Is Preaching Mandatory?
Forum category
Do you believe that Scripture demands that the church have regular times in which one man (the pastor) stands before the assembly and preaches the Word without interruption or discussion?
“demands” = This is not just a practical matter or a matter of wisdom; Scripture commands it.
“preach” = Say what the Word of God says.
“without int. or disc.” = This cannot be done with a group study type format. A church that tried that, even if they maintain orthodoxy through a pleurality of elders is disobedient.
“demands” = This is not just a practical matter or a matter of wisdom; Scripture commands it.
“preach” = Say what the Word of God says.
“without int. or disc.” = This cannot be done with a group study type format. A church that tried that, even if they maintain orthodoxy through a pleurality of elders is disobedient.
- 153 views
- Teaching is mandatory: Ephesians 4:11-12
- A monologue is not! Consider the word “reasoned” All διαλέγομαι (think “dialogue”)
- Acts 17:2
- Acts 17:17
- Acts 18:4
- Acts 18:19
- Acts 19:8
- Acts 19:9
- Acts 20:7
- Acts 20:9
- Acts 24:12
- Acts 24:25
- Acts 17:2
This is a great question. Based on with what Jim commented, if teaching is mandatory (which I am not disputing), is LEARNING the intended by-product of the mandatory teaching? If so, do most churches really lend themselves to a conducive environment for learning? As an educator, I rarely see churches provide opportunities for those with differing learning styles to truly learn AND apply the teaching.
Great question though. I look forward to reading more responses.
Great question though. I look forward to reading more responses.
Romans 10:14, 17, (ESV) indicates that preaching or the public proclamation of the Word is the instrument God uses to initiate (and build) faith. Also, 1 Timothy 4:13 (ESV) applies to this discussion (public reading).
Preaching is not optional, it is a command in 2 Timothy 4:2 (ESV), as a crier or herald announces or proclaims something publicly. There is no dialogue, no discussion between the herald and the people. The herald is not there to discuss or dialogue; he is there to announce. See also 1 Corinthians 9:16 (ESV) and 2 Corinthians 4:5 (ESV) and Colossians 1:28 (ESV).
So, while teaching is a part of preaching, preaching (as a herald of the gospel) is both mandatory and commanded. Notice in many of the texts that proclaiming or preaching includes teaching, but is more than teaching (i.e., warning, exhorting).
Preaching is not optional, it is a command in 2 Timothy 4:2 (ESV), as a crier or herald announces or proclaims something publicly. There is no dialogue, no discussion between the herald and the people. The herald is not there to discuss or dialogue; he is there to announce. See also 1 Corinthians 9:16 (ESV) and 2 Corinthians 4:5 (ESV) and Colossians 1:28 (ESV).
So, while teaching is a part of preaching, preaching (as a herald of the gospel) is both mandatory and commanded. Notice in many of the texts that proclaiming or preaching includes teaching, but is more than teaching (i.e., warning, exhorting).
Ken Fields
http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-preaching-to-your-congregat…
Quoting from Bob Thune:
Quoting from Bob Thune:
I met another guy a few years ago (a Baptist brother, stereotypically) who was setting up a big wooden pulpit in his living room every week so he could preach to his core team of seven people.As for me, I still am not convinced that a monologue is always required!
[Jim Peet] As for me, I still am not convinced that a monologue is always required!Jim,
What do you do with the NT commands to “preach (or herald) the Word”?
Ken Fields
I think that this question will be answered according to certain prior conceptions about the nature of worship.
First, is there a specific time of corporate worship appointed by Christ for the Church? The Protestant scholastics and their successors would answer yes; many of the pietists, no.
Second, does this particular assembly derive its uniqueness in part from the prescribed actions of ordained ministers? Again, scholastics yes; pietists, maybe not so much.
I for one hold to the regulative principle of worship. I assert that Christ did indeed establish a unique time of corporate worship - the Lord’s day assembly. Furthermore, I affirm that this assembly has necessary constituent elements that define it. Preaching is one of those. Furthermore, this assembly operates under the jurisdiction of ordained men. The normal expectation is that the preaching, delivered by an ordained elder, constitutes the word of the Lord for his people (insofar as it agrees with Scripture). The minister is God’s mouthpiece. The examples of New Testament preaching more resemble the traditional sermon than anything else.
So I would answer Dan’s question in the affirmative. On the other hand, I firmly support the idea that many teaching methods may be used - just not in the Lord’s Day worship.
First, is there a specific time of corporate worship appointed by Christ for the Church? The Protestant scholastics and their successors would answer yes; many of the pietists, no.
Second, does this particular assembly derive its uniqueness in part from the prescribed actions of ordained ministers? Again, scholastics yes; pietists, maybe not so much.
I for one hold to the regulative principle of worship. I assert that Christ did indeed establish a unique time of corporate worship - the Lord’s day assembly. Furthermore, I affirm that this assembly has necessary constituent elements that define it. Preaching is one of those. Furthermore, this assembly operates under the jurisdiction of ordained men. The normal expectation is that the preaching, delivered by an ordained elder, constitutes the word of the Lord for his people (insofar as it agrees with Scripture). The minister is God’s mouthpiece. The examples of New Testament preaching more resemble the traditional sermon than anything else.
So I would answer Dan’s question in the affirmative. On the other hand, I firmly support the idea that many teaching methods may be used - just not in the Lord’s Day worship.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[KenFields] What do you do with the NT commands to “preach (or herald) the Word”?Ken, thanks for the interesting interaction here:
These words address what a minister does (and by minister I mean broader than the role of a Pastor):
- διδάσκω (teach) as in Acts 5:42. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didactics] the Didactic method and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache] The Didache
- εὐαγγελίζω (evangelize) as in Acts 5:42 (many times translated “preach”)
- κηρύσσω (preach / herald / proclaim) as in 2 Timothy 4:2
- διαλέγομαι (reasoned) as in Acts 17:2
I was attempting to respond to Dan’s original post that asked “Do you believe that Scripture demands that the church have regular times in which one man (the pastor) stands before the assembly and preaches the Word without interruption or discussion?”.
I assume that Dan is not including the interruptions of crying babies (that always makes me smile because they are not interrupting on purpose) (and by the way - he and his wife have a new baby!) or cell phones or beeping watches (that really irritate me!), I don’t think that a monologue is always required. I would think that at least in the case of διδάσκω and διαλέγομαι some discussion is involved.
Jim,
I agree with you that in teaching, interaction must be involved. I am sure we would all agree that people learn better when interacting with an instructor.
Yet I also believe that the preaching or heralding of the Word and the gospel is a mandate that is indispensable. Monologue isn’t required in every church meeting or gathering, but preaching or heralding should happen weekly (weekly is my opinion, but regularly appears to be a mandate).
Dan asked if the church should have regular times in which a pastor stands before the congregation and preaches the Word without interruption. My answer is yes, though gatherings need not be exclusively for the purpose of preaching.
And Charlie, good thoughts. I agree with you!
I agree with you that in teaching, interaction must be involved. I am sure we would all agree that people learn better when interacting with an instructor.
Yet I also believe that the preaching or heralding of the Word and the gospel is a mandate that is indispensable. Monologue isn’t required in every church meeting or gathering, but preaching or heralding should happen weekly (weekly is my opinion, but regularly appears to be a mandate).
Dan asked if the church should have regular times in which a pastor stands before the congregation and preaches the Word without interruption. My answer is yes, though gatherings need not be exclusively for the purpose of preaching.
And Charlie, good thoughts. I agree with you!
Ken Fields
so i have a tangential kwestyun:
i read a book called Organic Church not long ago, and the basic plan is to start small groups in someone’s home, in coffeeshops, etc. when the group gets over a certain size, you split into another church. my question now would be something like this:
is starting small home church groups where there is not necessarily a leader-pastor OK? like maybe one person each week gives a lesson from the Bible. is it a church or not? are they doing what God wants as a church? are they really a church body?
kwim?
i read a book called Organic Church not long ago, and the basic plan is to start small groups in someone’s home, in coffeeshops, etc. when the group gets over a certain size, you split into another church. my question now would be something like this:
is starting small home church groups where there is not necessarily a leader-pastor OK? like maybe one person each week gives a lesson from the Bible. is it a church or not? are they doing what God wants as a church? are they really a church body?
kwim?
[Anne Sokol] is starting small home church groups where there is not necessarily a leader-pastor OK? like maybe one person each week gives a lesson from the Bible. is it a church or not? are they doing what God wants as a church? are they really a church body?this isn’t a completely new idea. there have been groups in the past that function this way including the brethren groups beginning in the 1800s.
[Anne Sokol] so i have a tangential kwestyun:I think Primitive Baptist do this as well. It is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the Bible ordains church order and structure as having a pastor and deacons. You don’t have a church without them. Second, the Bible has ordained that there be a pastor who is a model of character, a teacher, a ruler (having charge over), etc. These house groups do not have that.
i read a book called Organic Church not long ago, and the basic plan is to start small groups in someone’s home, in coffeeshops, etc. when the group gets over a certain size, you split into another church. my question now would be something like this:
is starting small home church groups where there is not necessarily a leader-pastor OK? like maybe one person each week gives a lesson from the Bible. is it a church or not? are they doing what God wants as a church? are they really a church body?
kwim?
I think a church could meet in a house, and could split into another group when it gets too big. That is not the issue. The issue is biblical structure.
How anyone expects to seriously learn, or genuinely endeavors to be instructed by a master-teacher, which should be the Pastor-teacher, without expecting to sit repeatedly and without interrupting the instructor to indulge a personal question, is difficult to imagine short of a narcissist who views the world and revolving around their needs and wants. Of course I say that realizing that questions are legitimate. And so with that I ask, what church, what ministry does not give opportunity for students (disciples) of that ministry to ask questions? I know of few churches that while having the uninterrupted teaching sessions by the master-teacher do not also have one or more contexts for those students to have their questions fielded.
I agree that there are some good comments here. If the criteria is “What do the Scriptures teach?” then we can set some boundaries. Although others have set boundaries seeking Scriptural justification, those boundaries are not necessarily the result of Scriptural implication. Because Paul commands Timothy to preach, for example, does not mandate we must hear preaching EVERY Sunday.
I think the broader concept we find in Scripture is an emphasis upon INSTRUCTION. We have words like “admonish” “reprove,” “rebuke,” “encourage,” “exhort,” “preach” and “teach,” etc., and they are all related to instruction — either the communication of, elaboration upon, or application of knowledge. Just as different “preachers” have a different mix (some of us emphasize teaching while others emphasize exhortation and challenge), so churches have different mixes.
We are commanded (or at least Timothy was admonished to do) all these things, but the exact ratio is not spelled out. IMO, the emphasis upon doctrine and teaching seems truly the emphasis. Yet part of that teaching is that church leaders should “preach the Word.”
I think the broader concept we find in Scripture is an emphasis upon INSTRUCTION. We have words like “admonish” “reprove,” “rebuke,” “encourage,” “exhort,” “preach” and “teach,” etc., and they are all related to instruction — either the communication of, elaboration upon, or application of knowledge. Just as different “preachers” have a different mix (some of us emphasize teaching while others emphasize exhortation and challenge), so churches have different mixes.
We are commanded (or at least Timothy was admonished to do) all these things, but the exact ratio is not spelled out. IMO, the emphasis upon doctrine and teaching seems truly the emphasis. Yet part of that teaching is that church leaders should “preach the Word.”
"The Midrash Detective"
[Anne Sokol] so i have a tangential kwestyun:Anne,
i read a book called Organic Church not long ago, and the basic plan is to start small groups in someone’s home, in coffeeshops, etc. when the group gets over a certain size, you split into another church. my question now would be something like this:
is starting small home church groups where there is not necessarily a leader-pastor OK? like maybe one person each week gives a lesson from the Bible. is it a church or not? are they doing what God wants as a church? are they really a church body?
kwim?
Biblically speaking, cell groups are not a church. They may be microcosms of a church in a small-group ministry, but strictly speaking a church is a group of baptized believers who gather in a single locale for the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and the practice of church discipline. It also must have some semblance of an official organization, bound together by a statement of faith, by-laws, and especially a covenant.
For some good reading on this, I would recommend a brief 1697 booklet by one of the first British Baptists, Benjamin Keach. His work is entitled, “The Glory of a True Church.” It’s available here: http://www.founders.org/library/polity/keach.htm. Also, here is a lesson transcript from Capitol Hill Baptist in D. C. on the ideas of a true church and church membership: http://content.christianity.com/2/38081/2_38081_TeachersNotesMark6.Teac…. I hope these are helpful resources for you.
One more thought on a personal level … I believe these “house churches” are doing serious damage to the biblical understanding of the church, and are undermining Scripture (many of the Epistles were written to specific, organized, elder-led, covenant-bound local churches). It’s interesting to note that the emerging church favors this kind of house church structure. Why? Perhaps this structure lends itself to a kind of no accountability to elders/pastors who are responsible for the spiritual oversight and wellbeing of the flock. Also, this structure is more susceptible to the danger of doctrinal reductionism—minimizing doctrine and teaching in favor of dialogue and discussion.
Ken Fields
[KenFields]Would you be so kind as to list the verses that lay this requirement out? Thank you.
Biblically speaking, cell groups are not a church. They may be microcosms of a church in a small-group ministry, but strictly speaking a church is a group of baptized believers who gather in a single locale for the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and the practice of church discipline. It also must have some semblance of an official organization, bound together by a statement of faith, by-laws, and especially a covenant.
[Larry] I think Primitive Baptist do this as well. It is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the Bible ordains church order and structure as having a pastor and deacons. You don’t have a church without them. Second, the Bible has ordained that there be a pastor who is a model of character, a teacher, a ruler (having charge over), etc. These house groups do not have that.maybe i missed that part of the bible. which verse says there should be a single pastor instead of multiple elders/overseers? sure, the bible allows for a singular leader as with timothy, but where is this structure preferred over multiple lay leaders?
there were quite a few great christians over the years through brethren churches, so i have a hard time believing that these weren’t functional and blessed by God.
[KenFields]… strictly speaking a church is a group of baptized believers who gather in a single locale for the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and the practice of church discipline.So your contention is that the Jerusalem church, with somewhere around *at least* 5000 members (that was the number of *men* [Acts 4:4] ) gathered together in a single locale for all of what you list above. What about Acts 5:42 - “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” Clearly the apostles taught at the temple, but the preaching occurred elsewhere as well. Even with the size of Herod’s temple, there is no way the church could have functioned only if they always came together in a single location.
It certainly looks to me as if scripture supports the idea of multiple different meetings, though they were all under the oversight of the church leaders (plural).
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]I think there is a way to combine both perspectives. If we acknowledge that the word “church” means “the entire body of Christ’s elect” (maybe dispies would add some time qualifiers there), then there is no problem in using the word “church” to refer to any subset of the group. So, “church of (or in) Jerusalem” refers to all the Christians in Jerusalem, irrespective of whether they have one “local church” or multiple assemblies. In other words, there could have been multiple semi-independent gatherings that all recognized each other as part of “the church.”[KenFields]… strictly speaking a church is a group of baptized believers who gather in a single locale for the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and the practice of church discipline.So your contention is that the Jerusalem church, with somewhere around *at least* 5000 members (that was the number of *men* [Acts 4:4] ) gathered together in a single locale for all of what you list above. What about Acts 5:42 - “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” Clearly the apostles taught at the temple, but the preaching occurred elsewhere as well. Even with the size of Herod’s temple, there is no way the church could have functioned only if they always came together in a single location.
It certainly looks to me as if scripture supports the idea of multiple different meetings, though they were all under the oversight of the church leaders (plural).
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
maybe i missed that part of the bible. which verse says there should be a single pastor instead of multiple elders/overseers? sure, the bible allows for a singular leader as with timothy, but where is this structure preferred over multiple lay leaders?I don’t know. You would have to ask someone who believes that. My comments were about the necessity of having one, not about whether or not there should be more than one.
there were quite a few great christians over the years through brethren churches, so i have a hard time believing that these weren’t functional and blessed by God.Numbers and apparent blessing are not good ways to measure obedience. A church can function without a pastor, but it is out of order until it has one. I would say this not an argument either way. God spoke through a donkey, but that doesn’t mean we should seek to be donkeys.
[dcbii] So your contention is that the Jerusalem church, with somewhere around *at least* 5000 members (that was the number of *men* [Acts 4:4] ) gathered together in a single locale for all of what you list above. What about Acts 5:42 - “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” Clearly the apostles taught at the temple, but the preaching occurred elsewhere as well. Even with the size of Herod’s temple, there is no way the church could have functioned only if they always came together in a single location.dcbii,
It certainly looks to me as if scripture supports the idea of multiple different meetings, though they were all under the oversight of the church leaders (plural).
You are correct … the Jerusalem church did gather publicly in one place—at the temple. Exegetically, the local church is defined by the Greek word, ekklesia. It refers to “an assembly of people”—and is used to describe secular as well as sacred gatherings (Acts 19:32, 39, 40). Although the Scriptural definition of a church moves beyond that most simple definition (the church is a covenant community that proclaims the gospel, administers the ordinances, and practices church discipline) a church cannot be a church unless it is a real assembly or group of believing people. In other words, a church is, in its most simple meaning, a visible gathering or assembly of baptized Christians.
Now, I will not disagree that Jerusalem Christians gathered regularly in houses … but when they did so, they were not meeting as a church … they did so for fellowship (see Acts 2:46).
The point is this: a church is a single gathering of believers in a single place. Multiple congregations means multiple churches exegetically. It’s not that church members can’t or shouldn’t meet together at other times or places (other than the primary worship gathering of the church); it’s that when they are meeting at McD’s or Arby’s or in someone’s home, they are not meeting as the church … they are meeting as individuals who are part of a church.
Also, I would caution all to not build an entire theology of the church or of what constitutes a church on the book of Acts. Remember, it’s a transitional book. The epistles, on the other hand, easily fit into the “single gathering” definition of an ekklesia. I’m not saying Acts doesn’t support this single ekklesia view … just that Acts is not the only book that speaks to the nature or structure of the church … and that the epistles should not be overlooked.
Ken Fields
[Teri Ploski] Would you be so kind as to list the verses that lay this requirement out? Thank you.Teri,
I would ask you to check out the resources I listed. They will provide ample Scriptural support for the historic Baptist view of the church.
Thanks!
Ken Fields
[KenFields] [post #14]Ken,
Anne,
Biblically speaking, cell groups are not a church. They may be microcosms of a church in a small-group ministry, but strictly speaking a church is a group of baptized believers who gather in a single locale for the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and the practice of church discipline. It also must have some semblance of an official organization, bound together by a statement of faith, by-laws, and especially a covenant.
You have named many things that you believe are needed for Biblical church.
Before we go off topic too far, let me emphasize that I am wondering is if “preaching the Gospel” must always include a monologue.
Commands to preach seem to me to be inclusive of monologue and dialogue, applied according to expedience and wisdom.
Ken, I’m curious about these references–
Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Phil 2
Would you say that the believers meeting in these houses constituted all the Christians in their respective cities, or were they a small part of what could be called, say, the “Church of Rome?” (Rom 16:5)
Edit: I’m asking because the Epistle to the Romans was written “to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (1:7), which we would call the “Church of Rome”, yet in 16:5 Paul asks “the Church of Rome” to send greeting to the “church” that met in the home of Prisca and Aquilla.
Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Phil 2
Would you say that the believers meeting in these houses constituted all the Christians in their respective cities, or were they a small part of what could be called, say, the “Church of Rome?” (Rom 16:5)
Edit: I’m asking because the Epistle to the Romans was written “to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (1:7), which we would call the “Church of Rome”, yet in 16:5 Paul asks “the Church of Rome” to send greeting to the “church” that met in the home of Prisca and Aquilla.
[Larry] I don’t know. You would have to ask someone who believes that. My comments were about the necessity of having one, not about whether or not there should be more than one.sorry for reading too much into what you wrote.
i think maybe you’re misunderstanding something about leadership in brethren churches, though. the defining feature of brethren churches is not the lack of leadership, but parity of the leadership.
i’ve never been in a home group, but i imagine they also need to have some kind of leadership, even if it’s just someone guiding the bible study discussion.
i think baptist polity is one of many possible ways to organize a church within new testament guidelines. i just don’t see how it can be the only or best way (especially with the usual mismatch between the baptist definition of deacon and the first-century one).
[Dan Miller] Before we go off topic too far, let me emphasize that I am wondering is if “preaching the Gospel” must always include a monologue.Dan,
Commands to preach seem to me to be inclusive of monologue and dialogue, applied according to expedience and wisdom.
Sorry to wander off-topic. I was not attempting to hijack this thread.
Here’s my short answer: if “preach” means to herald, then I think it is primarily a monologue. A herald does little more than herald. He does not dialogue with the city’s citizens. His responsibility is to communicate news. If the biblical word for preach is to “proclaim” or “herald” then preaching is primarily an exercise in “telling” rather than “discussing.”
Now, I am not stating that every church gathering throughout the week must be for the purpose of “preaching” in a monologue kind of way. In fact, our Sunday AM service is the only service in which interaction with the speaker is not encouraged.
I guess I am wondering how you have come to the conclusion that the commands to preach seem to be inclusive of monologue and dialogue. I’d love to know!
Ken Fields
[KenFields]…Well, take for example, Romans 10:14. Paul asks, “How shall they hear without a preacher?” And we are meant to understand, “They won’t.”
I guess I am wondering how you have come to the conclusion that the commands to preach seem to be inclusive of monologue and dialogue. I’d love to know!
Therefore, without a “preacher,” they will not hear and not believe.
This instance of “preacher” is obviously inclusive of both monologue and dialogue, since both were and are useful for giving the Gospel.
In other words, what if we deliberately narrow the meaning of “preacher” to “Monologue Preacher”? Does it alter the meaning?
“How shall they hear without a Monologue Preacher? [They won’t.] ” Really? You mean that a Monologue Preacher is the only way for them to hear? Yep.
This way, it would mean that only hearing the Gospel presented in a monologue can work, which, of course, is silly.
[Dan Miller] Well, take for example, Romans 10:14. Paul asks, “How shall they hear without a preacher?” And we are meant to understand, “They won’t.”Dan, I believe you are improperly using this reference. First of all, it is not speaking in absolute philosophical terms about how people come to Christ. Obviously, deaf people would be excluded by the word “hear” if we take this in a wooden way. There are all sorts of ways people can be saved without any verbal contact at all.
Therefore, without a “preacher,” they will not hear and not believe.
This instance of “preacher” is obviously inclusive of both monologue and dialogue, since both were and are useful for giving the Gospel.
In other words, what if we deliberately narrow the meaning of “preacher” to “Monologue Preacher”? Does it alter the meaning?
“How shall they hear without a Monologue Preacher? [They won’t.] ” Really? You mean that a Monologue Preacher is the only way for them to hear? Yep.
This way, it would mean that only hearing the Gospel presented in a monologue can work, which, of course, is silly.
However, I disagree with your phrase “monologue preacher,” since it skews the conversation by implying that there is some other kind of preacher (in the grammatical sense of the term). Look at the Middle Liddell lexicon entry for κηρυσσω http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04…
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
not sure where this fits, but also this verse is talking about evangelism, not so much about what a preacher does every sunday in a pulpit.
Charlie,
There is quite a bit of Biblical precedent for understanding “hear” to refer to internal acceptance of a delivered message.
“Shema, Israel…” is asked the Israelites for more than auditory reception. It asks them to pay attention, heed, and accept the message.
And, with this understanding of “hear,” yes, salvation requires “hearing.”
And I’ll check the link once I’m home.
There is quite a bit of Biblical precedent for understanding “hear” to refer to internal acceptance of a delivered message.
“Shema, Israel…” is asked the Israelites for more than auditory reception. It asks them to pay attention, heed, and accept the message.
And, with this understanding of “hear,” yes, salvation requires “hearing.”
And I’ll check the link once I’m home.
preach Pronunciation:ˈprēch
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English prechen, from Anglo-French precher, from Late Latin praedicare, from Latin, to proclaim, make known, from prae- pre- + dicare to proclaim — more at diction
Date: 13th century
intransitive verb1: to deliver a sermon
2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action ; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner
transitive verb1: to set forth in a sermon
2: to advocate earnestly
3: to deliver (as a sermon) publicly4: to bring, put, or affect by preaching
(officious - 2: volunteering one’s services where they are neither asked nor needed : meddlesome…synonym is impertinent)
(impertinent - 1: not pertinent : irrelevant 2 a: not restrained within due or proper bounds especially of propriety or good taste b: given to or characterized by insolent rudeness )
I have just started teaching the book of I Corinthians in our Adult Sunday School class. I have dealt with the passage in v. 17-21 concerning the word preach. Here are some things I gleaned:
The carnal worldly-wise, but Scripturally illiterate church at Corinth didn’t like preaching.
Paul warned Timothy in II Timothy 4 that the last days would be marked by people who wanted an over-emphasis on teaching, and thus he exhorts Timothy to PREACH. It is also helpful to understand what reprove, rebuke, and exhort mean. They are strong admonitions to accept or reject certain ideas, philosophies, and activities.
What I see today in Christianity in general is that they don’t like real preaching because they don’t like to be told what to do.
You can argue with a teacher (“well, that’s just YOUR interpretation.”)
You can’t argue with a herald. The herald delivers the message. The message does not originate with him, he simply says what he is told to say.
A good pastor is also a good teacher. In fact it is one of the qualifications for a bishop in I Timothy 3, and is also mentioned in Ephesians 4:11.
So a good pastor is a good teacher AND a good preacher.
The sign of a true rebel is someone who will not submit themselves to preaching. They will not follow ANY authority. It is evident in how they respond to the preaching of the word of God.
In Christ,
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English prechen, from Anglo-French precher, from Late Latin praedicare, from Latin, to proclaim, make known, from prae- pre- + dicare to proclaim — more at diction
Date: 13th century
intransitive verb1: to deliver a sermon
2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action ; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner
transitive verb1: to set forth in a sermon
2: to advocate earnestly
3: to deliver (as a sermon) publicly4: to bring, put, or affect by preaching
(officious - 2: volunteering one’s services where they are neither asked nor needed : meddlesome…synonym is impertinent)
(impertinent - 1: not pertinent : irrelevant 2 a: not restrained within due or proper bounds especially of propriety or good taste b: given to or characterized by insolent rudeness )
I have just started teaching the book of I Corinthians in our Adult Sunday School class. I have dealt with the passage in v. 17-21 concerning the word preach. Here are some things I gleaned:
The carnal worldly-wise, but Scripturally illiterate church at Corinth didn’t like preaching.
Paul warned Timothy in II Timothy 4 that the last days would be marked by people who wanted an over-emphasis on teaching, and thus he exhorts Timothy to PREACH. It is also helpful to understand what reprove, rebuke, and exhort mean. They are strong admonitions to accept or reject certain ideas, philosophies, and activities.
What I see today in Christianity in general is that they don’t like real preaching because they don’t like to be told what to do.
You can argue with a teacher (“well, that’s just YOUR interpretation.”)
You can’t argue with a herald. The herald delivers the message. The message does not originate with him, he simply says what he is told to say.
A good pastor is also a good teacher. In fact it is one of the qualifications for a bishop in I Timothy 3, and is also mentioned in Ephesians 4:11.
So a good pastor is a good teacher AND a good preacher.
The sign of a true rebel is someone who will not submit themselves to preaching. They will not follow ANY authority. It is evident in how they respond to the preaching of the word of God.
In Christ,
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
I have dealt with the passage in v. 17-21 concerning the word preach.Not to mess up good preaching, but the real issue in 1 Cor 1:17-21 is not the manner of communication as much as it is the message preached. The emphasis there is on the “word of (or about) the cross.” The wisdom of God was not the manner of communication, but the message that was communicated. The Jews and Greeks did not find an authoritative monologue a stumblingblock and foolishness. They found the message of a crucified Messiah a stumblingblock and foolishness.
The NT has a strong emphasis on the act of preaching. 1 Cor 1:17-21 is not part of that emphasis.
Larry
I am not going to debate you on that point, but you are wrong in your interpretation of the passage.The word karugmatos (sorry - I don’t have a Greek font) is used 8 times in the Greek NT. It is translated as “preach” or “proclaim” in every passage. All new versions agree with the KJV in every passage EXCEPT this one. (There are variations of wording…proclamation instead of preaching, but the idea is unchanged.)
In light of the definition of preach which I supplied, it is a foolish exercise. The lost world does nothing similar to what we do when we preach, and they don’t have the results we have either. If a church member attends every service in a week, they will spend anywhere from 2-4 hours a week listening to someone tell them how rotten they are, and how great God is.
We also need to remember our history, and how preaching was used to draw many lost souls out. Consider the work of the Wesleys, Edwards, Whitefields, etc. They did nothing like what the great worldly lecturers or philosophers did. They preached (see my earlier definition.)
Remember, the “shocking” thing about Jesus’ speech was that he didn’t speak like the scribes did (Matt. 7:28-29) The scribes were the “professional scholars” of the day. If anyone knew what the Scriptures said, it was the scribes. Yet they had no authority or dogmatism in their speaking. Jesus spoke with authority. the lost world refuses to be dogmatic about things in a direct manner. The lost world’s typical response to the preaching of the cross is “nobody can know for sure they are saved.” In other words, they object to the dogmatic, authoritative declarations that preaching uses. Preaching is direct, dogmatic, offensive, and often seems as though it is invading one’s private life.
The passage in I Cor. 1 uses 3 different words that are translated as “preach” in the KJV.
v. 17 uses the word “euangelizzesthai
v. 18 uses the word “logon”
v. 21 uses the word “karugmatos”
Much has been said about the different words, and how they reflect different “nuances.” Etc. What I have never read is that “logon” can be translated more than 20 different ways. It has more to its meaning that just “word.”
Here is Thayer’s Lexical reading on “logon”
Logos – prop. A collecting, collection (see lego) and that, as well of those things which arep put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought, i.e. gothered together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.
I. As respects speech
a. A word, yet not in the grammatical sense of vocabulary, but language, vox, i.e. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception or idea;
b. What some one has said
c. Discourse
d. In an objective sense, what is communicated by instruction, doctrine:
e. Anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
f. Matter under discussion
g. Thing spoken of or talked about; event; deed
II. Its use as respects the mind alone, Lat. Ratio
a. Reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, etc.
b. Account, i.e. regard, consideration; to have regard for, make account of a thing, care for a thing
c. Account, i.e. reckoning score…to make a reckoning, settle accounts
d. Account, i.e. ansser or explanation in reference to judgment
e. Relation
f. Reason, cause, ground
III. denotes the essential Word of God – used only by the Apostle John
Thus, Paul is not doing anything else but what a good writer does, and that is vary the vocabulary to avoid monotony. The three words indicated above point to the same act - Preaching.
We do the same thing every day.
Modern day example:
1. I went to the store
2. I drove to the grocery store
3. I ran over to Walmart
The only reason why modern scholarship doesn’t like the KJV reading is because their pride does not allow them to acknowledge that what a preacher does is in fact foolish. They have fallen into the same trap the Corinthians did. The Corinthians, in all their worldly wisdom, despised Paul’s method of communication - plain, hard-hitting, dogmatic, authoritative preaching. Consider the following passages:
I Corinthians 2:1-5; 4:10; II Corinthians 10:10, 11:5-7
There is no doubt that from the world’s standards our message is foolish also - I don’t debate that at all. But the ACT of preaching is foolish also. It seems strange to me that all modern Bibles/translators/scholars stay with the meaning of the Greek words in all other places but in this passage. Maybe they simply don’t like what the passage says, so they find a way out by changing the word with no precedent, and without consideration for all the other times the words in this passage are used, and the entire NT teaching on preaching.
In Christ
I am not going to debate you on that point, but you are wrong in your interpretation of the passage.The word karugmatos (sorry - I don’t have a Greek font) is used 8 times in the Greek NT. It is translated as “preach” or “proclaim” in every passage. All new versions agree with the KJV in every passage EXCEPT this one. (There are variations of wording…proclamation instead of preaching, but the idea is unchanged.)
In light of the definition of preach which I supplied, it is a foolish exercise. The lost world does nothing similar to what we do when we preach, and they don’t have the results we have either. If a church member attends every service in a week, they will spend anywhere from 2-4 hours a week listening to someone tell them how rotten they are, and how great God is.
We also need to remember our history, and how preaching was used to draw many lost souls out. Consider the work of the Wesleys, Edwards, Whitefields, etc. They did nothing like what the great worldly lecturers or philosophers did. They preached (see my earlier definition.)
Remember, the “shocking” thing about Jesus’ speech was that he didn’t speak like the scribes did (Matt. 7:28-29) The scribes were the “professional scholars” of the day. If anyone knew what the Scriptures said, it was the scribes. Yet they had no authority or dogmatism in their speaking. Jesus spoke with authority. the lost world refuses to be dogmatic about things in a direct manner. The lost world’s typical response to the preaching of the cross is “nobody can know for sure they are saved.” In other words, they object to the dogmatic, authoritative declarations that preaching uses. Preaching is direct, dogmatic, offensive, and often seems as though it is invading one’s private life.
The passage in I Cor. 1 uses 3 different words that are translated as “preach” in the KJV.
v. 17 uses the word “euangelizzesthai
v. 18 uses the word “logon”
v. 21 uses the word “karugmatos”
Much has been said about the different words, and how they reflect different “nuances.” Etc. What I have never read is that “logon” can be translated more than 20 different ways. It has more to its meaning that just “word.”
Here is Thayer’s Lexical reading on “logon”
Logos – prop. A collecting, collection (see lego) and that, as well of those things which arep put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought, i.e. gothered together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.
I. As respects speech
a. A word, yet not in the grammatical sense of vocabulary, but language, vox, i.e. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception or idea;
b. What some one has said
c. Discourse
d. In an objective sense, what is communicated by instruction, doctrine:
e. Anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
f. Matter under discussion
g. Thing spoken of or talked about; event; deed
II. Its use as respects the mind alone, Lat. Ratio
a. Reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, etc.
b. Account, i.e. regard, consideration; to have regard for, make account of a thing, care for a thing
c. Account, i.e. reckoning score…to make a reckoning, settle accounts
d. Account, i.e. ansser or explanation in reference to judgment
e. Relation
f. Reason, cause, ground
III. denotes the essential Word of God – used only by the Apostle John
Thus, Paul is not doing anything else but what a good writer does, and that is vary the vocabulary to avoid monotony. The three words indicated above point to the same act - Preaching.
We do the same thing every day.
Modern day example:
1. I went to the store
2. I drove to the grocery store
3. I ran over to Walmart
The only reason why modern scholarship doesn’t like the KJV reading is because their pride does not allow them to acknowledge that what a preacher does is in fact foolish. They have fallen into the same trap the Corinthians did. The Corinthians, in all their worldly wisdom, despised Paul’s method of communication - plain, hard-hitting, dogmatic, authoritative preaching. Consider the following passages:
I Corinthians 2:1-5; 4:10; II Corinthians 10:10, 11:5-7
There is no doubt that from the world’s standards our message is foolish also - I don’t debate that at all. But the ACT of preaching is foolish also. It seems strange to me that all modern Bibles/translators/scholars stay with the meaning of the Greek words in all other places but in this passage. Maybe they simply don’t like what the passage says, so they find a way out by changing the word with no precedent, and without consideration for all the other times the words in this passage are used, and the entire NT teaching on preaching.
In Christ
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
The word karugmatos (sorry - I don’t have a Greek font) is used 8 times in the Greek NT. It is translated as “preach” or “proclaim” in every passage.This word is a noun, not a verb. Look it up in your lexicon. In each of those passages, if you look at them, they are about what is preached, not the act of preaching. Look at the context. In v. 18 what is foolish is “the word of the cross.” There, it is the message that is in view. In v. 21, the issue is “wisdom,” which is about content, not about method of delivery. In v. 23, the verb is used: “we preach Jesus.” The content of the κηρύσσω is “Christ crucified.” That is the κηρύγματος. What the Jews and Greeks had a problem with was not the manner of communication, the content of the communication: a crucified Messiah, a dead king.
To this day, the method of proclamation or heralding is used all over the world in all different contexts. That is not offensive to people. It is the message that is offensive.
All new versions agree with the KJV in every passage EXCEPT this one.Actually, this is incorrect. None of them clearly disagree with the KJV. The KJV “preaching” is probably a noun, referring to what is preached. Each one of those passages could be addressed individually, and I think your point would be disproven.
The passage in I Cor. 1 uses 3 different words that are translated as “preach” in the KJV.Only one of those is a verb—an action. The other two are nouns. I think those grammatical nuances (which aren’t that nuanced) are pretty important.
v. 17 uses the word “euangelizzesthai
v. 18 uses the word “logon”
v. 21 uses the word “karugmatos”
Thus, Paul is not doing anything else but what a good writer does, and that is vary the vocabulary to avoid monotony. The three words indicated above point to the same act - Preaching.The use of a noun indicates that they don’t point to an act at all, but to a thing … a message.
Modern day example:All of which use verbs, not nouns.
The only reason why modern scholarship doesn’t like the KJV reading is because their pride does not allow them to acknowledge that what a preacher does is in fact foolish.I doubt that.
They have fallen into the same trap the Corinthians did. The Corinthians, in all their worldly wisdom, despised Paul’s method of communication - plain, hard-hitting, dogmatic, authoritative preaching. Consider the following passages:Actually, I think the point is not about the method, but about the content. The content was too “in your face” too simplistic. It had nothing to do with the method. They were used to that.
There is no doubt that from the world’s standards our message is foolish also - I don’t debate that at all. But the ACT of preaching is foolish also.That may be (though it’s doubtful). But the point of 1 Corinthians is the message itself, not the method.
So while there are many passages in Scripture that declare the necessity of heralding the gospel, 1 Corinthians is not about that. It is about the message that is foolish.
The parts of speech make no difference.
In my modern day example I could rephrase it:
I went to the store
I drove to the market
I ran to Walmart.
Three sentences; three different nouns; three different verbs; one meaning.
The Bible uses this pattern throughout - from Genesis to Revelation. The uses of different verbs/modifiers/nouns within close proximity to drive home the point.
II Peter 3:10-13 is another great example of this common practice: “pass away…melt…burned up…dissolved…” all pointing to one event ie the destruction of the universe as we know it and then a creation of a new heavens and new earth.
In regards to the lost world’s methods of speaking, they might give great speeches and orations, but they don’t preach. Joel Osteen might be a good speaker, but he is not a preacher. The word “preach” by definition is offensive and meddlesome.
The lost world goes to motivational seminars to hear about how wonderful they are and how great they are. Preaching diminshes humanity and exalts the Lord - the exact opposite effect. Real preaching is negative in regards to humanity. Thus the act of preaching - by definition as I listed in previous posts - is indeed offensive. Only somebody who doesn’t want to be made out to be a fool would not agree. Paul said, “we are fools for Christ’s sake…” and that is exactly how the world views REAL preachers. They can tolerate the Joel Osteen’s, Benny Hinn’s, and Joyce Meyer’s of the world. But they didn’t have much use for the likes of Billy Sunday, Sam Jones, Lester Roloff, et al.
knrugma is used 8 times in the Greek NT
Matt. 12:41, Luke 11:32, Romans 16:25, I Cor. 1:21, 2:4, 15:14; II Tim. 4:17; Titus 1:3
The context of I Cor. 1 is indicated in v. 17 - the idea here is that God’s primary purpose in commissioning Paul was not one particular ACTION (baptism) but a different ACTION (preaching.) Thus the context is clear - we are not discussing the message but the ACT, as v. 17 denotes. Also v. 25 indicates that whatever it is that the world calls foolishness is the very thing that God uses to call His people to Himself. The things this world calls weak are the things that God delights to use. Thus the common interpretation of the passage (as delineated by Larry) is contradicted by the passage itself. The ACT is in view. The reason why God uses what the world calls weak and foolish is given in v. 29.
Preaching is all inclusive of the actual act of delivering the message AND the message itself. If we simply stick to the English definition that I provided it becomes plainly clear. It is impossible to separate the two, unless you belong to the Corinthian church! 8)
In Christ
In my modern day example I could rephrase it:
I went to the store
I drove to the market
I ran to Walmart.
Three sentences; three different nouns; three different verbs; one meaning.
The Bible uses this pattern throughout - from Genesis to Revelation. The uses of different verbs/modifiers/nouns within close proximity to drive home the point.
II Peter 3:10-13 is another great example of this common practice: “pass away…melt…burned up…dissolved…” all pointing to one event ie the destruction of the universe as we know it and then a creation of a new heavens and new earth.
In regards to the lost world’s methods of speaking, they might give great speeches and orations, but they don’t preach. Joel Osteen might be a good speaker, but he is not a preacher. The word “preach” by definition is offensive and meddlesome.
The lost world goes to motivational seminars to hear about how wonderful they are and how great they are. Preaching diminshes humanity and exalts the Lord - the exact opposite effect. Real preaching is negative in regards to humanity. Thus the act of preaching - by definition as I listed in previous posts - is indeed offensive. Only somebody who doesn’t want to be made out to be a fool would not agree. Paul said, “we are fools for Christ’s sake…” and that is exactly how the world views REAL preachers. They can tolerate the Joel Osteen’s, Benny Hinn’s, and Joyce Meyer’s of the world. But they didn’t have much use for the likes of Billy Sunday, Sam Jones, Lester Roloff, et al.
knrugma is used 8 times in the Greek NT
Matt. 12:41, Luke 11:32, Romans 16:25, I Cor. 1:21, 2:4, 15:14; II Tim. 4:17; Titus 1:3
The context of I Cor. 1 is indicated in v. 17 - the idea here is that God’s primary purpose in commissioning Paul was not one particular ACTION (baptism) but a different ACTION (preaching.) Thus the context is clear - we are not discussing the message but the ACT, as v. 17 denotes. Also v. 25 indicates that whatever it is that the world calls foolishness is the very thing that God uses to call His people to Himself. The things this world calls weak are the things that God delights to use. Thus the common interpretation of the passage (as delineated by Larry) is contradicted by the passage itself. The ACT is in view. The reason why God uses what the world calls weak and foolish is given in v. 29.
Preaching is all inclusive of the actual act of delivering the message AND the message itself. If we simply stick to the English definition that I provided it becomes plainly clear. It is impossible to separate the two, unless you belong to the Corinthian church! 8)
In Christ
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
I will bow out with this.
The noun form, κήρυγμα, means “an official announcement, proclamation, the content of a herald’s proclamation; a public declaration, something proclaimed aloud.” Again, nothing there about being offensive or meddlesome.
Again, the contrast with foolishness is that Christ is power and wisdom.
I will just close with a quote from Thiselton in the NIGTC (the footnotes have been dropped in this format):
The parts of speech make no difference.Really? So you don’t believe in formal equivalence translations?
In my modern day example I could rephrase it:No, the verbs are all still verbs. The nouns are still nouns. In 1 Cor 1, you are trying to make a noun into a verbal meaning, when the noun has a meaning.
I went to the store
I drove to the market
I ran to Walmart.
Three sentences; three different nouns; three different verbs; one meaning.
In regards to the lost world’s methods of speaking, they might give great speeches and orations, but they don’t preach. Joel Osteen might be a good speaker, but he is not a preacher. The word “preach” by definition is offensive and meddlesome.Which lexicon did you get this from? I am not aware of any who include “offensive” and “meddlesome” in the definition. Preaching in Scripture takes a number of different forms. The one in question here is κηρύσσω, which means to herald or proclaim. It doesn’t mean to be offensive. BAGD defines it as “to make an official announcement, announce, make known; to make public declarations, proclaim aloud.” I admit to scanning quickly, but I see nothing there about being offensive or meddlesome.
The noun form, κήρυγμα, means “an official announcement, proclamation, the content of a herald’s proclamation; a public declaration, something proclaimed aloud.” Again, nothing there about being offensive or meddlesome.
Paul said, “we are fools for Christ’s sake…”Paul was being sarcastic there, most likely, pointing out the Corinthians pride.
knrugma is used 8 times in the Greek NTAnd as I pointed out, none of them are verbs. They all refer to the content of what was proclaimed. Consider Matt 12:41 and Luke 11:32, where the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah. It was his style or methodology that brought repentance. It was his content—that judgment was coming.
The context of I Cor. 1 is indicated in v. 17 - the idea here is that God’s primary purpose in commissioning Paul was not one particular ACTION (baptism) but a different ACTION (preaching.)Yes, preaching .. ευαγγελιζομαι. But preaching what? The gospel. The κηρυγματος in v. 21 is the same as the gospel. What was being preached was the gospel. What was foolish was the gospel. No man, in his wisdom, would come up with a message of salvation that included a crucified king dying for his people. Man’s wisdom is the other way around—people die for the king.
Thus the context is clear - we are not discussing the message but the ACT, as v. 17 denotes.No, no, no. Read v. 17. What is preached is “the gospel.” That is the “word of the cross.” That is “what was foolish.” That is what caused people to stumble. They didn’t stumble because some guy talked loudly and longly. It was the message that caused them to stumble.
Again, the contrast with foolishness is that Christ is power and wisdom.
Also v. 25 indicates that whatever it is that the world calls foolishness is the very thing that God uses to call His people to Himself.And v. 26 defines that as the people who were called. You can’t boast because you were dumb, weak, and poor when you got saved.
The ACT is in view.Then why didn’t Paul use a verb? There are ways he could have said what you are trying to say. But he didn’t say it. The point of 1 Cor 1:17ff is that we must not change the message because no other message saves.
If we simply stick to the English definition that I provided it becomes plainly clear.I think we should stick to the definition of the word that Paul used.
It is impossible to separate the two, unless you belong to the Corinthian church!That seems a bit like an accusation that I belong to the Corinthian church. Is that what you mean to say?
I will just close with a quote from Thiselton in the NIGTC (the footnotes have been dropped in this format):
We have also explicated what is clearly the meaning of τοῦ κηρύγματος by rendering it of what is proclaimed. Commentators from Meyer (1869) to Wolff (1996) and Horsley (1998) emphasize that the phrase refers to the substance of the preaching (Meyer), or the proclamation of the crucified Christ (Wolff).96 “The word kērygma (KJV ‘preaching’) here means not the act of preaching itself, but the content of that proclamation. This is confirmed by vv. 22–25, which go on to explicate ‘the foolishness of what was preached.’ ”97 The point is worth making, first because the emphasis falls on the limits of natural human inquiry and discovery. Second, Schrage places the emphasis on the divine decree and its basis, not on the mode of communication as such, and on the difference between gospel proclamation and human discovery. It has nothing to do with whether the mode of communication is in a pulpit rather than a variety of modes which may or may not include lectures, dialogue, disputation, or living the gospel out.
Larry asked:
Which lexicon did you get this from? I am not aware of any who include “offensive” and “meddlesome” in the definition. Preaching in Scripture takes a number of different forms. The one in question here is κηρύσσω, which means to herald or proclaim. It doesn’t mean to be offensive. BAGD defines it as “to make an official announcement, announce, make known; to make public declarations, proclaim aloud.” I admit to scanning quickly, but I see nothing there about being offensive or meddlesome.
I provided the definition for the word “preach” in my first post.
Larry missed the point on my “modern examples.” I can say the same thing three different ways.
Larry missed the point of verse 17 - the ACTION of preaching is in view, but the message is related to the act. Check any lexicon on the word “logos” - it is a message, but it is more than just a message - it is the message DELIVERED, thus denoting an action.
Jonah - again, certainly the message brought conversion, but we cannot escape the fact that (1) he was sent, and (2) he had to actually open his mouth and proclaim the message. Without this action, there is no repentance possible.
The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, (Romans 1:16), but Romans 10:14-15 make it clear that if we don’t proclaim that message, nobody can be saved. Thus, the action and the message are linked together. Surely the message from the world’s standpoint is foolish, but our method of proclaiming it is equally foolish in their eyes. The world does not use our method as the Bible defines “preach.”
Let’s face it. Nobody here is an expert in Greek. We are placing way too much emphasis on a dead language that nobody alive truly understands, let alone speaks. We are reading way too much into our little “tools” (lexicons, etc.) and overlooking simply basic logic. The Lord did make the Bible difficult to understand, the commentators in all of their egotistical pride, boasting about their knowledge and education in dead languages are the ones guilty of making the Bible difficult to understand.
Which lexicon did you get this from? I am not aware of any who include “offensive” and “meddlesome” in the definition. Preaching in Scripture takes a number of different forms. The one in question here is κηρύσσω, which means to herald or proclaim. It doesn’t mean to be offensive. BAGD defines it as “to make an official announcement, announce, make known; to make public declarations, proclaim aloud.” I admit to scanning quickly, but I see nothing there about being offensive or meddlesome.
I provided the definition for the word “preach” in my first post.
Larry missed the point on my “modern examples.” I can say the same thing three different ways.
Larry missed the point of verse 17 - the ACTION of preaching is in view, but the message is related to the act. Check any lexicon on the word “logos” - it is a message, but it is more than just a message - it is the message DELIVERED, thus denoting an action.
Jonah - again, certainly the message brought conversion, but we cannot escape the fact that (1) he was sent, and (2) he had to actually open his mouth and proclaim the message. Without this action, there is no repentance possible.
The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, (Romans 1:16), but Romans 10:14-15 make it clear that if we don’t proclaim that message, nobody can be saved. Thus, the action and the message are linked together. Surely the message from the world’s standpoint is foolish, but our method of proclaiming it is equally foolish in their eyes. The world does not use our method as the Bible defines “preach.”
Let’s face it. Nobody here is an expert in Greek. We are placing way too much emphasis on a dead language that nobody alive truly understands, let alone speaks. We are reading way too much into our little “tools” (lexicons, etc.) and overlooking simply basic logic. The Lord did make the Bible difficult to understand, the commentators in all of their egotistical pride, boasting about their knowledge and education in dead languages are the ones guilty of making the Bible difficult to understand.
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
I provided the definition for the word “preach” in my first post.You didn’t provide a definition for the word κηρυσσω or κηρυγματος, and the definitions you gave don’t seem to have anything about “offensive” or “meddlesome.” Don’t you think we should define words biblically?
Larry missed the point on my “modern examples.” I can say the same thing three different ways.No, I got that point. That isn’t the point of the 1 Cor 1 though. Your three ways used the same grammatical construction, and it is different than 1 Cor 1:21, where a noun is used and the noun means “the thing proclaimed” or “the proclamation.” The noun form does not mean the act of preaching.
Larry missed the point of verse 17 - the ACTION of preaching is in view, but the message is related to the act. Check any lexicon on the word “logos” - it is a message, but it is more than just a message - it is the message DELIVERED, thus denoting an action.The action is not in view. The message is in view.
Jonah - again, certainly the message brought conversion, but we cannot escape the fact that (1) he was sent, and (2) he had to actually open his mouth and proclaim the message. Without this action, there is no repentance possible.So God can’t bring repentance without someone standing up and heralding? What about those who are saved because a friend calmly reasons with them over a cup of coffee? Or because they pick up a track someone? It is the message that brings repentance, not the method.
Let’s face it. Nobody here is an expert in Greek.You don’t have to be to look up a word and see what it means.
We are placing way too much emphasis on a dead language that nobody alive truly understands, let alone speaks.There are a lot of people who understand Greek, and it is the language that God inspired his word in. It seems a bit much to say that the language God used is unimportant, doesn’t it?
We are reading way too much into our little “tools” (lexicons, etc.) and overlooking simply basic logic. The Lord did make the Bible difficult to understand, the commentators in all of their egotistical pride, boasting about their knowledge and education in dead languages are the ones guilty of making the Bible difficult to understand.No one is making it hard to understand. I am trying to get to the text where the word inspired by God is an important word. You don’t seem to have a problem using the little tools like an English lexicon as you did on the last page. Why are you bothered by using a lexicon of the language the Bible was originally written in to know what that word meant? It seems inconsistent to me.
The point of 1 Cor 1 is simple: The message of salvation through a dead king is offensive. It doesn’t matter how you communicate it. It is still an offensive message. It is a message that cannot be spiritually grasped apart from the supernatural work of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14ff.). It must be proclaimed and taught. But the point of 1 Cor 1:21 is on the offensive of the message preached, which is why every modern translation translates it that way.
But alas, I think the point has been made. So I will close with this.
Preaching the word is absolutely necessary.
1 Cor 1:21 is not about the act of preaching, but about the message preached.
Let’s not confuse or conflate the two.
Larry, we are not going to convince each other, so it is pointless to continue.
I gave you definitions.
I gave you verses.
All you have done is cling to your preconceived idea and read that into all the evidence, even when the evidence is contrary to your position.
Your sidestepping around the example of Jonah is absolutely ridiculous. He had to go to Nineveh (action) and he had to open his mouth and speak (action.) The speaking is PART OF the message - it cannot be separated. The definition for “logon” which I provided demonstrates this. Did you skip that post??? Or just conveniently ignore it?
Paul is reminding the Corinthians that he was sent to PREACH the gospel - v. 17. The gospel is the message, but the message must be preached. It is useless if we just let it sit. It must be advanced. The message is not in view in v. 17, where the thought in view is the METHOD AND ACTION of delivering the message. Verses 18 and 21 are continuations of that thought. That is simple, basic grammar. No amount of “defining” and looking for “nuances” can change that fact.
Moving on…
In Christ
I gave you definitions.
I gave you verses.
All you have done is cling to your preconceived idea and read that into all the evidence, even when the evidence is contrary to your position.
Your sidestepping around the example of Jonah is absolutely ridiculous. He had to go to Nineveh (action) and he had to open his mouth and speak (action.) The speaking is PART OF the message - it cannot be separated. The definition for “logon” which I provided demonstrates this. Did you skip that post??? Or just conveniently ignore it?
Paul is reminding the Corinthians that he was sent to PREACH the gospel - v. 17. The gospel is the message, but the message must be preached. It is useless if we just let it sit. It must be advanced. The message is not in view in v. 17, where the thought in view is the METHOD AND ACTION of delivering the message. Verses 18 and 21 are continuations of that thought. That is simple, basic grammar. No amount of “defining” and looking for “nuances” can change that fact.
Moving on…
In Christ
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
I gave you definitions.But you didn’t interact with the biblical definition, so far as I can tell.
I gave you verses.But didn’t interact with them.
All you have done is cling to your preconceived idea and read that into all the evidence, even when the evidence is contrary to your positionI actually used to hold your position, and I switched when I started studying it and realized that Paul used a noun not a verb. I reacted the same way you did when I first came across this. I said, “This is minimizinig the God-ordained means of preaching.” But the more I studied, the more it became clear what Paul was saying.
Your sidestepping around the example of Jonah is absolutely ridiculous.I didn’t sidestep it. I think I am the one who brought it up. The repentance at Nineveh was due to his message, not particularly his messages.
There’s no dispute that “He had to go to Nineveh (action) and he had to open his mouth and speak (action.) The speaking is PART OF the message - it cannot be separated.” But the focus of 1 cor 1:21 is the “message preached.” The Jews didn’t stumble at the method. They were used to do that. They stumbled at the message: a crucified Messiah. The Greeks didn’t find the method foolish. They were used to that. It was the message that was foolish to them.
The definition for “logon” which I provided demonstrates this. Did you skip that post??? Or just conveniently ignore it?As I recall, it didn’t make your point.
Paul is reminding the Corinthians that he was sent to PREACH the gospel - v. 17To preach THE GOSPEL. The gospel is what saves, not the method of communication.
That is simple, basic grammar. No amount of “defining” and looking for “nuances” can change that fact.I agree. the simple basic grammar is that the word kerugmatos in v. 21 is a noun that mean a proclamation or a thing proclaimed. Look it up. Have you even done that yet? You are trying to change it into a verb.
Larry, you went to v. 21. The context is v. 17. Paul was sent to PREACH (action) as opposed to baptize (action). The thought is carried through the passage. Yes he was sent to preach THE GOSPEL, but that is not the point of verse 17. The verse is not dealing with the message but the method and activity God had called him to do. The method (carrying the thought into the next verse) is foolish. Contrary to your opinion, which is baseless, the world does not consider plain Bible preaching normal. They tell us all the time. The world’s method is used by JOel Osteen. The world has no problem with his kind. The bible method is Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, who were all shunned and despised by their own people. The list is too long for here, but God-called preachers go contrary to the world’s methods and message. Speaking is not foolish, but preaching is, in the eyes of the world. Thus God chose this method to advance His gospel. Paul reiterates this point in chapter 2:1-5,
The definitions prove my point. It has nothing to do with “changing verbs into nouns” etc. Participles are verbs used as adjectives. Gerunds are verbs used as nouns. Many words can be used as both a verb or a noun. Language is fluid, not set in concrete. That is why I made my comments about our knowledge of Greek. Our knowledge is limited, scant, and minimal. We do not grasp the fluidity of the language enough to truly understand what the Greek text is driving at. We instead base many (wrong) assumptions on limited facts, limited vocabulary, limited understanding of the language, which is all too concrete. Language is alive; it moves, breathes, shifts, changes, and has many exceptions to it.
When all else fails, I will just stick with the Old KJV!!! :bigsmile:
Larry, thanks for the interaction.
In Christ
The definitions prove my point. It has nothing to do with “changing verbs into nouns” etc. Participles are verbs used as adjectives. Gerunds are verbs used as nouns. Many words can be used as both a verb or a noun. Language is fluid, not set in concrete. That is why I made my comments about our knowledge of Greek. Our knowledge is limited, scant, and minimal. We do not grasp the fluidity of the language enough to truly understand what the Greek text is driving at. We instead base many (wrong) assumptions on limited facts, limited vocabulary, limited understanding of the language, which is all too concrete. Language is alive; it moves, breathes, shifts, changes, and has many exceptions to it.
When all else fails, I will just stick with the Old KJV!!! :bigsmile:
Larry, thanks for the interaction.
In Christ
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
Discussion