Among the many qualities a sermon should possess, its primary feature is that it be biblical.

We have been suggesting that the phrase 'biblical preaching' can best be understood to mean preaching that arises from and opens a portion of the Bible itself. That Bible passage is called the preaching text.

A Bible passage qualifies as a preaching text only if it is a thought unit, if it communicates a unified message. A sermon based on assorted verses throughout Scripture, strung together because they happen to share words or phrases about 'suffering' or 'mothers,' for example, generally lifts these verses out of their God-given, inspired, canonical contexts. A sermon based upon a mere phrase or sentence (like 'sorrow unto repentance' or 'God so loved the world') tends to import elements and ideas into the sermon that are not in the sermon text (even though such elements might well be edifying and biblical).

Benefits and expectations of this approach⤒🔗

Several clear benefits proceed from preaching that conveys the message of a textual unit or pas­sage.

1. Preaching a sermonic textual unit honors the way the Bible was written←↰⤒🔗

Communicating the single coherent message of a Bible passage honors the way the Bible was written. When writing his narrative of Lazarus's resurrection, the Gospel writer did not write, 'Jesus wept' (John 11:35), then lay down his pen, go for a stroll, return and sit down to write next, 'So the Jews were saying, "See how He loved him!"' (John 11:36). My point is that especially in the historical and prophetic sections of the Bible, but also in the New Testament Gospels and epistles, when a sermon text is but one verse, a preacher can't say very much about that verse before he's standing outside his preaching text! The Bible was not written in chapters and verses, but as units of thought (stories and paragraphs) that became books and letters and sermons. Dividing the Bible into chapters occurred in the 13th century (Stephen Langton), and dividing chapters into verses happened in the 16th century (Robert Stephanus). So preaching that is tied to a textual unit of thought fits better with the way God inspired the Scriptures.

Now this benefit brings with it an obligation for both preacher and listener.

When we say that a preacher should 'stay in his text,' that means he should apply every skill and effort to open up and unfold that text's message. Occasionally he will need to refer to other Bible passages to illumine the text's con­text or background, and to shed light on a particular idea or event contained in his text. But a textual preacher keeps both feet firmly planted within his preaching text while he occasionally reaches beyond it to pluck the needed fruit from other parts of Scripture.

But this kind of preaching also requires that the preacher deal with the whole text that he has chosen for his preaching text. Far too often a 'sermon text' of some ten or more verses is announced as the basis for the sermon, whereupon only one verse or two out of that ten are explained and preached. Or a preacher will go 'cherry picking' through his announced sermon text — plucking only the tasty fruit that lies within easy reach, emphasizing those words or phrases that give him something to talk about for a few moments. Far more nutritious is the kind of preaching that covers the whole text, arranging the sermon in terms of the text's own development, subordinating and emphasizing the elements that the text does.

So as you listen to such preaching, you should look for that single message to be explained, illustrated, and concretized — in order that by your hearty 'amen' of faith you may grab hold of the divine promise and its mandated response revealed in the Bible passage. Such preaching, under God's blessing and in the Spirit's power, creates that 'amen' of faith. Proclaiming the coherent message of a chosen Bible passage is creative, not in the sense of being innovative or artistic, but in the sense of generating and giving birth to faith-obedience.

2. Preaching a sermonic textual unit best fits the nature of the Bible as the Word of God←↰⤒🔗

Preaching that opens up and unfolds the thought or message of a Scripture portion fits best with the nature of the Bible as the Word of God.

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God. How or in what way the Bible is the Word of God is described by, among other ways, the phrase 'organic inspiration.' We won't pause here to review the church's discussions about the nature of Scripture as Word of God. Let us suffice with saying that the debate about what 'IS' really is did not begin in the White House with the Clinton administration. That debate goes back to, and beyond, the Reformation, and includes long colloquies about what the phrase 'This is my body' means to say in connection with the Lord's Supper.

One implication of confessing the Bible to be the Word of God is that in the Bible, God is speaking to us. He does so, not by grunting out syllables or muttering phrases, but with finely crafted poetry and carefully structured stories and tightly argued epistles. God thinks thoughts and discloses His thoughts to us in various forms found in the Bible. The Bible is not an assortment of oracles dropped from the sky, but as the Word of God the Bible is His living covenantal (relational) conversation with His people.

I've illustrated this point for my students with this little exercise. I'm going to say some words from a Bible verse, and you tell me when you hear God's Word. Ready?

'For.'

Have you heard the message of the text yet? No? Let's add a word: 'God.'

Putting them together: 'For God.' It still doesn't say anything yet, does it? Okay, here's the third word:

'So.'

Together they say, 'For God so.' Still no message. We need the fourth word:

'Loved.' So far we have: 'For God so loved.'

Well, I think you know where I'm going with this. The Word of God is more (not less) than a collection of syllables and a conglomeration of phonemes (a linguist's fancy term for 'a unit of significant sound,' like m in mute). The Word of God is more than a string of phrases. Usually the Word of God — a coherent unit of thought, a divine message — is more than several verses. Therefore, preaching God's Word involves declaring the divine message — communicated as a unit of divine thought — that it took God this number of verses (which make up the preaching text) to say.

3. Preaching a sermonic textual unit best equips God's people to understand and use the Bible in ways consistent with #1 and #2←↰⤒🔗

Every preacher loyal to the gospel desires to be a good example to the flock God has called him to shepherd. This example includes his lifestyle and language; it includes managing his family and his time. And being a good exam­ple includes using the Bible in ways appropriate to the nature of Scripture.

'What?' you ask. 'Do you mean to suggest that there are ways of using the Bible that are wrong? Inappropriate? Ways that contradict the nature of the Bible?'

Yes, I am suggesting precisely that.

That's not hard to illustrate. We've all heard of the earnest believer, desperate for divine guidance in making a life-directing decision, who with closed eyes randomly opens the Bible, points his finger to a spot on the page, and takes the verse under his finger as God's answer to his question.

Two further illustrations might pinch some toes. I believe the practice of teaching children in Sunday School selected stories from the Gospels (or other parts of Scripture) in no particular order, without teaching them the Bible's own historical context of the story in terms of God's program of redemption, misuses the Bible. Another weak use of Scripture is the well-intentioned, but inadequate practice of memorizing single, isolated Bible verses from biblical history, prophecy, Gospels, or epistles. Now, we must strongly endorse teaching children the Bible, and vigorously defend memorizing the Bible. But we have inherited practices in these areas that do an injustice to learning the meaning of a Bible story or Bible verse in terms of its historical and revelational context. And this weakness comes to influence preaching, too.

These illustrations share a common defect: inadequate attention to context as a needed source of a verse's or story's real meaning. (Here is not the place to expand on this feature of biblical interpre­tation, but please be aware that to understand a verse's meaning, a Bible interpreter should study at least literary context, historical context, and covenantal context of that verse.)

Rules of thumb can be distorted, of course. But for Reformed believers, one key principle of Bible interpretation — and thus of preaching as well — is that context is king. Better to teach your Sunday School class a year's worth of material from the book of Judges or from Luke. Better to memorize a paragraph within which the relevant verse is embedded. And preaching a sermonic textual unit — because it opens up a verse's meaning within its own paragraph or message unit — helps us learn to use the Bible in ways that fit both the content and the character of Scripture as God's communication to us.

All of this is to say that the Bible is divine covenantal-historical communication, not a collection of oracular aphorisms. As God's 'love letter' to His beloved people, the Bible communicates a relationship of divine grace and mercy, judgment and discipline, patience and frustration — a relationship with ups and downs throughout a long history that continues today.

But with this description, we have broached a subject that requires a separate article.