This post is part two of four in the series “Renewing Expository Preaching.” Read part one here.

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

In part one of this series, 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 , 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.

1. Verse-By-Verse Expositional Preaching Is Neither Mandated nor Regularly Modeled in Scripture.

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 (, 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 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 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 it is not only verse-by-verse.

2. The Preaching Modeled in Recorded Sermons in the New Testament or Among the Early Church Fathers Is Not Verse-By-Verse Exposition of Passages.

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

I do think it’s essential to recognize that the examples of preaching we have in the Bible — particularly in the book of Acts — are of evangelistic preaching. It would be most like what is today called topical preaching. And, I think there is a place and a space for this in the lives of our churches.

In fact, allegorical, topical and other methods continued to dominate preaching for centuries until John Chrysostom (347-407) began using a method we would recognize as expository. Chrysostom’s preaching was marked by a new skill set, including, for example, diagramming and breaking down sentences. Such a grammatical approach was new in his time and is not present in most of the world today. This type of preaching requires a literary sense and a knowledge of verbs, nouns and sentence structures.

I admire Chrysostom’s preaching; that isn’t the issue. His model should be held up as a standard. Now, to be clear, it’s the approach I typically use. But I find it difficult to say something is a biblically mandated form when it is not found explicitly in the New Testament or even in the early church.

By the way, if you study the sermons of the Puritans, or leaders of great awakenings like Whitefield, and , and even the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, you will find that they didn’t follow the kind of verse-by-verse expository preaching taught today. Their sermons would be more like textual preaching, which can be done in a biblically faithful way.

Making such claims is unhelpful and ultimately can undermine the development of preaching in much of the world. To be totally rigid and unyielding on an issue not clearly commanded in Scripture can become a legalism bordering on idolatry.

Instead, I think we must find ways to make expository preaching more accessible to people without the education of a John Chrysostom. Thus, I would say that a tribesman among the Pokot in Kenya can be encouraged to open the Bible, read the text, and explain what it says in a way that Western Christians might not find to be traditional verse-by-verse exposition. And when such a tribesman rightly divides the Word of truth, we should recognize it as a good, God-honoring, biblical example of teaching the Scriptures.

Topical preaching can be occasional as it is in my church. Quoting Hershael York again (in an interview in ):

A topical series that is still textual and expository can give a congregation the 40,000 foot view of the Bible, reminding them that it’s really one story of redemption, not 66 unrelated books that say something nice about God. We can only understand the parts of the Bible in light of the whole, so we need to change lenses often enough to help us hone in on meaning because the part informs the whole even as the whole reveals the meaning of the parts.

And, let me add, I think a church that primarily teaches the Bible topically can also be faithfully teaching the word. It’s not my approach, but I’m thankful for churches that faithfully explain the meaning of the text through topically driven sermons as well.

and more writing by Ed Stetzer are available on .