7 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

The Sermon and
the Uses of Scripture
By Fred B. Craddock

"In spite of all the distance and suspicion generated between those who critically investigate the text and those who preach it, the marriage between sermon and Scripture is in no danger of divorce. In fact, not within this century has the pulpit been so well served by biblical studies nor biblical studies so conscious of its relation to the preaching/teaching ministry of the church."

HISTORIANS of preaching generally agree that of all the influences affecting the evolution of the Christian sermon, none has been more significant than that of the Jewish synagogue. Embracing the synagogue practice of publicly reading and interpreting the sacred texts, the church quite early joined the Greek homily not only to Christian subject matter in general but to the interpretation of Scripture in particular. So strong and lasting has been this union of the homily and the biblical text that to this day preaching is commonly defined as the interpretation of Scripture for the needs of the particular community being addressed by the sermon.

However, to say that the union of message and biblical text has been strong and lasting is not to say the marriage has been without strain and storm. Quite the opposite has been the case, and understandably so. If a sermon consists in large measure of the exposition of normative texts, then preaching involves not only the skills of rhetoric and oral communication but also those of exegesis and hermeneutics. Considering the complexities of biblical interpretation and the areas of expertise involved, it has been reasonable for preachers to look to the academy, to the community of critical scholarship, for aid in sermon preparation. Ideally, the arrangement should be satisfying and fruitful for all concerned: proclamation can give biblical scholarship its reason and motive; biblical scholarship can keep proclamation athletically trim, free of superstition and sloppy sentimentality.

But the ideal has been so often unrealized that it has not been widely

Fred B. Craddock is the Franklin N. Parker Professor of Preaching and New Testament at the Candler School of Theology of Emory University. He has given the distinguished Lyman Beecher Lectures in preaching (published as Overhearing the Gospel, 1978). His other publications include As One Without Authority (1 979) and The Gospels (1981)

8 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

fruitful for either preacher or biblical scholar. Perhaps, as Hendrik Boers pointed out in a penetrating and disturbing article in 1972, ¹ the proclamation of faith and the critical investigation of texts, if free of theological restraints, move in two directions which cannot meet in helpful mutuality. The debate as to the benefits and limits of the historical critical approach to the Bible continues. In the meantime, many preachers report an experience of distance from the scholarly community and many listeners to sermons tell of trips through dry and waterless places. Some congregations sit through sermons wholly innocent of biblical content, the preacher having surrendered the Scriptures to the experts. Other listeners are treated to undigested and untranslated reports of the latest methods of critical scholarship, while yet others listen to enthusiastic but uninformed returns to pre-seminary, precritical interpretations of the text.

I

Having said all that, it is a pleasure to report that in spite of all the distance and suspicion generated between those who critically investigate the text and those who preach it, the marriage between sermon and Scripture is in no danger of divorce. In fact, not within this century has the pulpit been so well served by biblical studies nor biblical studies so conscious of its relation to the preaching/teaching ministry of the church. More factors have contributed to this healthy state than car be catalogued here, but three deserve at least brief attention. First, the distance between the modern pulpit and the ancient text, a distance of which historical critical methods made us so aware, no longer seems so frightening and non-negotiable. In fact, there is health in the distance, permitting both the present church and the ancient witnesses to be heard and seen honestly and clearly without a panicked rush to make one serve the other or to collapse their difference in contrived harmony. Secondly, new methods of reading and listening to biblical texts are proving quite fruitful for preaching. For example, rhetorical and literary approaches, the recovery of the dynamics of orality, and the recognition of the role of the intended reader in the design of a text have aided greatly in understanding what a text does as well as says. These and other methods do not replace the historical critical approach but rather supplement it. We can no more return to pre-critical biblical study than we can live as though this were the eighteenth century, but neither is the text honored nor the church served by regarding historical criticism the last and only word in biblical study.

And finally, the present healthy relation between preaching and biblical scholarship is in part the result of more vigorous efforts on the part of the preaching/teaching ministry to reclaim the Bible for the

¹ "Historical Criticism Versus Prophetic Proclamation," Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972), 393-414.

9 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

church. Having for a time left the Bible as a book of mysteries to be unraveled by the experts, more and more ministers are returning with confidence to the arena of biblical interpretation. Equipped with healthy intuition, sound sense, and pastoral insight, and regarding scholars as friends and colleagues rather than as enemies, preachers are in increasing numbers and with more solid content "preaching the Bible." And why not? The preacher is, in fact, not only encouraged but mandated to interpret Scripture by reason of two facts: One, the Bible is the church's book, not only in origin but also in nature, and the leader of the church is obligated to continue the interpretation of Scripture as a living word in the congregation. Two, the Scriptures to a large extent come to us in forms shaped by the preaching of the early faith communities. If sermons were a primary force in framing the traditions that come to us, then the preacher can reasonably be expected to understand the forms of the biblical text and be sensitive to the designs by which the proclamation can continue into the present.

II

The present state of improving health in the relationship between the sermon and the biblical text should not, however, lull us into assuming too much about that relationship and therefore ceasing to be reflective and critical about biblical preaching. The question "How does Scripture function in a sermon?" should intrude itself into the weekly study of every preacher regardless of skill and years of experience. Is there one normative way of using a biblical text in a sermon which will qualify that sermon as biblical preaching, or can Scripture play a number of roles, even in the same sermon? To be more specific: seminary classrooms, professional journals, books, lectures, and workshops have in recent years joined in a concerted effort to improve the exegetical pre-sermon work of the preacher. Methods of exegesis, tools for exegesis, examples of exegesis, sermons demonstrating exegesis: all these and more have been offered in abundance to the preacher who wishes to join honestly and clearly the sermon and the text. Ministers and congregations have indicated the efforts have borne fruit, and even if gains are modest they are sufficient to encourage the emphasis to continue.

But perhaps now is the time for those of us involved in the effort to have sermons more informed and illumined by a text well exegeted to pause and question the adequacy of our work. The question we need to ask is not whether it is appropriate for a sermon to derive content and authorization from Scripture. Preaching which is so characterized can and should be applauded. Rather, the question is whether this procedure is of itself limiting, neither inviting nor encouraging other uses of Scripture in the sermon. Are there not nourishing and enriching functions of biblical materials which can effectively supplement that described above without misleading or confusing the listeners to sermons? On the contrary, would not varied and abundant uses of

10 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

Scripture in preaching provide for the congregation more enjoyment, appreciation, and understanding of the Bible than weekly exercises of exposition alone?

We might even go so far as to say that such preaching would be more "biblical." When we recall that many of the texts for our sermons, especially those from the New Testament, also make use of prior texts, then we could well be instructed by looking at the ways Scripture employs Scripture. Such an exploration would not have in mind the appropriation of rabbinic or early Christian exegetical methods nor the elevation of any biblical writer to the level of norm as a preacher. It could, however, open up enriching possibilities now neglected in the concentration upon exegetical and hermeneutical disciplines.

III

For our present purposes, let us look at one biblical writer, Luke, whose work, all will agree, is filled with Scripture abundantly and variously employed. This is not to say by any means that Luke plays light and loose with his texts from the Old Testament (used by Luke in a Greek translation). On the contrary, he repeatedly makes it clear that "Moses and the prophets" are adequate for faith's confirmation (1 6:3 1) and that a primary work of the risen Christ was and is to open the mind to understand the Scriptures (24:27, 32, 46). In both the Gospel and Acts, Luke is careful to point out that the life and passion of Jesus as well as the proclamation of the Gospel to the nations are continuous with and authorized by the Jewish Scriptures (24:25-27, 44-47; Acts 2: 14-36). By this pattern of promise/fulfillment Luke honors the authority of Scripture and is not deserving of the criticism Samuel Johnson once directed at another writer: "he demolished other buildings to embellish his own." In various other ways Luke reflects a recognition of the authority of biblical texts: Jesus quotes Deuteronomy three times in resisting the tempter (4:1-13); Jesus cites the ministries of Elijah and Elisha as precedent for his own work among non-Jews (4:25-27); and in his teaching, Jesus often anchors his message to an Old Testament text (19:46; 20:37; 23:30). In fact, during his infancy and childhood, Jesus was reared by parents who were careful to observe in every way the requirements of the law (2:22-39). All of this is to say that Luke joins other biblical writers and preachers ancient and modern in cementing his message to the Scriptures which authorize that message.

But this by no means exhausts Luke's use of biblical texts. He sometimes quotes Scripture at great length with no apparent intent to prove or authorize a point being made. For example, the songs of Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, and Simeon in Luke 1-2 are mosaics of many texts from many Old Testament chapters. The Magnificat draws heavily from the song of Hannah in I Sam. 2: 1-10, but Luke makes no effort to say, "See, another passage has been fulfilled." In fact, he does not even say, as Matthew so often does, "As it is written." What, then, is Luke doing with Scripture in such cases? Adolf Harnack observed that

11 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

Luke's first two chapters not only make abundant use of texts from the Septuagint but are themselves composed in the same style, giving to the narrative the quality of antiquity. ² By so doing, Luke employs form as well as content to assure the reader that the story you are about to read concerning Jesus and the church is continuous with the story of Israel. In other words, the writer uses Scripture to create a world in which the account is to be heard, thereby weaving the fabric of trust essential for communication. No preacher should be surprised by the favorable response of listeners to abundant citations of Scripture. Those who no longer quote much Scripture (or anything else, now that quoting is associated with memorizing, a pedagogical no-no) should not assume too quickly that those who do are proof-texting or twisting texts to wrong purposes. That may be true, but it may also be true that the preacher understands that in order to introduce effectively a new idea or perspective there must first be confidence on the part of the listeners that speaker and hearer share common ground and common values. Unless orientation precedes disorientation, the message is rejected from the start. Unless the nod of recognition provides the basis for the shock of recognition, the preacher is speaking only to the air, however true the message is. Prophets in the Old Testament and the New, and prophets today, know and make abundant use of the tradition commonly shared with the listeners.

IV

Perhaps the most striking use of Scripture by Luke is that of allusion. This mode assumes writer and reader have common knowledge of that to which allusion is made. Since Luke wrote to Theophilus "concerning the things of which you have been informed" (1:4), a shared body of information was surely present. On strictly practical grounds, alluding is a time saving device by which a writer or speaker need only trigger recollection of the pertinent available knowledge. However, it is quite evident this is not what Luke is doing with allusion. Look at a few examples. The annunciation to Mary (1:26-38) never directly cites Isaiah and yet it is full of reminiscences of Isa. 6:1-9:7. Zechariah at prayer and the visit by the angel Gabriel (1:8-23) clearly recalls Dan. 9:21-23. Anyone familiar with the story of the boy Samuel in the house of worship (I Sam. 2) hears it again when Luke tells of the boy Jesus in the temple (2:41-51). In fact, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (2:52), almost repeats I Sam. 2:26. The teachings of Jesus are replete with many examples: God feeds the ravens (12:24; Job 38:41), or the Gospel will divide members of a household (12:53; Mic. 7:6). Luke does not make direct citations to support or authorize his message, but neither is he using shorthand as though he were saying to the reader, "you recall these texts."

² Luke the Physician, trans. J. R. Wilkinson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), 217.

12 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

In the hands of Luke, allusion is the method of one who has his own story to tell, and story tellers know that direct citations not only interrupt the flow of one's narrative, but they also tend to make the present serve the past. This is to say, introductory formulae such as, "It is written" or "In order to fulfill Scripture" give the impression that the purpose of present events is to complete the past. That is not sufficient for Luke, or for any preacher for that matter. Luke's present and the needs of his readers are important in their own right and, therefore, deserve a new and fresh telling of the story, but one which does not turn from the past. Allusion provides a way to combine the tradition and the new. Luke is faithful to his background texts, but still he accepts the responsibility which falls on every communicator: to weave a narrative designed for one's immediate audience in order to address their needs. For those who are not familiar with the Scripture texts to which Luke alludes, the story he tells still stands with its own integrity. The reader does not have to know I Samuel to understand and enjoy Luke's account of the boy Jesus visiting the temple. However, for those who do know the passages to which allusions are made, Luke's narrative is deepened and enriched as the mind is flooded with recollections of Samuel, David, Elijah, and Jonah.

We cannot always be sure when allusions are intentional and when they are unconscious. A writer or speaker may be so familiar with Shakespeare that phrases and lines from Shakespeare's plays enrich that person's speech, but quite unconsciously. Preachers who spend a lifetime in the Scriptures fill their sermons with more of the Bible than they realize. In other words, allusions are assimilated into one's style. It may be the case, therefore, that Luke has been so affected stylistically by the Septuagint that he often narrates with echoes ³ of Scriptures which lie in the reservoir of memory. In fact, allusions can in the course of time lose their memories but still survive as generally understood expressions. Consider, for example, "he saw the handwriting on the wall," "I wash my hands of the matter," and "the opponent was a lamb led to the slaughter": knowing the original biblical settings is not essential for knowing what these statements mean. And fortunately it is not necessary, in reading Luke, to know how intentional were his allusions when he said, "the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip" (Acts 8:39, recalling I Kg. 18:12 and 11 Kg. 2:16), or when he locates in Joppa Peter's resistance to the Gentile mission (Acts 9-10), recalling a similar story involving Jonah in the same city. Even if the use of the Scriptures by Luke is at times primarily stylistic, there were and are those readers who are doubly enriched by his message because they hear and recall, even if faintly, the echoes and allusions and have the sense of having visited these places and events before. That feeling of familiarity is foundational for being persuaded in new directions and to new perspectives.

³ John Hollander uses the term "echo" to describe modes of allusion which are faint, subtle, and sometimes no more than a hum through a composition. The Figure of Echo (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

13 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

V

A variation, if not a mode, of allusion is the refrain. We are more familiar with the refrain in the hymn than in the sermon. By means of a simple melody and repetition, the refrain unites a group and enables them to take ownership of a message or a conviction. It is difficult to understand why refrains are not more frequent in preaching. The spoken word has to travel light, not overloading or overwhelming the listeners, but refrains which use recurring sounds, phrases, and ideas effect the gradual movement of the burden of the message from the speaker to the hearers. In fact, refrains can generate affirmation, create anticipation, quietly persuade, build emotions, as well as accomplish countless other results. Recall the funeral oration of Mark Antony in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." In the speech Antony refers to Brutus, one of Caesar's assassins, in a refrain "And Brutus is an honorable man." In the course of the oration the crowd grows to hate that refrain, and to hate Brutus, screaming for his death. In quite a different way one experiences a refrain in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous sermon "I Have a Dream" in which the title functioned as the refrain. In the course of that sermon, the occasion changed from one man speaking to a crowd to that of a crowd speaking to the nation and the refrain helped the crowd claim the message as its own.

In a recent essay ⁴ Robert Tannehill used the expression "echo effect" to describe what is here meant by refrain. Tannehill took note of the repeated themes in Acts 3-5 which Luke uses to develop his narrative and his narrative world. This repetition, or echoing, says Tannehill, functions in several ways: it aids memory, provides unity, adds emphases, makes the account more persuasive, and sustains reader interest. This complex echo effect, says the author, is found throughout Luke-Acts. ⁵ This observation is undoubtedly correct. However, our present concern is to notice Luke's use of Scripture texts and ideas as recurring refrains, the benefits of such procedure being essentially those Tannehill lists for what he terms an echo effect.

As early as the Magnificat (1:46-55), Luke creates a mosaic of Scripture texts which focus the favor of God upon the poor, the lowly, the powerless, and the hungry. A theme is struck; an emphasis which will become a refrain is heard for the first time. It will emerge briefly in the call of John the Baptist for the sharing of food and clothing (3:10-14), but will be heard in full again when Jesus reads from Isa. 61:1-2 in the synagogue at Nazareth (4:16-21). Jesus announces through that text his program for the poor and oppressed, and the reader is never allowed to forget it. Luke's version of the beatitudes, a series of four blessings followed by four woes (6:20-26), is the message of the Magnificat in a different form. The message of Jesus to an inquiring

⁴ "The Composition of Acts 3-5: Narrative Development and Echo Effect," Seminar Papers, SBL, 1984 Annual Meeting, Chicago. (Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1984), 217-240.
⁵ Ibid., 229-240.

14 - The Sermon and the Uses of Scripture

John the Baptist: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news preached to them (7:22-23), is the same refrain from I Sam. 2:1-10, countless other Scripture sources, and Isa. 61:1-2. By the time the reader reaches chapter 14, Luke's message is not only embraced but celebrated: the citizens of God's kingdom are the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind (14:12-24). Preachers who are frustrated that their sermons on social issues, while direct, clear, and forceful, are ineffective might do well to emulate Luke's use of the refrain. It does not scream, threaten, or cajole; in fact, it may seem more of a tune than an oracle, but when everyone begins to hum, there is no question about its effectiveness.

VI

For some, such uses of Scripture may seem too light, too lacking in assertion of authority, too much into concerns with style, too occupied with manner of communication. Such a reaction is understandable in view of the church's long suspicion of the artistic and well-crafted. However, two responses are in order: First, since the time of Jerome, Luke has been called the most skilled writer in the New Testament, his creative skills obscuring forever a clear identification of all his sources. And yet Luke has never been accused of being disrespectful toward his biblical texts or nonserious in his proclamation. Secondly, preachers who know the high seriousness of their calling have always Joined Luke and a host of other biblical writers in attending to non-semantic as well as semantic uses of language, in linking sound to sense, in recognizing that how a message sounds to a listener is a theological concern. After all, in a very real sense, the word of God is located not on a page nor on the lips, but at the ear. That we are dealing with materials normative and weighty, with the church's sacred Scripture, should sharpen rather than dull the preacher's concern with style. For it can be said of the sermon, as T. S. Eliot said of poetry: "Not the assertion that something is true, but the making of that truth more fully real to us."