One of the greatest delusions under which people suffer is that they will know Satan when they see him.  It serves his purposes precisely for them to believe this. 

Expository preaching is undoubtedly one of the last places where anyone would expect to find Satan.  For that reason alone, claims made for it deserve attention. 

First, a clarification is in order.  There is certainly nothing wrong with expository preaching, per se.  It can be a very appropriate and effective homiletic method.  In fact, churches frequently, if not usually, employ the expository approach in their Bible classes.

On the other hand, the push to displace topical studies and preaching by the expository/textual approach needs careful consideration.  Also, to hear it used and advocated in a manner which suggests its superiority as a teaching method raises concerns.  Indeed, to read that a rigid use of expository preaching is the only way a preacher can be faithful to his duty is nothing short of alarming.  It would be improper to impugn the motives of those who press for expository preaching to the (near-)exclusion of topical preaching, but it would be foolhardy not to contemplate the consequences if they are successful in their quest.

Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration of the situation may read for himself.  Under the title, “A Wake-Up Call for the Church,” and the subtitle, “Have we stopped declaring the whole counsel of God?” one brother writes, “I submit to you that the only truly effective way to do this [i.e., preach] is with verse-by-verse, systematic, expository preaching.  Start in chapter 1, verse 1 and preach His word one verse at a time.  By systematic, I mean progressing through the text of scripture as it was given without skipping any of it.  By expositionally, I mean preaching in such a way that the meaning of the Bible passage is presented entirely and exactly as God intended it” (Focus, Dec. 1999, pg. 13).  “I don’t think we jettisoned our commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God on purpose, but we may have let it happen by practice.  … There are three major categories of preaching:  Topical, textual, and expository.  … Around 5% of preachers are expositors.  It is my firm belief that neither the topical nor the textual method represents a serious effort to interpret, understand, explain, or apply God’s truth in the context of the Scriptures used” (Ibid., pg. 14).  “In fact, the word of God is replete with such examples [of expository teaching]….  We must return to the Biblical pattern and example of proclaiming the whole counsel of God exactly and entirely as it was given to us.  Failing to do will lead to a generation of Christians that know very little about God’s word, who do not grow spiritually, and (worst of all) cannot reproduce themselves.  We do not do justice to the word of God when we fail to proclaim it in its entirety” (Ibid., pg. 15).

The editor specifically endorsed this brother’s article.

“… We appreciate _______ _______’ emphasis … on getting back to the Bible in our preaching … and emphasizing the importance of a steady diet of expository preaching.  While … there are occasions [for] … topical preaching …, the way to guarantee that the whole counsel of God is being preached throughout the year is to preach expositorily, giving attention to everything God has said in His word” (Ibid., pg. 2).

What these brethren are saying should be starkly clear in the reader’s mind.  With only occasional exceptions, the only kind of sermon a preacher should allow himself is expository.  This is not a matter of opinion for them.  The writer of the article on the subject does not simply have a personal preference for expository preaching; he flatly denies validity to any other kind, and the editor approaches this position.  Repeated reference is made to “the whole counsel of God” amid calls for expository preaching.  Unless one preaches expository sermons, virtually without exception, he is simply not preaching the whole counsel of God and is, therefore, derelict in his duty as a preacher of the gospel and fails to adhere to the Biblical pattern in the proclamation of God’s word.  Terrible foreboding is observed for God’s people unless there is a return to this kind of preaching.

The writer of the article on the subject is especially extreme.  The preacher is not allowed to expound from any text he chooses, even if it is locally relevant.  Instead, if he ever had the need or desire to preach on First Corinthians chapter fifteen, for instance, he could not go directly to that passage and begin preaching on it.  No, he must first traverse the preceding fourteen chapters of this book “verse-by-verse.”  He must “start in chapter 1, verse 1 [of First Corinthians] and preach His word [in First Corinthians] one verse at a time … progressing through the text of scripture as it was given.”  May he take shortcuts?  No, he must follow this process straight through the text of First Corinthians all the way to chapter fifteen “without skipping any of it.”

Since a preacher could hardly do the justice to a book this kind of approach demands, a decision to preach on any part of any book would really be a decision to preach a lengthy series of lessons on that whole book from end-to-end.  After all, if all preceding text must be studied for whatever contextual relevance it might hold for the interpretation of a particular passage, why could the same not be said for all succeeding text?

One also wonders about the propriety of injecting references to related texts elsewhere.  After all, why would it be proper to introduce them without a study of their contexts if concern for the necessity of a verse-by-verse study is what drives this radical approach in the first place?

Hence, this method essentially argues for making Bible “textual studies” out of every sermon, the only difference between the typical Bible class and a sermon being that the latter may not allow feedback from the audience.  What this author’s words practically demand from preachers is an endless expository loop which begins at the first verse of Genesis and winds all the way through the text of the Bible to the last verse of Revelation and then wraps around to begin the process all over again.  Anyone who thinks this is a misrepresentation needs to re-read the quotations ¾ and more slowly.

Not only was this article given the credibility of publication, but the editor also saw fit to single it out for special commendation.  Moreover, while it may be safe to say that no preacher or church would tolerate such a rigid and radical approach as it was presented, perhaps others have lately noticed an increased incidence of expository sermons or pressure for more of them?  Too, has anyone noted the recent offer made via email of a book proposing to teach preachers how to preach expository lessons?

Expository sermons have been around a long time.  It is just that they have probably been more likely the resort of denominational preachers, whereas topical sermons have heretofore predominated among preachers of the gospel.  This distinction, if it is valid, is no coincidence. 

Scripturalness 

There are a couple of imposing problems with the school of thought which says that expository sermons are the only valid method of preaching God’s word.  (1) It is unscriptural.  Nowhere does the Lord command or commend this method of Bible instruction for His people as the only legitimate kind.  Nowhere does the Bible say that, before a preacher can preach on a text within a book, he must first go back to its beginning and expound on every verse in order until he comes to the one he especially wants to consider.  New Testament authors cite the Old Testament many times but never show a need to go to the first verse and cover every one until they get to the particularly relevant one.  Instead, they just “pluck and apply” with little, if any notice, of the context.  Indeed, out of the many sermons in the Bible, not a single one of them is expository!  The characters and writers of the New Testament preached and taught topically and drew freely from a wide variety of texts to support their points.

To be specific, when Jesus spoke in the Capernaum synagogue (Lk. 4:16ff), he quoted Isaiah (61:1ff) but also cited the widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs. 17) and Naaman (2 Kgs. 5).  In His sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7), He quoted from Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Psalms.  It is particularly noteworthy that, when Satan tempted Him (Matt. 4:5-7) with a promise in the Psalms (91:11,12), He did not go into an exposition of that promise in its context, as He might have done, but simply met its misapplication by an appeal to Deuteronomy (6:16). He took a topical approach with the two men on the road to Emmaus by going to Scriptures about Himself in Moses and the prophets (Lk. 24:27).  When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), he quoted from Joel (ch. 2), then David (Psa. 16), alluded to God’s promise to David (2 Sam. 7), and again quoted from another Psalm (110:1).  When Philip found the Ethiopian eunuch reading from Isaiah (53:7,8), instead of going back to the first verse of Isaiah, “beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:32-35).  When Paul wanted to show the sinfulness of both Jews and Gentiles, he quoted from four different Psalms (14:1-3; 5:9; 10:7; 36:1), even injecting a quotation from Isaiah (59:7) among them, and strung the quotations together without interruption, as if they were one continuous passage (Rom. 3:10-18).  Even a casual perusal of New Testament writers will reveal that they drew from a broad diversity of Old Testament texts as suited their needs.

Thus, topical teaching is the Biblical pattern!  What brought these far-flung passages together in the mouths and writings of New Testament figures, and properly so, was identity of theme and relevance to topic.  The writers and preachers of the New Testament allowed the occasion to dictate the topic, and the topic to dictate the Scriptures they used.  They showed no compulsion to go to the beginning of the book and proceed from there in their teaching.  They started where they found their listeners or readers.  They drew from whatever texts met their needs, regardless of their location.  Therefore, any claim that the Bible supports the idea that expository preaching is the only, or even best, method of Bible instruction is simply bogus! 

Context 

Expository preaching may be justified as critical for the respect it gives to the context of a passage.  Yet, the importance of the context to preaching and teaching has probably been exaggerated.  (How often have liars, false teachers, and slanderers been caught “flagrante dilecto” and found refuge in the claim that their words were “taken out of context”!)  “Context” is not a word that occurs in English Bibles (NASB, et. al.).  Moreover, New Testament writers exhibited no particular need to look at the contexts of the passages they quoted.  If they were able to use a text faithfully in the service of truth, they used it without reference to its context.

Of course, this is not to say that context is not sometimes, even oftentimes, critical, but only that it is not always determinative in the interpretation of a text.  That texts cannot usually be understood in isolation from their original contexts is virtually the implication of expository preaching advocates.  If not, then why all the hue and cry for expository preaching ¾ since it is largely the examination texts in their contexts?

Interpretation of words and sentences in the light of their contexts is practically automatic and intuitive.  At the most basic level, the words in a sentence, for instance, would do little to communicate the meaning of a writer or speaker except as the readers or hearers relate them to one another.  Thus, there is typically no need to call their attention to context.

Otherwise, the preacher or teacher does this in the course of preparing his presentation.  A conscientious preacher of the gospel will make himself aware of the contexts of any texts he cites for any effect they might have on his interpretation of these texts and might see fit to bring this to the attention of his audience.  If not, he has not done his job correctly and effectively.  In any event, the remedy for the problem of ignoring relevant contexts is not to belabor the teaching process with gratuitous coverage of the context of each verse.

Bible verses are typically self-contained in the sense that their basic meaning is determinable apart from preceding and succeeding verses.  Any reference to these other verses should almost always confirm or, at most, clarify and reinforce, the initial interpretation rather than correct it.  In-depth study of a text probably will not change an interpretation gained from quick, superficial reading.  To assert otherwise is to claim that the Bible is a book so difficult and obscure that it can only be understood with in-depth study of each part.

In this connection, it is instructive that, when confronting an issue or question, Jesus sometimes used the expression, “Have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:42; 22:31; Lk. 10:26), or its equivalent.  Oftentimes, that is, a mere reading of a text will reveal its basic meaning without reading or studying up to it or after it.

A final and extremely important point about context is that the most important context for any part of the Bible is the whole Bible!  This principle is honored in such statements as, “The Bible is the best commentary on itself.”  Bible students pay tribute to this principle when they strive to “harmonize the Scriptures with themselves” (cf. Jn. 10:35) or “take into account every relevant passage on a subject.”  Indeed, it is much more often the case that misinterpretation of Scripture, or false teaching, depends on ignoring, not the immediate context, but the remote context of the whole Bible.  There are few, if any, false doctrinal systems which hinge merely on ignorance or neglect of a context.  It is typically the case that referring to the immediate context will do nothing to expose the misuse of “proof-texts” to defend false doctrine, but the liberty of ranging far afield to take into account other relevant texts will certainly do so.

In fact, no one in Scripture was condemned for ignoring context.  Rather, if anything, people would be criticized for not having the broad knowledge which allowed them to pull texts from a wide range and collate and integrate them into a whole to arrive at the teaching of Scripture (cf. Matt. 4:5-7; 22:23-33).  More important than knowing the context of a verse, it is knowing what the Bible says in every pertinent part that constitutes knowing what its teaching is on any subject.  In practical terms, this means taking a topical approach to Bible study.

Some may respond to this by arguing the permissibility of referring to relevant texts in an expository sermon.  Yet, if there is extensive reference to other relevant texts, what was supposed to be an expository study essentially morphs into a topical study, with the point of contention or misunderstanding in a verse serving as the topic and dictating which passages are drawn into the study.  In other words, others passages are brought into the study, not because they are textually proximate to the particular one under consideration, but because they are thematically relevant to a topic its study has raised.  Yet, the esteem which some have for expository preaching or teaching will necessarily put a restraint on preachers consulting other texts very much; otherwise, they defeat their purpose in pursuing what is supposed to be an expository study.

Herein consists the advantage of topical preaching over expository preaching.  It allows the preacher to do what a preacher should do.  His task is to bring together those passages that are relevant to an idea and integrate them with one another in such a way that they yield a harmonious whole and give the student a complete conception of what the entire Bible says about it.  Any failure to do this results in a misunderstanding of “the whole counsel of God.”  As was often observed in former days, the one who wants to know what the Bible teaches on a subject must take into account every relevant passage.

Application 

Application is the point at which many fail.  It is often possible to have some conception of the broad principles of the Bible without acquiring the ability to make practical application of them to particular situations.  Yet, if this latter need is addressed by the preacher making practical applications to real-life issues or situations, again, then what was supposed to be an expository study might be transformed into a topical one.  For this reason, any applications that are made during the course of expository preaching must be limited.

The advocate of expository preaching must necessarily, if he is faithful to his philosophy, feel practically restricted.  His self-assigned mission is to interpret the verse at hand in the light of its immediate context and then move on to the next verse and treat it in similar fashion.  He cannot wander afield too long or too far, if at all.

Anyone who has ever taught the Biblical text or secular textbooks (in school) understands quite well the pressure teachers are under to “cover the material” or text.  This would certainly apply to expository preachers or teachers who feel the need to “start with chapter 1, verse 1” and cover the whole Bible one verse at a time.  If the expositor is to complete his task expeditiously or in any reasonable time frame, he will feel the pressure to curtail any excursions into applications of the text or inclusions of other Scriptures.  This, then, encourages a shallow study of the Bible, a superficial knowledge of it, and inadequacy in applying it.  Thus, the irony is that the very (expository) approach which was favored because it supposedly promotes a knowledge of the whole counsel of God, instead, does the very opposite. 

Impracticality 

The foregoing anticipates the other problem with the expository-preaching-only approach.  (2) It is impractical.  Expository teaching is not the kind of Bible study that meets the needs of the immature Bible student.  What such a student needs from Bible study is an immediate infusion of broad knowledge, or at least a rapid acquisition of some knowledge of some subjects, rather than an in-depth knowledge of an opening text of a book or some other text.

For instance, a person who needs to know what to do to be saved needs to be taken quickly to those texts that answer his question.  Such texts are scattered broadly through the New Testament.  As has often been said, “A person cannot find all he needs to do to be saved in just one verse.”  It would be irrelevant to his immediate needs to start at the beginning of Acts or Romans (books in which the “five steps of salvation” can be found) and go into an in-depth study of the book.  To meet the needs of an inquirer, the teacher needs to go directly to the texts which answer his questions.  Those texts do not typically lie at the beginning of a book.

When the rich ruler asked what he had to do to inherit eternal life (Matt. 19:16-22), Jesus took him directly to the Ten Commandments in the middle of Exodus (ch. 20).  When Paul taught the Philippian jailer what he needed to do to be saved, it was something he could cover in an hour (Acts 16:29-33).  Expository teaching as it has been set forth in the comments under review would not allow for this.

This expository preaching approach is not true-to-life.  Life does not come at a person “in canonical order.”  For instance, one cannot guarantee that a question about evolution will confront him while he is studying Genesis one, or premillennialism while studying Revelation twenty, or marital problems while studying Ephesians five.  From a human perspective, issues, questions, needs, and problems occur randomly.  For life as it is, a person needs to be able to range freely to and fro across the Bible, from end to end, if need be, in pursuit of any relevant texts which might hold the answers to his immediate situation.  The student almost never finds all the information he needs compactly presented in one text.  Acquiring competent Bible knowledge typically requires a person to collate and integrate texts from a wide variety of books.

All of this draws attention to dangers involved in the pressure to make expository preaching predominant, if not exclusive, in the pulpit.  Though it may not be the conscious intention of its advocates, it is certainly the result that “a steady diet of expository preaching” will hobble the efforts of gospel preachers to treat subjects and situations, especially in a timely and thorough manner.

The idea that exigencies could be met by reverting to the occasional topical sermon only concedes the inadequacy of expository preaching.  Furthermore, it demonstrates an inadequate appreciation of the seriousness and frequency of the problems Christians face to think that only the occasional topical sermon need interrupt “a steady diet of expository preaching” to focus the laser beam of God’s word directly on them.  Preachers need the flexibility which only topical preaching allows.  Marital problems in a church can hardly wait until the preacher works his way to Matthew nineteen or First Corinthians seven or Ephesians five if he is only in chapter one.  To apply Bible teaching in a timely way, the preacher must appeal broadly to appropriate texts, as situations require.

A corollary problem with the expository-preaching-only approach is that it prevents, or hampers, the treatment of controversial topics.  This may not be the conscious aim of its advocates, but it is the result and serves the purpose of those who wish for a more mellow religion.  At the very least, strict adherence to a regimen of expository sermons slows treatment of problems, questions, or issues as they arise, because the preacher has entered into a commitment not to deviate from the text where he finds himself in his endless chain of expository sermons.  If he is unwilling to interrupt his expository series on a book, he will have to ignore a problem from the pulpit.

If the rejoinder is that such problems can be addressed (topically) in private sessions with those directly involved, then why could the principles involved not likewise be addressed from the pulpit?  Why should a teaching method whose utility or necessity in private study is readily recognized be deemed ineffectual or inappropriate if it were brought into the pulpit?

No doubt, some find controversy so distasteful that it would please them that a preacher could not address it and would be constrained to avoid it to “stick with the text of the assigned lesson.”  Precisely herein lies the insidiousness of a philosophy which ostensibly promotes itself as the superior, if not sole, method of bringing people to a knowledge of the Scriptures, while actually fostering ignorance of them and an inability to apply them to contemporary issues and problems.

Anyone who doubts the accuracy of the scenario just described has but to consider just how an expository preacher would undertake a comprehensive study of divorce and remarriage, for instance.  First, he might have to wait weeks, months, or even longer before the rigid process of covering the Scriptures verse-by-verse brings him to a relevant text.  Then, he must ask himself how far, if at all, a purist approach will allow him to go in pulling in other relevant texts, making applications, or even addressing the subject in more than one sermon.  A thorough examination of some subjects would require a series of lessons, let alone the occasional sermon, and would incorporate scores of different texts.  As another example, how would a preacher undertake a study of Biblical authority, and particularly how it is established, if he must essentially confine himself to one text?

Adequate treatment of just about any controversy which has significantly troubled brethren ¾ and there may be dozens which have reached the level of division ¾ could never be undertaken with expository preaching.  Therefore, this approach to preaching would well serve the purposes and interests of anyone dissatisfied with such controversy and entertaining a desire to minimize, if not eliminate, it.

Indeed, this author cannot now recall hearing a single expository sermon that could not have been comfortably received in any denominational congregation.  This should not be surprising, since many, if not most, of the specific issues which have confronted people are not reflected in the New Testament as having risen before the end of the first century A.D.  Where in the Bible, for instance, is there a dissertation on abortion, environmentalism, carnal warfare, infant baptism, institutionalism, instrumental music in worship, or a host of hot issues that could be named almost ad infinitum?  It is only as the student gathers and pieces together relatively isolated Bible passages, and inferentially applies their principles, that he learns and implements the will of God from the Scriptures for him in similar contemporary situations.  This is the very process involved in topical preaching!  It is a skill absolutely indispensable to the use of the Bible as God intended it to be used.

Of course, this by no means makes expository preaching wrong.  Yet, it does say something about the effectiveness of topical preaching as a weapon in combating doctrinal error and Satan’s desire to eliminate it if he is to soften and prepare God’s people for another apostasy.

With this in mind, it is interesting that the writer of the article in review introduced his case for expository preaching by decrying what he believes is narrowness in the pulpits of churches of Christ.

“There is another movement currently taking place that says there are only certain subjects that should be preached on exclusively:  Baptism, Denominationalism, the Church, and Authority.  With only minor variations, the congregation hears essentially one of four sermons twice every single week (morning and evening).  This is what I call the ‘only four things really matter’ school of preaching” (Ibid., pg. 12).

This must surely be an exaggeration, but even if it were not, the way to correct one extreme is not by going to the opposite extreme.

This concept about expository preaching makes it an excellent rationale and instrument for the implementation of the positivist philosophy of preaching and teaching, which urges that anything negative (i.e., controversial) simply be ignored.  Expository preaching allows its proponents to avoid controversy without making it too apparent that this is what they are doing with it.  Indeed, it presents the appearance, and makes the claim, of being “… the Biblical pattern and example of proclaiming the whole counsel of God ….”  Combining the strategy of “positivism” and the tactic of “expositivism” in the pulpit promises to produce an indistinct preaching which ought to leave any lover of truth deeply unsettled.

The supreme irony is that this proponent belies his contention by making his case for expository preaching with a very topical article which cited about thirty different Biblical texts and which was carried and praised in a magazine which carried virtually nothing but topical studies.  Why did he not go to chapter one, verse one, of a Biblical book and write a commentary to make his point?

The author of an entry for “Churches of Christ” in an old Britannica Book of the Year wrote glowingly about their growth, work, and institutions.  Amid reportage of relatively remarkable happenings is one comment perhaps noteworthy for nothing more than its incongruity in such a setting:

“Increasing emphasis was placed on expository preaching of the Bible and study of the Bible in classes.”

The year was 1962; the author:  M. Norvel Young, President of Pepperdine College. 

“In order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan, … we are not ignorant of his schemes” (2 Cor. 2:11). 

5242 Deborah Drive

Piscataway, New Jersey  08854

(732) 463-5807

gpeubanks@juno.com