Is Preaching Mandatory?

“it pleased God through the foolishness of the message”

Preaching or proclaiming (κήρυγμα) was quite common, it simply is a term for public communication. Citizens of all kinds used this form of communication because it was one of the most accepted modes of mass communication, in fact the predominate form. The mode of communication is never what the NT presents as the center of controversy, it is the information being communicated, the gospel, that is the source of controversy.

This is purposely amplified in vs 21

“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

What is it God is making foolish? The wisdom of this world, the content of their doctrine, i.e. the information being communicated is being made foolish, not the method. The method is not in view, it is irrelevant to the point being made.

And what is it that makes it (this world’s wisdom) foolish? The message the world itself calls foolish, the gospel, hence they are being contrasted. This world’s wisdom is foolish to God and to the world, the gospel is foolish. It is the outrage caused by and audacity of the message of the gospel to the ears of worldlings for which believers have been mocked, scorned, tortured and slaughtered.

[Stephen Schwenke] The bible method is Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, who were all shunned and despised by their own people.

They were despised because of their message.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Stephen Schwenke] The bible method is Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, who were all shunned and despised by their own people.

They were despised because of their message.

BUT

the Bible says “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: (v.29) For he taught them as one having authority, and NOT AS THE SCRIBES.” (Matthew 7:28-29)

Why were they astonished at His doctrine? Not only for the content, but for the MANNER in which He spoke. It does not match the lost world’s version of speaking, and thus it is MORE than just the message, it is the method and manner in which the message is delivered. The message of the world’s wisdom is coupled to their method of delivering their message. They use slick, smooth, positive, sales gimmicks and psychology, and maybe even some emotionalism. Paul didn’t - see I Cor. 2:1-5, II Cor. 10:10 and II Cor. 11:6. If Paul’s method doesn’t answer the question, then I don’t know what will. He purposefully avoided using his education, and appeared foolish to the world by NOT using eloquent, educated, philosophical, psycho-babble to impress people with his great intellectual ability. He spoke plainly, authoritatively, coarsely, and powerfully. If anyone here thinks the lost world uses these methods, maybe those individuals either (a) don’t have any experience with the lost world’s methods, or (b) have been duped into accepting them as normal, and have adopted those methods as legitimate for the preaching of the gospel.

And again, Alex, you jumped right into v. 21 and ignored Paul’s starting point - v. 17. Paul was sent to PREACH, and his preaching was foolish. It is the act in v. 17 that is in view, and the rest of the passage continues that thought. The context is not found at the END of the passage, but at the beginning.

There is a marked contrast between the false prophets of the OT, not only in the contents of their message, but in how they delivered that message.

See Elijah in I Kings 18

See Micaiah in I Kings 22:1-28

There are many other passages, but these two passages demonstrate that it is both the MESSAGE and the METHOD of delivery that are opposite.

In Christ,

Well Stephen, I will say hermeneutically speaking I certainly haven’t run into any school teaching your view of the passages so, it appears with me too, our dialects or vocabulary are too far removed from each other to go beyond disagreeing.

I believe the fact that we are even debating this point only proves MY point. There is something about plain, old-fashioned, “hellfire and brimstone” preaching that people don’t like. the Corinthian believers didn’t like it; modern lukewarm, mediocre Christians don’t like it; many others don’t either. A Spirit-filled Christian loves it, and gets as much of it as he can.

PS - I didn’t get this from any school. I just read the Bible as it is without any preconceived notions. The Bible is right - my thoughts and opinions are irrelevant. My job is simply to take what it says, believe it, and practice it. Many others have believed as I do about this passage; it is the all-wise “scholars” who seem bent on changing it from the plain sense of the passage. The rest only bought into what the “scholars” said without any reservation about it. Are the “scholars” the final authority or is the Bible?

I checked all this out with the TR, CT, lexicons, concordances, dictionaries, et al, etc, and yet find no reason to change the wording or meaning of the KJV. My previous posts lay out the basis of my case. I checked every reference to karugma and karusso, as well as logos and lego, not to mention euangelizzo. I did my homework. We can’t determine the meaning of a word in a foreign language without understanding how it is used consistently in varying places. Since the new versions agree with the KJV in all other places, there is no basis for changing it here.

No one is challenging the translation, it is your interpretive hermeneutic which grammatically challenges some fundamental rules. Nevertheless, thanks for contributing your views.

[Stephen Schwenke]

PS - I didn’t get this from any school. I just read the Bible as it is without any preconceived notions. The Bible is right - my thoughts and opinions are irrelevant. My job is simply to take what it says, believe it, and practice it.

This reminds me of the quote by Alexander Campbell: “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me and am as much on my guard as reading them through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” (Not sure of the original source, I remembered it from Nathan Hatch’s excellent The Democritization of American Christian and then googled it)

Besides the fact that both you and Cambell seem to think that what you say is possible, you both seem to regard such an approach to the Scriptures as a positive thing. I don’t think, even here among Fundamentalists, many people would regard what you say as positive, Stephen. I may be wrong, though.

Contrary to your opinion, which is baseless

Regardless of how you might feel about my view, it is not baseless. It is the predominant view of those who study the book of 1 Corinthians. Disagree if you will, but there is a very solid base for the view I have espoused.

It is the gospel which is foolish, no matter how you communicate it.

[Joseph]

[Stephen Schwenke]

PS - I didn’t get this from any school. I just read the Bible as it is without any preconceived notions. The Bible is right - my thoughts and opinions are irrelevant. My job is simply to take what it says, believe it, and practice it.

This reminds me of the quote by Alexander Campbell: “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me and am as much on my guard as reading them through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” (Not sure of the original source, I remembered it from Nathan Hatch’s excellent The Democritization of American Christian and then googled it)

Besides the fact that both you and Cambell seem to think that what you say is possible, you both seem to regard such an approach to the Scriptures as a positive thing. I don’t think, even here among Fundamentalists, many people would regard what you say as positive, Stephen. I may be wrong, though.

Thanks for lumping me in with the Campbellites. I hardly think what I am advancing here is on the same line as Campbell, who taught heresy. So I am teaching heresy????

Ridiculous!!! To me, this only further proves my point…

[Larry]

Contrary to your opinion, which is baseless

Regardless of how you might feel about my view, it is not baseless. It is the predominant view of those who study the book of 1 Corinthians. Disagree if you will, but there is a very solid base for the view I have espoused.

It is the gospel which is foolish, no matter how you communicate it.

I am saying that the predominant view is baseless. You are merely repeating what so many others have said. It doesn’t matter how many people repeat the same error, it is still error.

[Stephen Schwenke] [

Thanks for lumping me in with the Campbellites. I hardly think what I am advancing here is on the same line as Campbell, who taught heresy. So I am teaching heresy????

Ridiculous!!! To me, this only further proves my point…

Such a histrionic response does not advance the conversation. Your inference is hardly in keeping with what I wrote. The rather obvious point was that your approach to Scripture is similar to Campbell in some respects - there were many primitivists besides Campbell, and primitivism runs deep in American religion, especially Fundamentalism. If you have not read Hatch’s book, I could not overstate it’s significance in American religious history. It’s excellent, well worth reading.

Nouns formed from verbs with the -μα suffix usually indicate the object or result of the verb, rather than the action of the verb. For example:

πνευμα (spirit) derives from the Attic πνευματοω , meaning roughly to blow into or inflate. Thus, πνευμα is effectively “the thing blown in,” most likely tracing back to the creation story and similar creation myths, where the spirit of man is depicted as being blown into his body.

ενδυμα (garment) derives from ενδυω (to put on clothing), thus meaning “that which is put on.”

ονομα (name) derives from ονομαινω (to call a name, to name), thus meaning “name” or “the result of naming”

κριμα (resolution, judgement, verdict) derives from κρινω (to judge), thus being the result of the judging.

επιβλημα (patch) derives from επιβαλλω (to place upon), obviously being “that which is placed on [something] “

Many more examples could be deduced, but the point is that -μα endings (almost) never refer to the action itself. πνευμα never means “the act of blowing.” Ενδυμα never means “the act of putting on.” Ονομα never means “the act of naming.” So, I find it highly unlikely that κηρυγμα means “the act of preaching.” It would be better translated “message,” “sermon” (in appropriate contexts, or “proclamation” (referring again to the result, not the act). Now, I’m not saying that 100% of the time -μα class nouns will behave this way, but 100% consistency frankly doesn’t exist in language. If there is any ambiguity, it is leagues safer to side on “message preached” rather than “the act of preaching.”

Furthermore, gerunds (verbal nouns emphasizing the “act” of something) are unusual in both Greek and Latin. On the rare occasions that a Greek writer is highlighting the “act” of something, he is most likely to use an articular infinitive. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:39 ζηλουτε το προφητευειν και το λαλειν μη κωλυετε γλωσσαις Here, the infinitives το προφητευειν and το λαλειν refer to the act of prophesying and the act of speaking.

BTW, there are people in the world who can read and compose Greek quite proficiently. Obviously, the fact that we have English translations means that someone must be doing that. I personally know a man who, on a trip to Greece, spoke only Koine for 2 weeks (Koine is still relatively understandable for Modern Greeks) and runs an institute teaching people to speak Koine and Classical Hebrew. So, the level of classical language acquisition by top level scholars is quite higher than you think.

[Stephen Schwenke]

[Joseph]

[Stephen Schwenke]

PS - I didn’t get this from any school. I just read the Bible as it is without any preconceived notions. The Bible is right - my thoughts and opinions are irrelevant. My job is simply to take what it says, believe it, and practice it.

This reminds me of the quote by Alexander Campbell: “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me and am as much on my guard as reading them through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” (Not sure of the original source, I remembered it from Nathan Hatch’s excellent The Democritization of American Christian and then googled it)

Besides the fact that both you and Cambell seem to think that what you say is possible, you both seem to regard such an approach to the Scriptures as a positive thing. I don’t think, even here among Fundamentalists, many people would regard what you say as positive, Stephen. I may be wrong, though.

Thanks for lumping me in with the Campbellites. I hardly think what I am advancing here is on the same line as Campbell, who taught heresy. So I am teaching heresy????

Ridiculous!!! To me, this only further proves my point…

Stephen,

I’ve observed this thread for a few days, and I’ve seen your rhetoric continually ratchet up in intensity. Perhaps it’s time you take a break from this one, brother.

I am saying that the predominant view is baseless. You are merely repeating what so many others have said. It doesn’t matter how many people repeat the same error, it is still error.

So if i hear you correctly, you are saying that the view of those who have spent their lives studying the Bible in the original languages, who understand Greek, and the use and formation of Greek words, don’t know what they are talking about? Is that really what you mean to say?

You are right that no matter how people repeat an error, it’s still an error. But isn’t that also true when only one person repeats it?

BTW, did you know that the English word “preaching” refers to the message itself rather than the act of preaching?

[Larry]

I am saying that the predominant view is baseless. You are merely repeating what so many others have said. It doesn’t matter how many people repeat the same error, it is still error.

So if i hear you correctly, you are saying that the view of those who have spent their lives studying the Bible in the original languages, who understand Greek, and the use and formation of Greek words, don’t know what they are talking about? Is that really what you mean to say?

You are right that no matter how people repeat an error, it’s still an error. But isn’t that also true when only one person repeats it?

BTW, did you know that the English word “preaching” refers to the message itself rather than the act of preaching?

So you are saying that your view is the ONLY view??? Nobody has ever taught my view until I came along in 2009???

By the way, I provided the definition for “preach” in my first post on the subject. It is the ACT, but the action is connected to the message. The one cannot survive without the other.

[Matthew Olmstead]

[Stephen Schwenke]

[Joseph]

[Stephen Schwenke]

PS - I didn’t get this from any school. I just read the Bible as it is without any preconceived notions. The Bible is right - my thoughts and opinions are irrelevant. My job is simply to take what it says, believe it, and practice it.

This reminds me of the quote by Alexander Campbell: “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me and am as much on my guard as reading them through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.” (Not sure of the original source, I remembered it from Nathan Hatch’s excellent The Democritization of American Christian and then googled it)

Besides the fact that both you and Cambell seem to think that what you say is possible, you both seem to regard such an approach to the Scriptures as a positive thing. I don’t think, even here among Fundamentalists, many people would regard what you say as positive, Stephen. I may be wrong, though.

Thanks for lumping me in with the Campbellites. I hardly think what I am advancing here is on the same line as Campbell, who taught heresy. So I am teaching heresy????

Ridiculous!!! To me, this only further proves my point…

Stephen,

I’ve observed this thread for a few days, and I’ve seen your rhetoric continually ratchet up in intensity. Perhaps it’s time you take a break from this one, brother.

OK, so I am the problem, even though I responded to someone who accused me of heresy with the “guilt by association” tactic….no, that doesn’t follow. Joseph is out of line in his comments…I would think that somebody would pick up on that…

So you are saying that your view is the ONLY view??? Nobody has ever taught my view until I came along in 2009???

No, never said that. I said my position was “predominant.” I think it is. I don’t know any expositor or commentator or author that holds your position (but I may simply not know enough). But I know you hold your position, and I have heard it from others. So your view has been taught.

Is it correct? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think it can be sustained from the text. I think, in the text, when Paul wanted to talk about the act of preaching (as in v. 17), he typically (if not always) used a verb, not a noun (as in v. 21). Look up the definition of the noun kerugma, -atos, and see what it means. That should answer the question. Why not do that. Look up kerugma and post the definition of it here for us.

By the way, I provided the definition for “preach” in my first post on the subject. It is the ACT, but the action is connected to the message. The one cannot survive without the other.

The message exists whether or not it is preached. And the message can be communicated clearly and effectively in ways others than a monologue whose goal is to be offensive to people. So I dispute your definition of preaching as given throughout the thread as being consistent with the complete picture the NT gives of preaching.

[Stephen Schwenke]

OK, so I am the problem, even though I responded to someone who accused me of heresy with the “guilt by association” tactic….no, that doesn’t follow. Joseph is out of line in his comments…I would think that somebody would pick up on that…

Well, I don’t see where anyone has called you a heretic, but, frankly, you’re losing this discussion. Carry on, though.

Stephen,

I think Joseph’s comments, as I understand them, were about a similar method of handling Scripture, not about a similar conclusion (i.e., heresy). I think you read a bit much into that.

the meaning of kerusso

Not to be pedantic, but the word kerusso is not used in v. 21. The word is kerugmatos. It is the noun form of the verb kerusso. Those committed to a formal equivalence in translation must see “foolishness of the proclamation or message preached” because it has to treat it as a noun, not a verb (which is how Stephen is treating it).

I agree with your for the most part.

I believe there is something significant in the authoritative declaration of a herald that sets it apart at some level from mere dialogue over coffee. I do think there is a place in the church for uninterrupted monologue because that is often the only way to communicate a coherent points. As all teachers know, many questions tend to lead away from the subject, not towards it. Out of four teaching sessions a week at our church, three of them are very interactive/dialogish (to make up a word). Only the Sun AM message is strictly monologue (aside from the occasional rhetorical question, or group answer). I am not opposed to those who do it differently, necessarily. That is just the way that we have found it works well here.

I don’t think it requires the goal of being offensive.

All that aside, I am not against preaching in the least. I am not against authoritative preaching (thought I don’t confuse that with yelling louder or sweating profusely). Authoritative preaching can be done in a very calm, well-reasoned manner.

My only point is that 1 Cor 1:21 is about the “message preached,” not about the manner of communication.

[Larry] I

All that aside, I am not against preaching in the least. I am not against authoritative preaching (thought I don’t confuse that with yelling louder or sweating profusely). Authoritative preaching can be done in a very calm, well-reasoned manner.

I agree - I am not arguing the style of the preacher, just that preaching is foolish to the world.

Charlie, your points about Greek Grammar are inconclusive. You have admitted that there are exceptions. That is what I was driving at when I stated that language is fluid, not concrete. Those who are in disagreement with me are taking a rule, which admittedly has exceptions, and are attempting to stamp that rule in concrete. Is there any legitimate reason why this passage cannot be an exception? I have been reviewing the text again today in preparation for teaching tomorrow, and the context seems clear to me. The method the world chooses to use (wisdom) is contrary to God’s method (preaching.)

I just think that our understanding of the Greek here is incomplete, or rather that we are reading more into it than is necessary.

Matthew - it is not about “winning or losing”, it is about being faithful to the text. It does not bother me if nobody else agrees. Many times in debate, “losing” is in the eyes of the beholder. I have posted the definitions, checked the references in Greek and English, for all words in connection with this discussion. My conclusion does not violate any points of definition, context, grammar, or logic. I have not seen any conclusive proof to override my conclusion. I understand the points being made, and I understand that the message is important and foolish in and of itself. I don’t disagree with that. But the chosen method God has selected for propagating that message is also foolish. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Mohammed, etc, et al might SPEAK, but they don’t PREACH. The entire system of Biblical Christianity is contrary to the world’s system, including the method in which we advance our belief systems.

Moving on…

Promise… :)

Thanks for clarifying Steve, I thought you wre trying to argue style. I am glad that you were not.

Sorry guys, but I was studying something completely different, and came across this interesting tidbit:

Main Entry:1wor·ship

Pronunciation:ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-

Function:noun

Etymology:Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship

Date:before 12th century

1chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)

2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power ; also : an act of expressing such reverence

3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

4: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Notice, this is listed under the NOUN listings, but the definition reflects ACTION. I was startled by this - I would have thought this highlighted portion would have fit better under the VERB headings, but it is placed under NOUN headings….

Kinda makes me think the whole argument advanced about kerugma and logon being nouns does not add up to all the hype…IMO

moving on….