Reformed or dispensationalist this volume casts too long of a shadow that any preacher of the Word can afford to ignore.

“[T]he question we have been attempting to answer in this work,” writes Kaiser, is “…how can the ancient Scriptures continue to be the living voice of God for the present time?” (244). Kaiser calls the church back to expository preaching of the Word that is forged in the foundry of exegetical study, championing a traditional definition of exegesis and hermeneutics as being focused “on the text itself in an effort to determine what that text said and meant in its own original objective” (44). As author of A History of Israel (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998) and Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991) as well as distinguished professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Kaiser does not lack the credentials for tackling this difficult but important subject.

In this classic on exegesis, Kaiser laments the gaping gap between two types of preaching. One type is the sermon that drones on and on, naming every syntactical detail of the text as if the message was for someone in B.C. or first century A.D. The other sermon is the one full of lively application and heart-tugging stories but with little or even no foundation in the text itself (19). Kaiser writes to move the preacher to diligently exegete the text and then make it relevant, never detaching the anchor of the sermon from the passage’s original intention. If any one book that stands in the same league could represent the rival position of an apostolic hermeneutic, then Dennis E. Johnson’s Him We Proclaim (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007) would probably win the vote.

Hermeneutics and the death of solid exegesis

In chapter one, Kaiser rings the foreboding bell of a dying exegetical theology, hermeneutics, and homiletics. He points at the failing of solid exegesis as the heart issue of the church’s problems today (17). He argues against Scripture having more than one meaning, and surveys its development in the modern age (24-36). Later in chapter 12, Kaiser expounds that this single meaning will always reflect the author’s truth-intentions, while the application or “significance” of the text is “is multiple and plural as it involves various relationships between that single meaning and various persons, situations, and events” (246).

In chapter two, he surveys the interpretation of texts as having one or many meanings through history (51-66), making it clear that he rejects those from the patristic age (57-58) lead by key figures such as Origen or Clement of Alexandria who allegorized half to death. But those from the patristic age cannot accurately represent the opposing view all by themselves. Kaiser fails to mention that many from the reformed ranks today would propose that Scripture is not limited to one meaning, yet they would never mean this in the way Origen and Clement of Alexandria meant it. They would contend that an Old Testament passage being fulfilled in Christ gives it more meanings than one. Instead of addressing these positions, Kaiser only uses the worst representatives of the opposing view: the scholars of the patristic age. Kaiser also never mentions the impact of the Enlightenment (during the “post-reformation age,” 63), when everything became so empirically-driven that it sometimes resulted in extreme emphasis on the grammatico-historical method, giving such scrutinous attention to details and genres that the passage lost all connection with its place in the progressive history of redemption.

Logical defense that avoids the apostles' example

The defense Kaiser provides for one meaning to every text is logical: “The best argument for a single-meaning hermeneutic is to be found in observing what happens when it is removed from current conversation or writing” (47). This defense carries credence in so far as logic goes, but it ignores the New Testament authors’ exegesis of the Old Testament, something Kaiser half-heartedly addresses with his sweeping statement that the apostles used the Old Testament “at times…for illustrative purposes and they drew on its word pictures. But such practices were avoided when the New Testament writers were engaged in serious exegesis…” (57). My question is when were the apostles not engaged in serious exegesis?

Kaiser’s commitment to the grammatico-historical hermeneutic is admirable, but he goes too far when he starts disregarding and even largely ignoring the apostles’ use of the Old Testament, a method that the preacher today cannot afford to ignore!

Hefty content wrapped in flavorless packaging

Kaiser is strong on exegesis but weak on the packing of the sermon. The creative element of packaging a message with color, life, and pointed application cannot be created by technical rules. It is not a science. Kaiser defines exegesis as focusing on the text “itself in an effort to determine what that text said and meant in its own original objective” (44). This is an excellent definition and proves that accuracy is his primary concern and expertise, leaving his advice for packaging the message wanting. This reality leaks out when he defines “the sole object of the expositor” as to “…explain as clearly as possible what the writer meant when he wrote the text under examination” (45). This is a great purpose statement for an exegetical Bible commentary, but the definition is not only unsupported by Paul’s definition of preaching in his pastoral epistles (where Paul made it clear that application is a huge part of preaching), but unveils Kaiser’s primary concern to reestablish the primacy of biblical exegesis as the foundation of preaching. Kaiser’s thesis is excellent and its importance huge, but it seems he tries too hard to give the appearance of writing a comprehensive volume on preaching, when what he’s really written is a comprehensive volume on exegesis. Later on in chapter 10, Kaiser states, “Good preaching has a twofold job: it must teach the content of truth as set forth in each passage and it must also suggest a reproducible method of Bible study” (205). Frankly, I think this a half definition of preaching, for with Kaiser’s definition, preaching is no different than a Bible commentary or theological article on a problem text. Yes, the preacher does set an example of how to study the Bible by how he preaches, but if application to the present day audience is not part of preaching, then we have reinvented the historical and biblical model of preaching.

Having defined the grammatico-historical method in chapter three, Kaiser unpacks it in chapter four. Although this hermeneutical approach to studying Scripture should be applauded for its relentless commitment to understanding the syntax of the text and its historical background, Kaiser fails to defend his definition from Scripture, something Dennis E. Johnson did with excellence when proposing the apostolic hermeneutic. Kaiser uses logic and history to defend his position but not the Scriptures themselves, something I believe he could have easily done by observing Christ’s exposition of the rabbinical teachings and tradition in Matthew 5, the author of Hebrews’ exposition of numerous Old Testament passages from the Septuagint, or even Matthew’s interpretation of the Old Testament.

Exegetical overkill

Kaiser sets a high standard for preachers which is admirable, but I believe unreasonable and impossible if a preacher is to fulfill all his roles. Kaiser writes that the preacher should not only have mastered Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but must translate his entire passage from the original language and parse every verb (9, 48), and in chapter four he proposes the block diagram method for studying the text (99-100). Although translating every word, parsing every verb, and drafting an outline of the passage will aid the preacher greatly in getting at the meaning of the text, Kaiser’s expectation of the preacher is both unrealistic and overkill. Concerning a preacher who uses an English translation to study the text and correctly parses the verbal forms in their original language, he writes, “Whenever this type of linguistic study is regarded as the main function of exegesis, the yield is so low that it is unconscionable” (48). I couldn’t disagree more. Kaiser’s statement is unguarded and not once defended. Can a preacher get to the meaning of the text 98% of the time without using the original language? I’m convinced he can. God’s Word is repetitive enough on the non-negotiable doctrines of Christ’s character and work and the nature of God and translations today are accurate and literal enough to enable any preacher who loves the Word to come to sound conclusions that are neither misleading nor wanting in content.

Can a preacher go deeper and interpret challenging texts far better if he knows the original languages? Yes! But a congregation can come to know Jesus and grow in Jesus even under a preacher who doesn’t know a word of Greek or Hebrew. I’m not endorsing that we can all language programs and just study English syntax. A working knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic along with a good Bible language program (such as Bibleworks) can give a preacher excellent insight into a text and a feast of truth. In an ideal world, every preacher could sing and dream in Greek and Hebrew. But I find Kaiser to be legislating more than the Bible ever commands when God said through Paul, “Preach the Word” (2 Tim 4:2). History is lined with scores of solid preachers through whom God radically changed lives who had very little knowledge of the Greek or Hebrew, not to mention Spurgeon and Moody as two examples.

Kaiser's method...

In chapter five, Kaiser presents an outstanding method for studying the individual words of Scripture which he calls “verbal analysis,” and does the same for teaching theology in chapter six, which he calls “theological analysis,” exhorting the reader to never use a theology taught from a chronologically later passage to unpack the meaning of the current passage (140). In his seventh chapter, “Homiletical Analysis,” Kaiser provides clear steps for finding the universal principle in a text that crosses over to modern day application, for finding the subject of the text, the emphasis of the text, the main and sub-points of the text, and then rewording these points so that the principle behind them is brought to bear on the present hearer. This chapter is an excellent help for expositing difficult Old Testament narratives and poetries that the preacher finds hard to preach relevantly to an audience today. But Kaiser’s method stops short of showing how this passage fits into the redemptive theme of Scripture, finding its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.

Kaiser fills chapter eight with outline sketches of syntactical and homiletical analysis in both English and the original language. These outlines explain in picture what Kaiser taught by words in chapter 4. Kaiser saves the next three chapters of his book to address special issues. In chapter 9 he addresses prophecy in expository preaching where he soundly unravels the typical faulty exegesis used by preachers to attack social evils, all the while, ignoring the biggest problem: the heart of man from which all social evils flow. Kaiser concludes that prophetic preaching should “emphasize repentance as the condition for experiencing the favor of God” (195). I love his insight but also believe that a sermon that accurately draws out the principle of a prophetic passage and calls people to repentance but lacks to show that this is impossible apart from Jesus Christ, the ultimate prophet without Whom no human today can truly repent, risks turning a congregation into legalistic moralists and can set people up for tremendous discouragement when repeated efforts from their own strength to change continue to fail.

Narrative abuse...

In chapter 10, Kaiser uses a hilarious illustration about Jack and Jill to illustrate the abuse of narrative, and then takes apart sample texts to show the expositor how to unpack the author’s intention in a narrative text, yet still outline it in such a way that it applies to a present day audience. In chapter 11, Kaiser identifies all kinds of poetry and then shows how the preacher can use strophe to determine his outline just as in prose he would use the paragraph. He concludes that in teaching poetry, the expositor must identify the full scope of the poem, divide the poem up into stanzas or strophes, locate the theme line , show how that theme is developed, and finally restate this theme in a universal principle. I believe this is a great strategy minus one very key step which I would add: Uncover the theme’s place in the story of redemption and show how that ultimately points to Jesus Christ, without Whom no one can obey the main point of this (or for that matter any) sermon.

Odd stuff on Spurgeon and the Spirit

In his final chapter, Kaiser quotes voluminously from both Scripture and Spurgeon to drive home the importance of the Holy Spirit’s role in preaching. He writes,

Thus purity in our use of the source of our message and accuracy in the method of reproducing that message are not enough; the delivery of the message must likewise be attended by the evident presence and powerful working of the Holy Spirit if the Church is ever going to make an impact on an indifferent world (236-237).

Kaiser implies that the Holy Spirit’s role begins when the preacher steps into the pulpit. But it doesn’t. The preacher needs the Spirit’s help every bit as much in studying the text as he does in proclaiming the text. The implication that as long as I have the right tools and mental disciplines I can produce a worthy sermon is faulty. I believe Kaiser gives way too much credit to the technicalities of preparing a message and far little to the Holy Spirit who brings it to life in the study (not just in the pulpit) and unveils its truth to the preacher’s heart (1 John 2:27). I find it odd that he quotes so voluminously from Spurgeon, a man who was far from applying Kaiser’s method of exegesis, not to mention the fact that Spurgeon repeatedly extracted excellent theological points from the wrong texts, a practice Kaiser writes furiously against on page 206.

Take outs and leave outs...

Having read this book twice and applied some of its advice in my sermon preparation, I find Kaiser’s most helpful direction to be twofold:

1. A convicting call back to grammatico-historical exegesis that grounds and outlines the sermon.
2. Practical methods for moving from the exegetical outline to the preaching outline.

On the other hand, I find two Achilles heels in this book:

1. An unreasonable and unrealistic expectation for the preacher to have mastered the original languages, and to parse every verb, and outline every phrase of the original language text for every sermon. This leaves the preacher with zero time to package his sermon, find illustrations and gripping quotes, lead meetings, disciple men, do visitation, counsel, and spend time witnessing to the lost (2 Tim 4:5).
2. A defense of the one-meaning-to-every-text position that is logical but un-backed biblically and that almost completely ignores the apostles’ use of the Old Testament.

Kaiser, Walter C. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981. 268 pp. $16.99.