By “no-one can,” I don’t suppose you mean that preaching through every book is impossible in the same vein as jumping to the moon or trying to tease meaning from a genuine logical absurdity. If they were parallel, I would have to say that, yes, it would follow that it is silly to try.

In all seriousness, I don’t imagine you see it that way. My point, of course, wasn’t that it was impossible to preach through the whole Bible. Though extremely rare, it has been done once or twice before. It is simply impossible to preach through the Bible wherever we wish to dig deeper into a text than would be prudent given the constraints of a single lifetime. We have to make a trade-off then, you see? Less depth for more coverage. The design of expository preaching always requires such a trade-off and it leads to a somewhat superficial study because the method was fashioned to restrict the creative impulses of the preacher out of a fear that these would lead to an equally creative exegesis. Yet, I think many of the best preachers have favored greater depth while covering as much as possible in a textual or topical fashion. That might be a good compromise, but it is no longer “expository” preaching. In my opinion, strict expository preaching obstructs and opposes a deeper exploration of the Word and this is usually what we find in practice.

Then why not explore the Bible verse-by-verse in a textual way? That is again possible and, I believe, much more useful as the local context is not quite so determinative. Nevertheless that is not the only concern. The question of whether our next sermon should follow the course of the following “eight verses or so,” can only be decided in light of what we are trying to do with our preaching. What then is the purpose of preaching? Is it simply to “teach the Bible” somewhat indiscriminately? Is it to offer intelligent commentary on everything the Bible contains? If the purpose of preaching were to grant to others knowledge of everything contained in the Bible, without organizing it all according to the weight of various topics, then the arrangement already given in Scripture would probably make the most sense. But that isn’t the purpose of preaching.

If it were, then I do not understand why Paul believed that some of this knowledge should be held back from those who were not spiritually prepared to receive it until a more opportune time. The Bible isn’t arranged that way. Why did he feel that simpler teachings and more elementary subjects ought to be taught first as a foundation for more “solid food” and “meat” that would be served later? Again, that is not how the Bible is arranged. Introductory doctrines aren’t often placed at the front of its books. Nor are the books themselves ordered from easiest to most difficult. It would seem that we must either reject Paul’s topical categories regarding elementary and advanced teachings or we must reject a pedagogy that follows the order of the books themselves. It seems Paul must have and he was not alone.

When we look beyond Paul, we find that none of the great Scriptural teachers thought it best to make use of the sacred writings in a verse-by-verse fashion. Instead, as we follow their line of argument and their use of quotations, we gather from all sorts of Biblical contexts without the slightest interest in the order or arrangement of its books. The profound course of the reasoning of Hebrews is a perfect example. How often its author lifts Old Testament passages from their original place to serve the purpose of building a case regarding the supremacy of Christ and His covenant over anything that preceded Him.

Expository principles are not taught anywhere in the Word. They are not practiced by any of its preachers or teachers. They are even contrary to the way that sound Biblical teaching is outlined and exemplified. Even the presupposition of the attainment of true insight conflicts with this method, just as the most profound insights in Scripture are neither exegetically handled nor reasonably established in an expository manner. This is what I intended by my reference to Paul and the law regarding muzzled oxen. It isn’t that Paul obviously wasn’t progressing through Deuteronomy in his letter to the Corinthians. It is rather: 1) that his interpretation rejected the immediate context as primary to its meaning and; 2) it would have been impossible to argue Paul’s point from Deuteronomy without bringing in quite a bit of material from the outside. All spiritual interpretation works this way. It is simply too subtle for expository methods, yet much of the insight of the New Testament is founded upon this kind of interpretation. All prophecy relies upon it.

You believe, for instance, that the connection between Christ and Old Testament passages might require little more than a few pages from Genesis or a few pages from one of the prophetic books. I have to wonder, in that case, why the Ethiopian eunuch could not derive more from his copy of Isaiah (Acts 8:27-36). I would be very interested, in fact, if you could explain to me the steps of reasoning one would take to derive an answer to the Ethiopian’s question simply from the immediate context of the passage in Isaiah quoted in that narrative of Acts 8.

There’s a sense, of course, in which I would say that the Gospel could be derived from a single grass clipping. I’ve spoken with you about this before. Whether we will do this, however, boils down to a question of belief. I contend, as you already know, that anything in the Bible leads logically to Christ but the question isn’t whether logic can take us there but whether the human heart is ready to obey. It needs to be confronted, instructed, handled, etc., in a very purposeful way. This is why, when Paul said that the Corinthians were not ready for “solid food,” it was for the reason that they were “still of the flesh,” with “jealousy and strife” among them. A moral problem impeded them more than anything else, and a very specific one, which demanded a specific remedy. That remedy will be slow in coming to a darkened people while a pastor indiscriminately feeds them “the next eight verses or so,” regardless of their content.

That is why I mentioned churches where the people are directing their lives by “divination” of a sort, declaring that GOD “told” them or “revealed” to them something or other, while their pastor robotically preaches on through the question of Purim in Esther because that just happens to be the topic of the next several verses. There is a kind of criminal negligence in this…

The Bible was not written to serve as an organized lesson plan for teachers. Nor could it be. Different assemblies of people have different concerns and questions, different spiritual strengths and weaknesses. That’s why every pastor must be skilled in “rightly dividing the Word” according to the needs of the people in his care.

Thank you for your questions, precious brother. I greatly enjoy our dialogue and, if you’re game, I would sincerely be interested in your response to my challenge about the Ethiopian eunuch. Until then…

Thank you for the reply, which was highly clarificatory. I suppose my only further question is what you have against preaching through an entire book? Suppose it is true that no-one can preach through (or sit through) every book in a lifetime; does it follw that one ought not to try?

It seems to me that the main difference between your good textual sermon and a (let us say) textually-handled expository sermon is the selection of the following week’s passage. Is there a particular reason, in your mind, why it oughtn’t to be the next eight verses or so?

I confess there does seem to be a certain value in following the argument of a single book. It seems useful in terms of contextualising the authors’ larger goals and terminology, as well as exercising some control over selection of topics. True, our imaginary preacher can choose any book he wants, but most of them have at least a few bits that would be easier to let slide. And this is what I take Mohler to have been referring to. We are to preach the whole counsel of God, and that goal appears to be furthered by dealing with sections in their entirety.

Not, of course, that this is the only way to fly – you do well to note that we have no record of Paul’s sermon series on 1 Chronicles. (We haven’t any other records of consecutive sermons either, from which I conclude that the Biblical data admits both interpretations.)

You also are right, I think, to say that dealing with a whole book, especially one of the longer books, in four-word increments tends to eliminate the benefits. But if we admit the possibility of a sermon in which not everything that may be said is said (which if we are honest includes every sermon ever preached, Jesus’ not excluded), then it’s not hard to imagine covering a book in sufficient detail, yet with sufficient perspective, as to evade both extremes.

But tell me what you think of that, whether it misses the mark in your view, or not.

On another point, how much of the Old Testament need one know, in your opinion, in order to extrapolate to Christ? That is to say, how far outside the immediate context of a typical OT passage is the gospel? It seems to me (at least provisionally) that a very brief knowledge of Israel’s history, or perhaps just the first few chapters of Genesis, or a couple pages from most prophets, would suffice to lead one to the gospel with basically no outside information, and not simply because we know the NT glosses. I am not making this as a dogmatic claim, but I wonder how it strikes you. Certainly, Abraham figured it out right quick; and Jesus expected no less of Nicodemus. Something to think about.

Let me first assure you that, if I had said that the Old Testament authors were not speaking about Jesus, then I would need to be corrected as swiftly and clearly as possible. Thank you for your willingness to put this on the table. Wednesday, I preached on Luke 24, concentrating upon the Emmaus encounter between Christ and two disciples wherein He discovers Himself to them “beginning with Moses and all the prophets.”

I think you must be referring to my comment:

Mohler also used this as evidence of the need for the Gospel, particularly the cross, to factor into most (if not all) expository sermons. But how can this be done without reading quite a bit into the primary context from the outside, especially when preaching from the Old Testament? In fact, wouldn’t this, in some sense, make all our preaching topically driven?

By “reading quite a bit into the primary context,” I did not mean to convey that anything would have to be read illegitimately into it, simply that a lot of content would have to be drawn in by inference from other passages, all assuming a certain unification of prophecy because of the dual nature of Biblical authorship.

A number of Messianic texts in the Old Testament make no clear reference to Christ or they involve symbolic connections that demand a lot of knowledge from outside their immediate context. Given this, a strict expository style would neither properly uncover the deeper layers of meaning nor allow the preacher to find the fulfillment of the passage correctly in Christ.

But, as you pointed out, this doesn’t come across if the idea of “expository” preaching versus “topical” or “textual” preaching is unclear. I wondered whether I should have spent more time on this distinction. But I will try to remedy that here. I’ll begin with what I believe is probably most clear to you.

In “topical” preaching, a preacher chooses a subject to explore which has been suggested by his previous studies in Scripture and the needs of the church, and gathers passages which he believes are most helpful in illuminating the nature and application of the subject for the congregation. Because these verses are interacting with each other, there is always the danger that their original context will become diminished to the point of distortion, but that is itself a point of controversy.

“Expository” preaching focuses all its attention upon a passage (which can be of varying lengths) and draws every point and subpoint from the flow of the text itself. It almost exclusively progresses in a series through a book, all the while emphasizing what each text emphasizes and isolates discussion to whatever is immediately before the congregation. Other contexts, while they are not completely disallowed, are in the main kept from adding much to the meaning. There is a heavy reliance upon the concerns and the structure of a localized context.

“Textual” preaching offers something of a compromise between topical and expository preaching. It is the form of preaching that I generally prefer. The textual preacher is at liberty, as with topical preaching, to choose his points and subpoints according to the scheme he feels is best. Nevertheless, he sticks closer to the concerns of a verse or passage, which can be of varying lengths but tends to be manageably small because there is usually no intention to preach through a book. The difference between “textual” and “expository” preaching is that the former does not take its structural cues and emphases primarily from the immediate context. There is also more willingness to take advantage of supplemental passages from outside the main text. The contrast with “topical” preaching is that “textual” sermons do not allow subjects to drive the choice of a text. Rather, it is the other way around. There is a main text which the preacher focuses upon more than a topical preacher would.

This is why I believe, most often, “expository” preaching is simply confused for textual preaching (or sometimes even topical preaching) through a book. The immediate context, of course, most often carries with it an immense importance for determining a certain surface level of meaning. However, Paul even seems to dismiss much of this in his handling of certain Old Testament passages at times. The use he makes of the Old Testament proscription on muzzling an ox while its treading out the grain is an example of this. Paul even denies that GOD’s inspiration of this verse had virtually anything to do with a concern over the welfare of oxen. I do not take this to mean that immediate context is of little importance in determining meaning, but it does suggest that expository preaching exaggerates to the point of distortion that importance.

I hope that helps. Please, feel welcome to post more of your thoughts on this…

It seems perhaps that you object, not to expository preaching as such, but to a too-rigid distinction between a crawling series of verse-by-verse sermons and a more organic approach to the text. I would not dream of arguing with this. The Bible is itself a book by a perfect author, and every passage agrees with every other passage. At the same time, I am not sure what you mean by your distinction between “textual” sermons and “expository”. Do you mean a textual sermon to be one in which proper attention is paid to the local context? It might seem that they are the same thing, and as you appear to approve one and not the other, I should like to know the difference.

Also, while I agree that it is difficult for us to gather a text’s sensus plenior without reference to other texts, do you deny the primacy of local context? Jesus answered Satan from a different book, it is true, but in so correcting him really, or at least equally, contested a decontextualised reading of Psalm 91. If we cannot read the text in strict isolation, it does not follow that we cannot read any before we read all.

In other words, before we compare a phrase with six other books, it seems to me that we should try to ascertain its meaning in the context of its own paragraph. In one sense they are inseparable: our hermeneutic should violate neither, and find charity as its basis. Do you disagree with this, or are you simply reacting to its overemphasis?

Also, I would offer – with trembling hand and quivering voice – a brief correction: it is not clear to me that Old Testament authors were not talking about Jesus. Why do you assume that to be the case? After all, Jesus declares that Moses and all the Prophets spoke concerning himself; need we suppose that they did so in a sort of schizophrenic daze, ignorant of what they were actually saying? That seems an odd speculation, and I wonder where you find it.

I found a link to your blog on my site. Very nice. I was warmed to read the brief and humble description of you and the family with whom God has blessed you. I pray that he will fulfill the desire of your heart to know him more deeply and serve him more fervently. May you and your wife grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus and do great exploits for the kingdom!

Sincerely yours,
Bob Gonzales