There’s a question that’s been rumbling in my brain for quite some time now. It has to do with preaching from the gospels. Should preachers when they’re dealing with, say, Luke, go to Matthew in their sermon for a related theme and offer extended discussion of it?
Of course, evangelicals believe in the full inspiration of scriptures, the unity of the canon and the analogy of faith. So it would seem that answer should be “yes.” But my question has a further consideration that we don’t often think about: What about authorial intent and themes local to a particular gospel? If I’m preaching from Matthew and am aware both of Matthew’s consistent “kingdom emphasis” and his audience that is familiar with the Old Testament and then throw in a parallel from Luke that has different emphases am I not disregarding Matthew’s purpose in writing? Of course there are parallels between texts, but many times those parallels are located contextually within a gospel for a purpose that is different between authors.
The problem gets even muckier when we consider the gospel according to John. Not being one of the synoptic gospels John has themes and narrative that are not found in the other three gospels, or if they are, it is to a limited and often different degree. Is it hermeneutically sound to turn from John in a sermon, to Matthew to discuss the Lord’s Supper?
I tend to lean against hopping from gospel to gospel on one particular theme because I fear that I’m not doing justice to the gospel writer’s purpose in writing the way he did and situating it where he did. It’s not that it is wrong to point out harmony and differences between the gospels, but to develop meaning from one gospel to another on a given theme disrupts the flow of what the author is trying to communicate. It runs the possibility of bringing in brand new themes that the given gospel writer is not commenting on. It also runs the risk of confusing the hearers of the sermon.
This problem is not the same as comparing the letters of Paul with each other. Why? Because to compare Colossians with Philippians is to compare Paul with Paul. His emphases, his language, his style is often the same. Therefore, in probably all cases, his intentions are the same. It’s comparing apples with apples, whereas in the case of the gospels, it is comparing apples with oranges.
I’m interested in other perspectives on this. Are there any good homiletical books that deal with this subject from one view or another?
I’m preaching on John 6 this Sunday… I will use info about the feeding of the five thousand in the synoptics in my sermon… because the most important texts in the morning service at my current church are my prayers and my sermon… I need all the help I can get… so if the synoptic accounts of the story help my sermon, then they will be used… am I placing my own words over and above the Scriptures in this approach???
Ian,
Since the gospels are my area of study, this question is of particular interest to me. Here are a few principles that I use:
1) Most pastors, sadly, preach the gospels as if they were form critics atomizing the pericopes from the theological arrangement of the evangelist. So discourse analysis on the larger narrative units of the gospels can enrich a sermon.
2) Draw from a parallel synoptic only if you think that the added information will illuminate your main point in your sermon. If the parallel account only gives you secondary information, trivia, or creates more questions for people, don’t use it.
So don’t feel compelled to create harmony sermons just because there are parallels.
3) Never try to reconcile apparent contradictions between parallels in a sermons. I have heard many of pastors do this in their sermons. This apologetic tasks never contributes to grabbing the soul of the person listening. It detracts from the passion and flow, in my opinion, of the sermon. Relegate those apologetic elements to sunday school or some other teaching time.
4) Resist giving too much historical background to a gospel passage. This is tempting since there is a lot of background data to the gospels. Again, I don’t believe it helps to grab the soul. Be very selective if you give background data, which should be cash value to the theological and practical principles.
5) Tie in the already element of the gospel main point to God’s not-yet fulfillment. That way the horizontal dimension gives closure in the listener’s mind, and induces hope and spiritual challenges in the now.
6) Never use google earth in your sermons. That was not a joke (ask me sometime about that one if we ever meet again :)
Hope that helps.
Take Care.
p.s. It has been awhile since I read it, but I believe Fee in his NT Exegesis has a section on preaching from the synoptics.