Renewing Expository Preaching, Part 2: Preaching Biblically Is Ultimate

Expository preaching is the best, but not the only biblically mandated preaching approach.

Previously, I explained why verse-by-verse expositional preaching is, in my view, best as the norm and the standard practice in your church. In this article, I want to give the other side—why it is not biblically mandated, though I think it is the best practice.

In my lifetime I’ve seen a number of well-intentioned leaders promote their specific plan of one thing or another as the method or tool for our time. I’ve seen this mindset applied to evangelism, discipleship, church planting, and more. What I would say to someone who has come up with the plan of personal evangelism, for instance, is this: Personal evangelism is a biblical method we must continue to affirm and apply, but a specific method—even a very good and timely one—should not be confused with the biblical idea of personal witnessing. 

The same is true for preaching. Some, with pure motive and out of a deep love for God’s Word, promote expositional preaching and denigrate any other form. Preaching is biblical and vital, and while I argue expository preaching is to be most common, other approaches have their place. I would say expository preaching is primary but preaching that is ultimately biblical can come in other forms as well. 

I believe verse-by-verse exposition is the best form of preaching but not a biblically required form of preaching for the following reasons.

First, I don’t see verse-by-verse expositional preaching as biblically required because I don’t find the way we generally do it today to be found in Scripture.

Those who argue in favor of expository, verse-by-verse preaching have certain proof-texts they point to (Nehemiah 8:8, for instance). Unfortunately, they often miss the great irony in using proof texts to make the case for expositional preaching as a strong preventative against using proof texts.

Even these texts don’t prove what many believe they do. One of these is Luke 24 and the Emmaus road. As Jesus spoke to the disciples he didn’t go through a verse-by-verse exposition of an Old Testament passage. In the Nehemiah 8 passage, when Ezra opened up the books of the law and explained them to the people of Israel, there’s very little likelihood that he would have done so in a way that resembles verse-by-verse expositional preaching today. Why? Primarily because they did not have the tools to do verse-by-verse exposition in the way that we do it today.

The Ezra passage is the closest and the best example, and the point is clear: They read the words of the text then explained it. More than one form of preaching can do that.

My friend Hershael York defines expository preaching as “any preaching that a) teaches the authorial intent of the passage and b) makes appropriate application.” He adds, “I think if you go beyond that in the definition of expository preaching, you define away a lot of faithful and biblical preaching.”

He’s right, and understanding preaching as explaining the authorial intent of the passage is essential. York continues, “While it’s true that a verse-by-verse methodology is not mandated in Scripture, it is mandated that we teach the sense of Scripture.” Here is the key: Preaching needs to teach and explain the Bible, and that can be (and, I think, mostly should be) verse-by-verse exposition, but is not only verse-by-verse.

We see Peter quoting a number of Old Testament passages in his Acts 2 sermon. Stephen did similarly. When Paul stood at Mars Hill he quoted no Scripture directly in what Luke records.