Breaking Down A Verse

[Martin]

I am wondering if everyone can give some information on how to break down verses. For example this is from a Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon: MLJ4010 Higher than Adam
Ephesians 1:5-6
Preached on Sunday 5th December 1954.
... Avoiding error;
... refuting Universalism;
... Biblical division of mankind;
... Christian sonship;
... all Christians are sons;
... redemption goes beyond salvation.

He has taken the verses and worked out so much information from them. This is also not his first sermon on these verses. How do you do this? Also, he has worked them out to where point A leads logically to point B and logically to point C etc. How do you go about doing this? What are you looking for? What questions are right to ask? How do we squeeze so much information out of verses?

 

[CharlieJ]

Hi, Eric. Great question. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that MLJ is not really doing as much exposition (as it is usually understood today) as you may think. In his sermons, rather than preaching on the text per se, he tends to preach on words, themes, or topics suggested by the text. So, if he sees the word "faith" in a verse, he may launch into a disquisition on faith that goes beyond what is simply in the verse.

Now, I'm not saying that such an approach is wrong, but it's useful to draw a distinction between exegesis - drawing out what is in a text - and homiletics - preaching a sermon "on" a text. Obviously, not everything that he says in a sermon on a text is strictly speaking in that text.

Exegeting scripture is genre-dependent. For the Pauline epistles, I would recommend Interpreting the Pauline Epistles by Thomas Schreiner. One or two of the chapters deal with Greek, but the rest is accessible to anyone. Perhaps the best chapter is available online: http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/book_IPE_chapter6.pdf

New Testament Exegesis by Gordon Fee is a fairly solid overview. Biblical Words and their Meaning by Moises Silva helps out with word studies. Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson will teach you what to avoid.

 

[Jack K]

I have no idea how MLJ did it. But I practice brainstorming.

Sit down with the verse in front of you, a pen and large notebook. Start making a list of one-sentence points that can be drawn from that verse. Everything you can think of, even what's simple and obvious. Force yourself to fill an entire sheet of paper. Or if it's a particularly rich verse, force yourself to fill two sheets. You want to get to a point (for me, usually about a half hour into the exercise) where you're sure there's nothing more that could possible be gleaned. That's a cue that you're halfway done. Keep going. By forcing yourself to keep looking at each word, how the parts interact, etc. you see things you might otherwise gloss over.

This is, of course, in addition to the work of understanding the context and historical setting and knowing your systematics and so on... all of which keep you on track. But the brainstorming is the best part for me. I usually struggle, after that exercise, to limit my teaching to only a few of the very best insights and most critical points.

 

[ADKing]

Many Puritans (whom MLJ follows) used a method that 1) explained the words of the text 2) raised doctrines from the words and 3) made application or "uses" of those doctrines. It is important that the doctrines flow from the words in that verse. However, once that doctrine has been "raised" or identified, the preacher often defines, defends and gives examples (and refutes contrary errors). This process often ranges all over the Bible in places where the same doctrine is taught, exemplified, etc. After this process, Puritan preachers would often show the "uses" of this doctrine in the Christian life. Of course as you can imagine, even one doctrine can have several uses. Keep in mind that some verses, especially in Pauline epistles, like Ephesians, are capable of holding out more than one doctrine and you can see how this process could easily lead a writer/preacher to fill volumes.

 

[jwithnell]

Well, first you take a hammer, then you ...

OK seriously, when you say you are breaking a passage down, can we assume you've worked with it at a macro level first -- the context, it's place and purpose, etc.?

Just a pew dweller

 

[Martin]

Thanks for the replies thus far and for the recourse! I will look into them.

I can now see the "Puritan Method" that MLJ is using. Its somewhat like taking the subject, explaining it, how to apply it, the meaning, and refuting the things that are contrary to it. Thanks for pointing that out.

I tried the brainstorming method. It worked very well for me. Writing down the things I saw helped me to flush out ideas and to be able to see the text more clearly, as well keep all my ideas together so I don't forget things. Thanks everyone! Anyone else have any other thoughts?

 

[jwithnell]

Start making a list of one-sentence points that can be drawn from that verse.

Jack, you're generally right on but this seemed a little, well, different to me. I've always been taught to take a lot of time before concluding what can be drawn from a verse, after seeing the flow of surrounding passages, how the concepts and words are used elsewhere -- particularly by the same author, considering historical context, etc., etc.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have no idea how MLJ did it. But I practice brainstorming.

Sit down with the verse in front of you, a pen and large notebook. Start making a list of one-sentence points that can be drawn from that verse. Everything you can think of, even what's simple and obvious. Force yourself to fill an entire sheet of paper. Or if it's a particularly rich verse, force yourself to fill two sheets. You want to get to a point (for me, usually about a half hour into the exercise) where you're sure there's nothing more that could possible be gleaned. That's a cue that you're halfway done. Keep going. By forcing yourself to keep looking at each word, how the parts interact, etc. you see things you might otherwise gloss over.

This is, of course, in addition to the work of understanding the context and historical setting and knowing your systematics and so on... all of which keep you on track. But the brainstorming is the best part for me. I usually struggle, after that exercise, to limit my teaching to only a few of the very best insights and most critical points.

I'm sorry but this is just horrific advice. The "oh by the way, don't forget your context and historical setting and systematics" comes as a footnote to brainstorming. Your method is a recipe for a return to the Quadriga.

 

[JimmyH]

I'm a layman, a babe in Christ at 63 years old, but the Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones bound collections of sermons have been, and continue to be, a blessing to me. How did he do it ? In my humble opinion, he was a genius, inspired by God, and filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[py3ak]

I have no idea how MLJ did it. But I practice brainstorming.

Sit down with the verse in front of you, a pen and large notebook. Start making a list of one-sentence points that can be drawn from that verse. Everything you can think of, even what's simple and obvious. Force yourself to fill an entire sheet of paper. Or if it's a particularly rich verse, force yourself to fill two sheets. You want to get to a point (for me, usually about a half hour into the exercise) where you're sure there's nothing more that could possible be gleaned. That's a cue that you're halfway done. Keep going. By forcing yourself to keep looking at each word, how the parts interact, etc. you see things you might otherwise gloss over.

This is, of course, in addition to the work of understanding the context and historical setting and knowing your systematics and so on... all of which keep you on track. But the brainstorming is the best part for me. I usually struggle, after that exercise, to limit my teaching to only a few of the very best insights and most critical points.

I'm sorry but this is just horrific advice. The "oh by the way, don't forget your context and historical setting and systematics" comes as a footnote to brainstorming. Your method is a recipe for a return to the Quadriga.

That hardly seems to follow. The point of the exercise is to force you to look closely at the words themselves, how they relate to one another, taking note also of obvious and simple things. If you look at Puritan commentaries, they often seem like the result of an exercise pretty similar to what Jack is describing. The fact that your knowledge of Biblical and systematic theology doesn't replace staring at the text doesn't mean that they are a footnote to detailed analysis of the passage in question.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As Charlie described there is a difference between homiletics and exegesis. I don't agree that one stares at a text to come up with ideas about what each word may mean. The meaning of a verse, within a pericope, within a book, is singular. You start not by brainstorming the meanings of a verse are but what the meaning is. You move from syntax to outward context to the Biblical theological context and then systematics. Now, I will grant, that the applications of a given verse or verses are manifold but you don't start by writing a list of things that can be drawn out of a verse. You start by determining what the verse means.

This is why I called the advice horrific because if one reads what Jack wrote it first says to start with brainstorming and then footnotes that context and systematics are at play. In the best possible reading I can grant that Jack is telling someone to make sure they do their proper hermeneutical work but why should I assume that a young man, who obviously is looking for advice in basic hermeneutics, would understand any of that? We need to be properly trained to handle the Word of God and we also need to be careful in how we give advice to others who are seeking it.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(2Pe 1:19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


(2Pe 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I agree with Rich.

 

[py3ak]

As Charlie described there is a difference between homiletics and exegesis. I don't agree that one stares at a text to come up with ideas about what each word may mean. The meaning of a verse, within a pericope, within a book, is singular. You start not by brainstorming the meanings of a verse are but what the meaning is. You move from syntax to outward context to the Biblical theological context and then systematics. Now, I will grant, that the applications of a given verse or verses are manifold but you don't start by writing a list of things that can be drawn out of a verse. You start by determining what the verse means.

This is why I called the advice horrific because if one reads what Jack wrote it first says to start with brainstorming and then footnotes that context and systematics are at play. In the best possible reading I can grant that Jack is telling someone to make sure they do their proper hermeneutical work but why should I assume that a young man, who obviously is looking for advice in basic hermeneutics, would understand any of that? We need to be properly trained to handle the Word of God and we also need to be careful in how we give advice to others who are seeking it.

I can only recommend that you sit down with a notebook and pen and stare at Jack's words for a while! Careful observation will reveal that he said nothing about a timeline on when these things happen: he said brainstorming was the best part for him. And it's not like his advice was given in ignorance of the other points mentioned on the thread. In another setting, perhaps the last paragraph would be an insufficient acknowledgement; but his post was given in this context.

It was also given in answer to a specific question, which was not, "How do I interpret the Bible" but about deriving true statements from a text in an organized manner.

I am not disagreeing with your advice, in other words: I am disagreeing with you because (ironically) I think you are importing into Jack's words something he didn't say: e.g. "may mean", "meanings".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jack (and Ruben),

I apologize for coming across so harsh but, contextually (no pun intended), when a man asks how to "break down a verse" as the OP did, it reveals a basic level question that needs a lot of background. There is insufficient foundation in the thread to jump to the idea of brainstorming. I think Charlie's advice was most excellent. When a man wants to learn to paint like a master artist you don't get past the basics of art, light, pigment, etc. One has to stick to the basics. If a man is not first skilled to know what a proper hermeneutical approach looks like then it doesn't do to jump past the assumption that one grasps everything that goes into that science.

I also question the method of brainstorming. It may work in creative fields but the teaching of Scripture is not necessarily the place to look to be creative. I don't believe trying to fill a sheet of ideas is even the way to approach the problem. Call it a lack of trust in instinct or the human heart but I don't want to just start being "creative" about what comes to mind for a given text. What makes me think that my insights that I filled a sheet or two of paper with are at all Biblical?

The connections I see that are most helpful are those that involve meditation on the verse(s) over time and prayer. Furthermore, study of connected Biblical themes or commentaries from great men are much more reliable as one has a cloud of witnesses against which to check certain impressions. This is why the first step in solid teaching prep is translation and proper interpretation. It then gives the teacher an opportunity to meditate on this and come back to it time and again as he begins to plan how he's first going to explain the meaning of a text and then begin to show how it applies. In explaining the text he may have to find interconnected themes on how authors speak on the same subject, etc but that's not brainstorming but further study.

I think, in the end, my initial impression of the advice was much worse than I have of it but I still believe it is very poor advice from a pedagogical perspective. If someone asked me what they need in order to be saved and I said: "First..." one would expect the first thing to be the most important thing. The most important thing in the study of God's Word is to determine its meaning. Application comes much further down the road in the process of teaching. In a culture that increasingly treats the Scriptures according to Reader Response (I even see this among Church men), the meaning of the text must be kept primary.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Rich. As always, your graciousness and zeal are worthy of imitation.

I also question the method of brainstorming. It may work in creative fields but the teaching of Scripture is not necessarily the place to look to be creative. I don't believe trying to fill a sheet of ideas is even the way to approach the problem. Call it a lack of trust in instinct or the human heart but I don't want to just start being "creative" about what comes to mind for a given text. What makes me think that my insights that I filled a sheet or two of paper with are at all Biblical?

I don't prefer the word brainstorming myself. To take an example, though, Manton, Sclater, and Fergusson in their work on 2 Thessalonians all make the observation that it is important for preachers to minister the word appropriately - to make sure not to terrify the godly by warnings meant for the ungodly. This is not something the text states, but it is something the text contains, as Paul moves from a discussion of antichrist to thanksgiving for the Thessalonian unbelievers. It is a point drawn from the flow of the passage: and it is a point that only close observation of the text would bring up, and which can then be confirmed and amplified from other parts of Scripture. Jack is of course fully capable of speaking for himself, but it was that kind of close observation that I understood him to mean by "brainstorming".

 

[Jack K]

It appears I should have been more clear...

I seldom start with brainstorming. Unless I'm teaching through a particular book and have done all the other work already—and recently—I start by understanding the proper meaning of the passage within the context of the book, the setting in redemptive history, the entire Bible (systematics), and such. Then with those things keeping me on track, I start looking for things to notice in that particular verse.

Context comes first and is most critical. I took it for granted we all know that.

I decided to mention context, etc. anyway because I didn't want someone to get the wrong idea that it was okay to skip that stuff. Apparently, you got that idea anyway. My bad.

It sounded to me like Eric was looking for suggestions on how to work through a single verse. To me, that comes after understanding the larger passage and considering how that verse fits into the theme. So I focused on what I do to thoroughly think through a verse at that stage. If "brainstorming" sounds too much like an anything-goes, undirected sort of thought... then perhaps we ought to change the word to, say, "close examination." Rich certainly is right that any points the process generates need to flow from a proper understanding of the passage in context. They also need to be examined in light of that understanding before they're taught.

Still, I do believe in what I call "brainstorming" as a helpful step in the process once you get down to the verse level. It helps me see things I'd otherwise overlook (which I then interpret in light of the context). I've heard too many Reformed sermons where the context was wonderfully researched and explained but the pastor seemed to have not looked closely at the text itself. I've taught many lessons myself where I've done that. The method I suggested forces me to examine the text closely, at a thought-by-thought and word-by-word level. That's a good companion to the big picture study we all know is necessary.


Thanks, friends, for a cordial discussion in my absence.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

brainstorming

I would much rather render more to prayerful, meditative reflection on the word and it's context. The word brainstorming relies too much upon the thoughts of man and not upon the context of the word in my estimation. Words mean things in context so one must interpret and understand the words in the setting they are placed in contextually and historically. Brainstorming is not the same thing as meditatively considering things in light of God's Spirit necessarily. You might be thinking of application in light of the Word as the Puritans did. I can not think that they would use the word brainstorming as it is used in our modern world today. I agree with you Jack that we should try to understand the thought of scripture and why it is written. Nothing is written where we shouldn't draw out application of Covenant Promise, Covenant Encouragement, or Covenant Application. After all, All of scripture is God breathed for a purpose as Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16,17, and 1 Corinthians 10 says.

(Rom 15:4) For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

(1Co 10:6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
(1Co 10:11) Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This brainstorming can lead to places that Lloyd Jones went to and the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist went to. The Second Blessing teaching or even Lloyd Jones' teaching on the sealing of Spirit has lead some to seek things that aren't there in my estimation. Some people think they have an inspiration from God when they don't. We have a Sure Word with a proper eternal understanding.

BTW, I am not trying to sound harsh so please don't take me as being harsh. I do believe the Lord communicates with his people by His Spirit. He does enlighten the eyes and heart of man to know His love and will. I also believe we need to be very careful when we handle the Word of Life and teach others how to receive it as the Word of God. I have seen too many mistakes made in my years of growing in the faith. I have made many myself so I am not trying to throw stones here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't prefer the word brainstorming myself. To take an example, though, Manton, Sclater, and Fergusson in their work on 2 Thessalonians all make the observation that it is important for preachers to minister the word appropriately - to make sure not to terrify the godly by warnings meant for the ungodly. This is not something the text states, but it is something the text contains, as Paul moves from a discussion of antichrist to thanksgiving for the Thessalonian unbelievers. It is a point drawn from the flow of the passage: and it is a point that only close observation of the text would bring up, and which can then be confirmed and amplified from other parts of Scripture. Jack is of course fully capable of speaking for himself, but it was that kind of close observation that I understood him to mean by "brainstorming".

I agree with this but I think this is part of any sound hermeneutical approach. For instance, I had to exhort recently on Hebrews 4 and I knew my exhortation would be, in some ways, terrifying to the listeners. It was intended to be but it also has to fit within a broader context of the entire letter to the Hebrews, which announces comfort in the work of Christ. The longer I've become familiar with the Word, the more I've become convinced of the necessity of the entire Biblical theological context (which is part of exegesis) as well as a systematic understanding of theology. This is why training is so essential.

I remember a friend in Okinawa who was eager to be able to teach as I did. He wondered what he needed to do to get there. I'm not saying this to puff myself up but I had studied the Word for well over a decade and I reminded him that these kind of things come with time. We're often too eager to jump in but we need to be able to maturely handle God's Truth and that comes a regular diet of study. The man I am today is not the man I was 3 years ago and I'll look back in the years ahead and realize how much further I've progressed in my understanding. I don't think we need to aspire to wow in our penetrating depth like other great teachers. There was a time when I studied so I could wow like an R.C. Sproul but my aim was off. When we aim to cling to Christ and grow in sanctification under the Word, God will use our gifts as He sees fit.

I would add, as a sidenote, that there's a tendency to make celebrities out of great speakers and assign to them a theological richness that may not be there. The best preachers I've experienced are humble men that will never make the national circuit. They don't "Wow" but they're day on, stay on in the ministry and know their sheep and know how to feed them.

 

[Jack K]

The cautions on the word "brainstorming" are appropriate. I used the word because my process of putting thoughts on paper (which helps me focus on the task—I do recommend it) is similar to what happens in brainstorming sessions in the business world. It just reminds me of that in some ways. But good biblical study is also different in many, many ways, of course.

Rich, I heartily agree with all you say about context and the value of many years of study. Context is the first thing I would say, generally, about how to study the Bible and prepare to teach it.

This brainstorming can lead to places that Lloyd Jones went to and the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist went to. The Second Blessing teaching or even Lloyd Jones' teaching on the sealing of Spirit has lead some to seek things that aren't there in my estimation. Some people think they have an inspiration from God when they don't. We have a Sure Word with a proper eternal understanding.

I avoid thinking of an "aha!" moment as an inspiration from God. Bible study is, of course, to be undertaken prayerfully and with an expectation that the Spirit will make his word clear. But if I start thinking of such moments as revelations from the Spirit, there's a risk that I won't subject them to the scrutiny of the whole Bible. All "insights" must be subject to this. The whole Bible is where we know the Spirit speaks, for sure.

 

[Romans922]

Here is a good book that looks at Richard Baxter's preaching structure. I enjoyed it and think it may help: Amazon.com: Preaching With Spiritual Vigour (9781857928570): Capil M.a.: Books

 

[Martin]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I was looking for how to break down a verse and draw out points from it after you know the meaning from interpreting from scripture, knowing where it flows in systematic theology, knowing the context of the verse, etc etc. I should have been more clear in my original post. My apologies.

 

[Romans922]

Eric, the book I suggested I believe does that.

 

[Martin]

Eric, the book I suggested I believe does that.

I am looking into the book. Thanks for the recommendation. I was just clearing up the misunderstanding above.

 

[Romans922]

If you have questions about the specifics of the book before buying, feel free to PM me