Matt Waymeyer teaches Greek and Systematic Theology at TES
and serves on the pastoral staff of Grace Immanuel Bible Church in Jupiter, FL.
Below is a brief conversation TES had with Matt about local church ministry.
"Why are you
committed to expository preaching?
Let me begin with a definition. Expository preaching is the
authoritative proclamation of God’s Word in which the preacher clearly sets
forth the divinely intended meaning of the biblical text and brings the contemporary
implications of its timeless truth to bear on the lives of the people. My
commitment to this kind of proclamation flows out of my conviction that
Scripture is the Word of God. Because the Bible is God’s Word, it possesses a
trustworthiness, an authority, and a transforming power that no other source
possesses. Therefore, to the degree that we faithfully preach the divinely
intending meaning of the biblical text, our preaching carries that same
trustworthiness, authority, and transforming power. But conversely, to the
degree that we depart from the divinely intended meaning of a given passage,
our message has forfeited its trustworthiness, authority, and transforming
power, and we make ourselves not worth listening to.
What do you
believe are the benefits for a pastor if he has a thorough understanding of
Hebrew and Greek? What do you think are the potential limitations without a
grasp of the original languages?
The primary benefit of knowing the original languages is that
it enables the pastor to be more accurate and precise in his understanding of
the biblical text. This is foundational to everything he does as a shepherd,
from preaching to counseling to formulating his systematic theology. The
original languages are especially critical to his preaching ministry. Every
semester I tell my Greek students that precision in the study leads to clarity
in the pulpit. In other words, if you want to be a preacher who clearly
presents the divinely intended meaning of Scripture from the pulpit, you must
be precise in your own understanding of Scripture in the study, and so much of
that precision comes from the original languages.
In contrast, the growing trend in seminary education is to
deemphasize the importance of the original languages. This will only produce
theologians and preachers who merely read and regurgitate what they’ve learned
from others in the commentaries. If someone has never had the opportunity to
learn Hebrew and Greek, this approach is perfectly understandable. But if the
purpose of seminary is to set aside several years of your life for intensive
training in the Word of God, how can you ignore the very languages in which it
was written? Faithful stewardship requires that pastors learn the original
languages to the degree that God’s providence will allow.
What is it
about church-based seminary training that you find most compelling?
What I find most compelling is that training men in the
context of the local church allows us not only to instruct them in the
classroom but also to serve alongside them on the frontlines of pastoral
ministry. So much of what prepares a young man for the pastorate is not simply
learning content, but also applying that content under the care and guidance of
faithful shepherds who are modeling for them in real ministry what they are
teaching them in the classroom.
Why do you
think so many pastors struggle to take the truths they learn in the exegetical
process and craft them into a compelling expository sermon? Why is it so
difficult to go from text to sermon, from exegesis to exposition?
Preachers oftentimes gravitate toward one of two opposite
extremes, that of “the youthful exegete” or “the seasoned communicator.” The youthful
exegete is the young preacher who just graduated from seminary, and he’s
so excited about his new understanding of Greek that he can’t understand why
his congregation isn’t blessed by his lengthy explanation of the four different
views on the Genitive Absolute in verse 11. His preaching may be faithful to
the text, but it’s nearly impossible to understand, because his exegetical data
dump is expressed in technical language that communicates nothing to the
average person in the pew. His exegesis may strong, but his exposition is weak.
On the other end of the spectrum is the seasoned
communicator, the preacher who has become savvy enough to conclude that
biblical exegesis is a waste of time because it does nothing to meet the real
needs of real people. Instead of diligently studying the biblical text, the
seasoned communicator relies on his understanding of contemporary culture and
his ability to communicate in way that captivates the attention of large
audiences. He may not explain the divinely intended meaning of the biblical
text, but most people agree that his messages are not only interesting, but
also relevant to their everyday lives. His communication skills are strong, but
his exegesis is non-existent.
In contrast to these two extremes, the challenge that every
expository preacher faces is how to be relentlessly faithful to the biblical
text in both his exegesis and his homiletics. One reason some young preachers
struggle to transition well from exegesis to exposition is because the training
they received in seminary failed to make a clear and meaningful connection
between the two. I often tell my Greek students that my goal is to get them
ready for Monday morning at 8:00. In other words, in their future pastorates,
when they arrive at their office on Monday morning and start the process of
preparing for Sunday, I want them to have a clear idea not only how to discover
the meaning of the text, but also how to prepare an exposition which clearly
communicates that meaning to God’s people. This is a challenge I continue to
face as a preacher, and training others in this process sharpens my own ministry
in the study and the pulpit.
If you
could compel young pastors to embrace one conviction prior to entering a life
of ministry, what would that be?
Simply this: True success in ministry is measured not in
numbers, but in faithfulness to God.Most young pastors are quick to affirm this
conviction, but many of them end up denying it in practice when it’s put to the
test. May the Lord raise up a generation of young men who are more concerned
about being faithful in the eyes of God than popular in the eyes of the world!
You can be one or the other, but you cannot be both, and so you must choose.
What is the
greatest threat to a person’s hermeneutical approach to Scripture?
The most damaging hermeneutical shift in the last 50 years
involves the repositioning of the reader to the center of the interpretive
process. Commonly known as the Reader-Respond Method, this approach says that
the meaning of Scripture emerges as a product of the interaction between the
modern-day reader and the ancient biblical text. For this reason, it is said,
there can be many different legitimate meanings of a given passage, because
each new interpreter brings his own presuppositions, experiences, and
interpretative framework to the Scriptures, resulting in his own individual
interpretation/meaning.
In this approach, because subjectivity is to be welcomed and
embraced rather than avoided and suppressed, the biblical text ends up
functioning like an inkblot into which the interpreter reads his own individual
meaning. This is the scholarly version of “What does this verse mean to me?,”
and it continues to have a significant influence, even in evangelicalism. What
the faithful interpreter needs to understand is that the meaning of Scripture
is found not in the subjective impression of the contemporary reader but in the
objective intention of the biblical author. Discovering that meaning requires
the hard work of biblical exegesis, but it is well worth the effort!"
