then I would disagree with the thesis).
The notion of the NT being written in order to be read out loud is not new, however. Indeed, the NT refers to itself as such (cf. Col. 4:16--both Colossians and Philippians is implied here, Rev. 1:3, etc.).
Excuse me, Col. and Ephesians is implied.
Excuse me, Col. and Eph. are implied.
"Surrogate sermon" was a term that BW used during the lecture perhaps during Q&A.
An implication I wanted to explore was this: We live in an age where everyone can read the Bible for themselves. But few do. WHat I think BW's point may suggest that we where intended primarily to HEAR the word rather than READ it.
This would explain the emphasis on worship music and the decline of preaching in the American church. We go to church and hear music which we can take with us daily and sing while we are at the plow. But the Sermon's of American pulpits are mostly forgettable. If you want to grow from study of the Bible you have to go to a Bible Study or Small group because a sermon aint gonna do it. These things out not to be this way.
Or is BW's point merely descriptive and not prescriptive?
I think the former not the latter.
You made an interesting point. You said: "We live in an age where everyone can read the Bible for themselves..."
I think this is one of the causes of the demise of preaching. I think many people have utterly abused the doctrine of illumination; consequently, the need for "expert commentary" is waning. Why should I listen to a pastor or theologian (expert) explain a certain text when I can read the text (and understand the text)for myself?
(Small group, at least in the sense you were using it I think, is somewhat a corporate version of this)
Interestingly, few even do this--as you point out. Why? Perhaps because it is too difficult?
What do I know?
I meant to say the latter not the former. I do not think it was meant to "merely" be descriptive--as my point somewhat suggests.
I'm a little confused Aaron on what you a trying to say is the demise of preaching. Is it because so many experts abused the doctrine of illumination, making people care less about what the experts say? Or is it because the laymans can read and understand the text the way they want to understand the text, which makes it more alluring to self-study?
Pauls says to "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15) I feel this implies trying to receive the Word the way it was intended to be recieved first, yet also implies the nitty-gritty down-and-dirty, pieceing apart of the Word that can only be achieved by study, as well.
Mark,
Good point. Especially because it makes my (and BW's) point even stronger. The words of Paul you quote are first of all to Timothy...a pastor. Paul is reminding him to concern himself with making sure he handles the word correctly and accurately. Paul is primarily burdening the preacher not the layman.
Far too many pastors neglect their responsibility of handleing the word and presenting it in a way that can be received by those who listen to them.
Mark,
I was not attempting to say what the demise of preaching is; rather, I was trying to point out a cause of the demise of preaching.
I think your confusion exists because you are making a false dilemma. I could think of a few more options, or I could take that bull by the horns (if you know what I mean :)
I usually try to feel material objects (e.g. my wife's thigh) and think about mental implications (e.g. If Heidegger is correct about Descartes--that is, if the Cartesian understanding of existence is wrong (demands proof of external existence we are beings in external existence thus it cannot be falsified)--then does it follow that God's existence cannot be falsified?
Sometimes I think about material objects, however (e.g. my wife's thigh)...No need to discuss what implications follow.
I love the passage in 2 Tim. 2:15. I agree with you. I think we should understand the Bible as it was intended to be understood--which is achieved through proper study (which takes training in how to do, as well as hard work).
Post a Comment
<< Home