Why do I really struggle when preachers bounce around the Bible when preaching? Because doing so can often miss the point of what the Bible author is communicating, what the original audience would have understood and how it fits in with the overarching story of the Bible.

I was walking and talking with my wife yesterday discussing one of the latest books that I’ve read. One of my comments about the book was how I liked that the author went to different parts of the Bible to show common themes and to highlight certain details. My wife responded with something like “so the book did what you hate happening in sermons?” Correct, let me explain.
I am sold 100% on expositional preaching, which basically means that the preacher should let the Bible do the talking. Expository preaching walks through a Bible text and expounds what it says. I’m sold on that kind of preaching as the regular diet of a Christian because it is, in my opinion, the best way to disciple people. Expository preaching gets people to hear what God intended in His Word and not my latest hobby horse or the newest trend in the world of global church. If expository preaching is done well then a church will touch on most issues that we face in life as they naturally come up in the Bible rather than shoehorning a topic in.
Read More
Related Posts:

Jesus continues His use of the foil technique in the second scene of the parable. Both characters have died, and their positions begin to invert. The Rich Man is “buried” while the Lazarus is “carried by angels” (22). The Rich man, who once enjoyed a life of comfort, is in Hades in torment. Whereas Lazarus is now at Abraham’s side enjoying heavenly prosperity. (23). Remarkably, we see that the Rich Man has now become the beggar, asking for a single drop of water to cool his tongue (24). Jesus’ ability to teach in parable and via contrast is brilliant.

For centuries, scholars have debated whether Jesus’ story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable or an account of a true, historical narrative. Thankfully, regardless of whichever side of the fence one falls on, it doesn’t change the clarity or the message of the story. Both hermeneutical approaches yield clear warnings about the eternal consequences of sin and the hope we have in the gospel, as preserved in Holy Scripture. Truly, the perspicuity of God’s Word is a gift to His people!
One of the primary arguments of those who hold to the historical narrative point of view is that Jesus uses specific names in the text. Such is not the case for Jesus’ other parables. Instead of proper names, characters are usually given descriptive archetype titles such as “The Dishonest Manager” or “The Prodigal Son”. The giving of proper names is a compelling argument for this historical point of view. Yet, despite this fact, I still hold firmly to the notion that this story is indeed a parable. Why? Because of Jesus’ spectacular use of poetry. This has been overlooked by some commentators. One of the amazing things about studying scripture is that highlights the infinite breadth and brilliance of Jesus.
The Juxtaposition of Characters
Juxtaposition is a powerful communication tool. By contrasting two, unlike things, we glean more than looking at these things by themselves. This is exactly what Jesus uses in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. The two characters rely on each other to teach the message of the parable. Notice that while Jesus never directly condemns the Rich Man’s actions, He manages to effectively build a case against him by holding him up against his counterpart, Lazarus. Truly, this is brilliant storytelling. Writers sometimes refer to this type of juxtaposition as a “foil”. Meaning, that the two main characters and their qualities are only rightly understood when they’re placed side-by-side.
Jesus tells us that the rich man is clothed “in purple and fine linen” and that he “feasted sumptuously every day” (Luke 16:19). How about Lazarus? Comparatively, Jesus tells us that instead of being covered with clothes, he is covered with “sores”, and that instead of feasting he is starving. It says he “desired to bed fed with what fell from the rich man’s table” (16:21). The Rich Man’s behavior, when isolated, is hardly compelling. Yet with the juxtaposition and plight of Lazarus, the heinousness of the Rich Man’s crime is displayed. He is a self-absorbed man who lacks compassion and kindness.
I’m reminded of Proverbs 14:31, which reads, “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.” The Rich Man has greatly neglected his poor neighbor and his conduct has shown contempt for God. The Rich Man has sinned against a holy and just God.
The depth of the crime is emphasized when Jesus adds the interesting element of the dogs in verse 21. Jesus says, “Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores” (16:21). In this culture, dogs were viewed as little more than troublesome scavengers. The Jews looked with disdain upon dogs; they were among the dregs of animals. Again, Jesus uses distinction to point out how wicked the Rich Man was. The detestable dogs demonstrate more kindness and compassion towards Lazarus than him.
Jesus continues His use of the foil technique in the second scene of the parable. Both characters have died, and their positions begin to invert. The Rich Man is “buried” while the Lazarus is “carried by angels” (22). The Rich man, who once enjoyed a life of comfort, is in Hades in torment. Whereas Lazarus is now at Abraham’s side enjoying heavenly prosperity. (23). Remarkably, we see that the Rich Man has now become the beggar, asking for a single drop of water to cool his tongue (24). Jesus’ ability to teach in parable and via contrast is brilliant. In just a handful of verses, largely via juxtaposition, Jesus paints a poignant picture of two men, their lives, and their eternal states.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Saturday, September 30, 2023
You need some sense of where you’re going long term—that could be supporting missionaries, it could be sending people to pastor elsewhere, it could be planting churches or sites, it could be growing until you’re of a size to do a particular thing (though I’m wary of this last one, because growth soon becomes its own goal; growth is only good when in service of other goals). These are all valid, other things will be too, and they are a unique vision in the sense that not every church will do the same things with their limited resources.

It’s common these days to expect a church to have a specific vision, often expressed in a pithy statement about what they will or won’t be seeking to do in their location. Sometimes it’s accompanied by a mission statement—which sometimes is the same thing, but at least in business speak isn’t—though these are more common in churches that drew on a slightly older stream of business insights.
Is this a good idea? I’ve gone on record as thinking that lots of churches in the spaces I move in have missed what the church is for, and think this can be symptom of the same thing.
However, we should distinguish carefully because there is, I think, a good and a bad way to do this.
Good Vision
My late friend Zoltán Dörnyei was a Professor of Psycholinguistics who later in his life completed a PhD in Theology. One of his interests was the place of vision in the Christian life, due to his work on the importance of ‘mental imagery’ in acquiring a second language.
The scriptures tell us that without vision the people perish (Proverbs 29). In order to go anywhere and do anything, you need vision. In other words, to do something you have to first visualise it. Zoltan would teach that you needed to both appreciate the benefits of the thing you are considering and consider the costs of failure.
In church life, if the body is going to do anything—and we mean here acts as diverse as witness to their friends, move to a new venue, give their money, volunteer their time, support a project helping the poor, make friends who aren’t like them, and many more—then the elders of the church will need to articulate a ‘vision’ of why this is worthwhile as well as the potential costs of failing.
This isn’t business speak, it’s clarity and ‘leadership’. It’s also not anything super-fancy, for all you can be better or worse in how you go about it. By vision we mean simply painting a picture with words so that people understand why they might choose to take some concrete actions.
We can’t function without this, for all it can easily stray into manipulation—which is true of much of what we call leadership—where you make the vision sound compelling so that people are more likely to take those actions. That’s a tempting thing for a pastor to do, but honesty is integral for Christian leaders in these matters.
Read More
Related Posts: