Plagiarism and the Preacher

I preach from brief notes. I think everyone is a bit weird and odd (in their own way) in the way they preach. I think the way you prepare will increase the unwitting likelihood of plagiarism. For example, I preach from Logos. Here is a portion of my preaching notes from this past Sunday. Almost everything I say is extemporaneous; the notes just prompt me what to say.

Excellent article

If a cliche suddenly comes to my mind while I am preaching and it fits with the point I am trying to make, but I do not know the source of that cliche, is it plagiarism? I understand that if quote something word for word from a commentary or other source, that I should tell where I got it from and I do, but what if I suddenly remember something I read or heard but cannot remember where? Can I simply share that concept or do I have to pause and say that this is not original to me and that I heard it somewhere? What if it is something that a lot of people have heard and is not intellectual material specific to one person? What if it is a quote typically attributed to Ben Franklin, and you site him, but then later find out that Ben Franklin was actually quoting a much earlier source? Did Ben plagiarize them or was he just sharing common information. With AI we can type in something that we came up with that we thought was original and find out that someone else had already said it. Was it really original or was it locked away in our subconscious because we had heard it from someone else? Further, if we search for something in AI and find out that Mr. Nonamenooneheardof said it in 1878, do we have to attribute him or do we only have to attribute him if it was someone famous? What if a famous person said it in 1901. Who do we site, the famous person or the unknown guy from 1878? I am not suggesting that we should just copy and paste other's material without attributing it, but what I am saying is that we must be careful not to use accusations of plagiarism as a gotcha moment to go after those we are looking for an excuse to be critical of. I appreciated the article for making some great points in this regard.

To me, the lines are pretty simple based on what you know when doing your prep. (or, if you improv much, during your delivery)

• If you know you got it from so and so, you attribute it to so and so
• If you know you heard/read it somewhere, you attribute it to ‘somebody once said’ (or similar)
• If you aren’t sure if it’s already somewhere else, any attribution is optional.

On that third bullet, I often do a ‘I think I read this somewhere…’ but not always. In some cases, your point is stronger if you note that you aren’t the first to say it this way. In other situations, it’s just noise and best left out.

Doesn’t hurt to generally acknowledge now and then you have benefited from the work of lots of other students of the Word over the years and that when you’ve had good teachers, their ideas and often even their wording become part of your own thinking to the degree that you don’t know where one ends and the other begins.

(There’s a parallel in music that I find interesting. I do some composing for fun, and often ideas feel more remembered than invented. Fortunately, nobody ‘owns’ chord progressions, because we use them over and over. And short musical phrases are used over and over. But if you know you pulled this bit from another composers’ work, isn’t it common sense to give them a hat tip somewhere? In music and often in film, ‘copying’ someone’s work a little is often considered homage. But the key factor there is, will people recognize that’s what you’re doing or are you claiming/implying originality?)

I plugged in my latest sermon transcript into chat gpt, and this is what it determined…

I compared the sermon transcript against searchable online commentaries, sermon manuscripts, and study resources on John 15. I found two places where the wording can be traced quite specifically to D. A. Carson’s commentary, plus several other passages worth distinguishing from those findings.

The strongest conclusion is: there is one substantial direct quotation from Carson for which the speaker acknowledges that he is quoting “one commentator,” but does not identify Carson; and there is a second passage that appears to paraphrase Carson very closely without any attribution. I would not characterize the rest of the sermon as wholesale copying based on what I found.

1. Strongest match: D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John

At the discussion of John 15:4–5, the sermon says:

“I love what one commentator writes here. He says, the point is clear. Continuous dependence on the vine, constant reliance upon him, persistent spiritual imbibing of his life. This is the sine qua non of spiritual fruitfulness.”

That is essentially a verbatim quotation from D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, p. 516. An independent source quoting Carson identifies the language explicitly as Carson:

“continuous dependence on the vine, constant reliance upon him, persistent spiritual imbibing of his life” … “the sine qua non of spiritual fruitfulness.”

So there is no real uncertainty about the source.

Assessment: This is not a quotation presented as the preacher's own words. He explicitly says, “one commentator writes here” and “he says.” Therefore, I would not call this an unattributed quotation in the strict sense. The quotation isattributed to an unnamed commentator, although Carson is not identified. In an academic paper that would be inadequate citation; in an oral sermon, saying “one commentator writes” clearly signals that the language isn't the preacher's.

2. More significant: apparent Carson paraphrase without attribution

Later, while explaining John 15:15, the sermon says:

“Jesus here invites us to know Him personally, to know Him intimately as His friend. And Jesus invites us to know and understand His motives, His plans, and His purposes. That's what He says, ‘for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.’”

This is striking because Carson's commentary on this exact verse says that Jesus informs his friends of his:

“motives, plans, purposes.”

Another source compiling John 15 commentary explicitly identifies this wording as Carson: “friends of his motives, plans, purposes.”

The three-word sequence is distinctive, appears in the same exegetical context, and the sermon has already demonstrably used Carson earlier.

Assessment: High probability of dependence on Carson. Unlike the earlier quotation, this time the sermon does notsay “Carson says,” “one commentator says,” or otherwise signal dependence on another source. It converts Carson's distinctive triad into the preacher's own explanatory sentence.

I would therefore flag this as the best example in the sermon of unattributed borrowing. It isn't a long verbatim quotation, so I would describe it as an unattributed close paraphrase/incorporation of Carson's language, rather than a lengthy unattributed quotation.

3. ESV Study Bible: properly attributed

The sermon also says:

“The ESV Study Bible I think has a great note. It says, ‘to abide in Christ means to continue in a daily personal relationship with Jesus characterized by trust, prayer, obedience and joy.’”

That wording is indeed from the ESV Study Bible. Other sources reproduce the same note and identify it as such.

Assessment: Properly attributed. No problem here. The speaker names the source immediately before quoting it.

4. “True and better vine”: similar language, but insufficient evidence of copying

The sermon repeatedly uses the formulation:

“Jesus says that he is the true and better vine” and later describes him as the “better Israel.”

I found earlier sermons using almost exactly this formulation. For example, a 2011 sermon says:

“Jesus is the true and better vine.”

It goes on to explain that where God's people failed, Jesus succeeded.

Interestingly, a Cities Church sermon from July 16, 2026, only about six weeks before this sermon, makes essentially the same exegetical progression: every Old Testament use of Israel as a vine is negative; Israel failed to produce good fruit; Jesus is therefore the “truer and better Israel.”

The transcript similarly says that “every passage” portraying Israel as a vine portrays one producing bad fruit, followed by the conclusion that Jesus is the true/better vine and better Israel.

Nevertheless, I would not call this plagiarism on the present evidence. “True and better” Christological language is widespread in evangelical preaching, and the underlying Israel/vine interpretation is standard commentary material. The overlap isn't distinctive enough.

5. “Fruit” as new converts: probably commentary-derived, but not enough for an attribution finding

At John 15:16 the preacher says:

“The fruit here being referred to is new converts who mature into reproducing disciples.”

That interpretation appears in commentaries. For example, Thomas Constable's discussion says that because “going” is connected to fruit-bearing, missionary outreach is especially in view and “new converts are the fruits.”

But this is an exegetical position held by multiple commentators rather than sufficiently distinctive wording. I wouldn't infer copying simply because the preacher reached the same interpretation.

Overall assessment

After searching the more distinctive language in the transcript, I'd classify the evidence this way:

Sermon material

Likely source

Attribution

Assessment

“continuous dependence…constant reliance…persistent spiritual imbibing…sine qua non”

D. A. Carson, PNTC John, p. 516

“one commentator”

Direct quotation; source acknowledged but Carson unnamed

“motives, plans, and purposes”

D. A. Carson, PNTC John, p. 523

None

Probable unattributed borrowing/close paraphrase

“daily personal relationship…trust, prayer, obedience and joy”

ESV Study Bible

Explicitly named

Properly attributed

“true and better vine / Israel”

Numerous sermons/commentaries

None

Common enough that copying can't be established

Fruit = “new converts”

Constable and others

None

Common exegetical interpretation; insufficient evidence of copying

So, if your question is whether the sermon contains material traceable to a commentary that isn't properly identified, the answer is yes—Carson is clearly being used. The first Carson passage is openly presented as a quotation, though Carson's name is omitted. The second is more noteworthy because Carson's unusually specific “motives, plans, purposes” wording is incorporated into the sermon without indicating that it comes from Carson.

I did not find evidence from this comparison that large sections of the sermon were lifted verbatim from another sermon or commentary. The evidence looks more like a preacher who consulted Carson (and explicitly consulted the ESV Study Bible), quoted Carson once as “one commentator,” and then appears to have incorporated another Carson formulation into his exposition without attribution.

If the concern is specifically sermon plagiarism, rather than merely citation practices, the distinction between those two Carson examples is important: #1 isn't really plagiarism because the audience is told it's a quotation; #2 is the one I would investigate further

[as a side note, for my Carson quote I did include a sermon slide that gave the reference to his commentary]

I plugged in my penultimate sermon into ChatGPT and asked it to evaluate my sermon for plagiarism. It says…

Overall classification

I'd give this sermon the following forensic classification:

🟢 Original sermon content: ~70–80%

The sermon structure, applications, illustrations, transitions, and much of the exposition appear independently composed.

🟡 Common-source / traditional material: ~15–20%

A substantial amount of the exegetical content is necessarily similar to commentaries and sermons because it reflects standard interpretation of Matthew 21.

🟠 Unattributed secondary-source material: ~5–10%

The Caiaphas/market material is the clearest example.

🔴 Proven plagiarism: 0% identified

I have not found a sufficiently extensive verbatim or near-verbatim passage to justify that accusation.

Final verdict

I would not label this sermon “plagiarized.”

[Apparently, Tom Pennington preached a 2011 sermon that ChatGPT said used a similar line of argument as I made. Interesting.]

I think this sort of borrowing of material is pretty hard to avoid, once you read it and think, ok, what all did Jesus learn from the Father? How can you not mention motives, plans or purposes? Do you have to reference your source for something like that? Part of me thinks that we should expect pastors and teachers to bring out things like this and it goes without saying that some of what he is saying came from his study of other people's analysis. If you like a person's major outline points and it helps you solidify how you also view the passage, do you have to say you found those major outline sections from so and so, especially if it is possible you were already thinking along those lines? Preaching and teaching is not the same as writing an academic paper and I'm not sure we have to attribute every little thing we learn throughout the message.

At the same time, I do think it is helpful to think through this question...

One time I quoted someone and said it was a quotation but didn't say who it was, because it came from John Calvin and I know that would cause some people to dismiss what ever he might say, even if it didn't have anything to do with Calvinism per se. At the end of the class, someone raised their hand and asked who I quoted, and then I had to spill the beans....but at least knew who I got the quote from!

The distinction T Howard noted is worth emphasizing, because I think people get confused a lot about it.

• Citation styles have mostly to do with published works and academic work
• Plagiarism is when you imply originality by failing to note that the content is not your own.

So to avoid “plagiarism,” precisely defined, all you really have to do is say “I got this from somewhere.”

As a courtesy, though, it’s often thoughtful to tell people where. But not always. It can just be clutter. Know your audience.

What about copyright? That’s a different thing, though they can overlap. Copyright violation happens when you use material beyond ‘fair use’ and without permission. So it’s possible to both plagiarize and copyright violate at the same time, or to do them separately.

• Quoting relatively small portions and noting the source is almost always ‘fair use’ in something you publish.
• Check on this one, but I think it’s pretty near impossible to violate copyright if you’re only speaking to an audience in a room. It’s going to be ‘fair use.’ But if you distribute via video, podcast audio or similar, or print media to a larger audience, that’s a different issue.
• Copyright doesn’t generally require that the citation be in a specific format. Lots of publishers ‘ask’ that you note in a particular way (this is especially common with English Bible versions like ESV, NKJV, NASB). Well, they won’t necessarily word it as an ‘ask.’ But a claim to copyright violation because you cited your own way is going to be on really shaky ground.

All of the above is not legal advice. Talk to your lawyer. 😉 I can only claim to have dug into it a few times in the past and this is the gist I’m remembering.

I conscientiously seek to attribute whole sentences or statement that I use from commentaries or other sources. But, I don't do so if I'm using just a phrase or term I picked up during my studies.

Most of the time I refence, "a commentary noted..." or "a theologian said..." or "a student of the Bible observed..." because my people are not familiar with people like D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Tom Schreiner, etc. However, if I show the quote on the screen, I always include the full reference at the end of the quote.

I preach from an extended sermon outline. My sermon outlines are always my own work. I may use terms or ideas in my outline that come from a secondary source, but the formulation of the outline and the stated points are my work.

It is fascinating that ChatGPT found similarities between my sermons and sermons from other people and churches that I've never heard of. I guess if you have men engaged in expositional preaching of a passage, many of their observations and conclusions are going to be similar, especially if they are referencing the same secondary sources.

Claude says I’m only about half correct on copyright.

The relevant part for this discussion is regarding sermons…

Sermons have their own dedicated exemption, and it’s stronger than “fair use.” 17 U.S.C. §110(3) — the religious services exemption — exempts performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work, or a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of any work, when it happens “in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly.” That’s not a general “speaking in a room” principle — it’s a purpose-built carve-out, and it explicitly covers a minister reciting a poem or reading an excerpt during a sermon without needing permission. It’s actually broader than fair use in one important way: there’s no amount/substantiality limit built into it the way there is with the four-factor test — a pastor can read an entire poem, not just a snippet, and still be covered.

So “near impossible to violate copyright preaching to a live congregation” is largely right in effect — just via a specific statutory exemption, not “fair use.” That distinction matters for two reasons:…

Also sprach Claude.

My thoughts on pastoral "borrowing", whether or not it qualifies as plagiarism per se, are these:

• Excessive borrowing may indicate that the pastor really isn't fit to teach: he doesn't think well on his feet. If I borrow too much from Spurgeon, for example, have I really learned to exegete the Psalms?
• If you can't think on your feet, your pastoral individual ministry--counseling, discipleship, and the like--will suffer. (parallel issue; over-emphasis on preaching with under-emphasis on individual discipleship, especially among big churches)
• If you borrow without adequate attribution, you deprive the church of the sense that they are part of a larger community--i.e. "here are guys from Glasgow, Berlin, China, all interacting with this passage in very similar ways that we do".

The check for your own work, Tom, was very interesting and welcome, by the way. Per what Aaron noted from the legal standpoint, I think that we do (despite what I wrote above) , I think a pastor does indeed get a few "mulligans" when he says something that's been said before--or even minted--by another person. But we ought to make sure, per the categories I mentioned above (and others I didn't), that we at least put in a good attempt to emphasize the originators.

On a side note: It is also important to clarify whether the information you are sharing comes from scripture or other sources. I often share historical evidence within my sermons. Often that evidence can help fill in some blanks in our understanding, but it is important to understand when it is not scripture. I like to put historical evidence from the Bible itself into a different category from historical evidence from other sources and to make sure that the listener grasps the difference. This is especially important when looking at Jewish historical tradition vs Biblically recorded history.