The pattern of emphasis dictated by the text keeps verbal meaning in its rightful and prominent position in the interpretive process. All of this is not to say that implications ought not be expounded; indeed, they should. However, implications must remain submissive to the author’s intent—and to the degree that the original author wills them. Otherwise, we comprise the sufficiency of Scripture since the biblical author’s emphases are, in fact, God’s emphases. 

My previous article suggested the greatest danger in preaching, even among expositors, is not honoring the relative emphases of the biblical author. Most often, this occurs when a preacher extracts a “part” of a text and gives it more weight than did the biblical author. Sidney Greidanus calls that “part” an “atom.”
Atomistic Tendencies
Atomistic tendencies extract an implication (or sub-meaning or sub-point) of the author and cause it to dominate the author’s single verbal meaning. The result becomes an alteration of the author’s original meaning. Greidanus calls this the “isolation of certain ‘atoms’ within the text from the inner coherence, the central thrust of the text.”[1]
An “atom” might be a Bible personality’s attribute, experience, or behavior which the preacher extracts and expounds as the main emphasis of the message. The problem with this practice is the main thought of the passage is either ignored or reduced to secondary importance. In either case, the verbal meaning becomes different (or other) than that of the biblical author.
Greidanus explains:
Should any of these “atoms” be treated independently in the sermon, the result would be atomism—making absolute that which is a dependent part—and a loss of the central thrust of the text. Should one, for the sake of a unified sermon, place one “atom” central, the central thrust is displaced by that which is not central. In either case the meaning of the text will be distorted.[2]Sidney Greidanus, Sola Scriptura
Greidanus claims this tendency produces sermons that become monotonous because they lose the uniqueness of the text.[3] For example, one can preach essentially the same sermon from the “doubt” of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:1-6) and the “doubt” of Thomas (John 20:24-29); or, one could apply the “testing” of the faith of Abraham (Gen. 22) in the same way as the “testing” of the faith of the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21ff.).[4]  He rightly asserts: “[T]he ‘atom’ (doubt, testing) is lifted out of its textual (historic) environment into another realm where, though still called ‘doubt’ or ‘testing,’ it has lost its unique connections and therefore its special meaning.”[5]
The Danger of Atomistic Tendencies
We can reduce the problem of atomistic tendencies to one basic issue: The degree of relative emphasis an implication (or sub-meaning) should receive within the sense of the larger whole. The chief concern occurs when the preacher presents an emphasis (or set of emphases) which is different than the biblical author’s, and the interpretation spawns a different meaning. Therefore, we agree with Greidanus’ argument. Further, we see no reason why we should limit it to exemplary or biographical tendencies. The argument equally is valid for those sermons which take a sub-point within the verbal meaning and cause it to dominate the central thrust of the sermon. We must never stop asking, “Who gives the preacher the authority to change the King’s emphasis? Certainly, not the King; and if not He, then who?”
Read More

These first four occasions of twice-repeated names are in the Old Testament, and the character responds to the Lord’s voice with, “Here I am.” The final three occurrences of twice-repeated names are in the New Testament. In the three New Testament occasions of twice-repeated names, there was no “Here I am” response from a biblical character, which was a phrase we saw in the four contexts of the Old Testament occurrences.

Plenty of Old and New Testament passages have dialogue where a character’s name is mentioned. But there are occasions—and you can hold them in two hands—when the Lord calls someone’s name twice in a row.
Counting the names that are repeated twice in the Old and New Testaments, we find seven.
The first time was in Genesis 22:11. In Genesis 22, Abraham was preparing to offer his son Isaac on the altar, in accordance with the Lord’s instructions. When he reached out his hand with the knife to kill Isaac, the angel of Yahweh called from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” (Gen. 22:11). And Abraham replied, “Here I am.”
The second time was in Genesis 46:2. In Genesis 46, Jacob had recently learned that his son Joseph was alive after many years of believing Joseph was dead. Jacob began his journey toward Egypt, where he would reunite with Joseph. When Jacob came to Beersheba and offered sacrifices to the Lord, the Lord spoke to him and said, “Jacob, Jacob” (Gen. 46:2). And Jacob replied, “Here I am.”
The third time was in Exodus 3:4. Moses had been keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, and an angel of Yahweh appeared to Moses in the flame of fire from a bush (Exod. 3:1–2). Moses turned aside to see what was happening, and God called to him, “Moses, Moses!” (3:4). And Moses replied, “Here I am.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Matthew H. Lee |
Tuesday, June 7, 2022
Communities in which members profess faith in God should affirm human dignity in part by prioritizing Sabbath rest. Along with our churches, Christian schools should be among the communities in which the freedom of Sabbath rest is proclaimed.

Sundays are my favorite holidays.
New Year’s Day, Easter, even Christmas pale in comparison. Unlike other holidays, particularly those of the man-made variety, the Sabbath is a tradition divinely consecrated and nearly as old as creation itself (Exodus 20:11).
When we remember the Sabbath, we celebrate our freedom from bondage (Deuteronomy 5:15). By contrast, it’s no surprise that throughout human history, ignoring the Sabbath has been the practice of oppressive societies. Sohrab Ahmari recently wrote for The Wall Street Journal, “While restless, Sabbath-less societies could easily descend into tyranny and barbarism,” Sabbatarianism was seen “as an essential bulwark against the depravities that had marked the French Revolution.” In an effort to abolish all religious influences, the French government adopted Auguste Comte’s Religion of Humanity and implemented a ten-day workweek. The practice was repeated in the Paris Commune of the 19th century.
The French weren’t the only culture who tried to dispense with Sabbath-keeping. Ancient Egypt used a nine-day workweek, with one day of rest reserved exclusively for the ruling class. In 20th-century Maoist China, during the disastrous Great Leap Forward, peasants were expected to follow a 48-hour workday, with a mere six hours for rest.
Ignoring the Sabbath was catastrophic in all cases.
In each of these societies, we see the same threefold rejection: of rights and liberties, of God, and of the Sabbath. In contrast, to love the Sabbath is to love neighbor, acknowledging each person’s dignity as an image bearer and inviting them to share in rest. To love the Sabbath is to enjoy rest, both from our work and from our works-righteousness (Hebrews 4:9-10).
And yet, how often do we subject ourselves to the oppression of Sabbath rejection?
Communities in which members profess faith in God should affirm human dignity in part by prioritizing Sabbath rest. Along with our churches, Christian schools should be among the communities in which the freedom of Sabbath rest is proclaimed.
Sabbath-Keeping in Christian Schools
To explore the topic of Sabbath-keeping in Christian education, Albert Cheng, Rian Djita (both at the University of Arkansas), and I analyzed data from the Sabbath Study, a survey fielded by the Association of Christian Schools International in early 2021. Altogether, 5,634 individuals responded to our survey, including administrators, teachers, students, and parents. As part of the survey, respondents indicated whether or not they keep the Sabbath, their beliefs about the Sabbath, their teaching practices as they relate to the Sabbath, and common practices they follow on the Sabbath. They also completed the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated six-item scale that measures psychosocial well-being.

Related Posts: