As preachers of the Bible it is important that we hold a very high view of God’s Word. Verbal plenary inspiration is the doctrine that affirms the inspiration of the specific words (verbal), every last one of them (plenary). Any position that holds to less than a fully inspired and inerrant canon is a compromise wracked with inconsistency. However, as preachers who hold a high view of Scripture, there are a couple of mistakes we can easily make when preaching God’s Word:
1. Every word is inspired, but a word on its own has little value. That is to say that a word on its own carries only a selection of possible meanings. As Pasquarello puts it, words get their meaning from the company they keep. It is important to preach the words of a text in their context, rather than skimming the passage for the words that supposedly carry extra theological freight and then preaching those words as if divorced from the text. While it may have been fashionable a generation ago to preach a series of word studies, today we must be more aware of the words in their context, and preach the idea of the discourse unit.
2. Every word is inspired, but every word in a passage is not equally weighted. Since every word is inspired it is tempting to merely provide a running explanation phrase-by-phrase through the passage. While this may produce a commentary, it does not produce a good sermon. Recognize that some words function as subordinate to others in a sentence. What are the weighty words that convey the core meaning of the passage? What are the key moments in the narrative on which the whole thing turns? What words have emphasis through their unusual selection, positioning, or repetition? Preach the whole text, but don’t allow the weighty content to be hidden by giving equal time and focus to every subordinate phrase or term.
Peter has responded to a comment on this post.
Biblical Preaching 
Thank you for your good posts on preaching. As I have been preparing to preach from John 5 I encountered again the question over which manuscripts are most reliable. John 5:3b-4 is either entered via parentheses or by footnote in most versions of the English bible (KJV notwithstanding) leading many to question its authenticity in the original.
Then of course in a few weeks I will be in John 7 and will be forced to deal with John 7:53 – 8:11 which also is questioned by ‘earliest manuscripts’. How do these texts inform your view / preaching of verbal plenary inspiration?
My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that John 5:3b-4 should be omitted. John 7:53-8:11 does not appear to fit in its traditional location or to be genuinely Johannine, but it does appear to be historically genuine. Thankfully Bruce Metzger and the UBS committee agree with me. (I’m sure that should be the other way round!) I would take these as opportunities to deal with the subject of textual criticism and why we can have such confidence in the text we are now dealing with. A brief verse like in John 5 would probably only warrant a passing comment of explanation, whereas the later passage would be worthy of more (since the whole text is under a question mark). I’d preach the passage (since I trust it), but would give a decent length explanation of why it is in parentheses. If I was assigned the longer ending of Mark’s gospel, they would get a whole sermon on textual criticism (and none of the text).
Verbal plenary inspiration refers to the original documents, so people need to understand something of the process of determining the original text, but always in the context of reinforcing the trustworthiness of modern translations. I think if we as preachers are going to reinforce our congregations’ trust in the Bible, we need to understand something of the textual critical process. We don’t need to be experts, but we need to be able to explain it and convey confidence in our modern English Bibles. However, if we have not studied the process at some level, it is better not to fake it, but simply to convey confidence in the experts. There are simple and accessible books on the subject available.
Peter,
I appreciate your response and approached the passage in a very similar way that you described. What is your (and Metzger’s) basis for affirming that John 7:53-8:11 is historically genuine?
Instead of putting this in my words, I’ll simply quote Metzger (p188-189). His Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is a book which is worth more than its small size might suggest (and is included in Bibleworks 7.0 and later). After listing the principle manuscripts that do not include the passage (external evidence against Johannine authorship), he then writes:
“When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E (F) G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 arm mss) or after Lk 21.38 (¦13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.
. . . Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7.52.”