Truth Magazine

By Bob Waldron

When Mike Willis called and asked me to write something in honor of the Golden Wedding Anniversary of the Lees, I was happy to oblige. Since I did not know exactly what Mike had in mind, I have tried to decide the best approach to take. As I think of the Lees, I find .the emotions of admiration and gratitude and deep affection vying with one another in my mind. Maybe these thoughts can be expressed as I say something in tribute to them.

Some might wonder who in the world I am and why I should be writing this. It is my great blessing to have married Sandra, the younger daughter of the Lees. Much of what I know about the Lees has come through what I see in Sandra.

It was over twenty-five years ago I first saw and heard anything of the Lees. That was Sandra. She was working in the business office of Florida College. I did not realize it then, but a pattern was being set: I gave her a check for $250.00. She gave me a receipt. She does not give receipts now! For some reason I saved that receipt and now a worn, darkened slip of paper with the initials SL adorns one of our scrap books as documentary proof of our very first meeting. As an incredibly backward, ignorant boy, my first meeting Sandra and, through her, her parents, was one of the best things that ever happened to me. Sandra had some boys to show her interest because she was, Irven Lee’s daughter. That was not my motive because I had no idea who Irven Lee was at the time. I just did not realize what a bonus I was getting in having the Lees as in-laws.

Through the years, the Lee’s family, or tribe as Daddy Lee calls it, has consisted of Judy, her husband, Wayne Moore, their two sons, Kirk and Kevan, Sandra and me, and our children, Laura and Ryan. Recently our -be expanded a little with the marriage of Laura to Scott Black.

When one tries to say what twenty-five years of association with this tribe has meant, the mind becomes a kaleidoscope of memories and emotions. There has been the usual mixture of good with some bad. I think we would all agree that our visits together when the grandchildren were little are the very essence of pleasant memories.

Mommie Lee, Sandra, and Judy all have the remarkable ability to talk and listen simultaneously. Daddy Lee could always break in by saying, “Uh,” then pausing until it was quiet, but Wayne and I have just had to bide our time until there was an opening. He and I have spent much time biding. The conversation is always scintillating, very fast-paced, and very comprehensive in subject matter.

Mommie and Daddy Lee are simply two of the very finest people I have ever known. They have some flaws as does everyone, but I have never known two more godly people. They never slip out of character. They move through this world and its wickedness without ever soiling their robes. What one sees of them in public is the same anywhere. Their deep love for God and His will is their guiding light, their spiritual energy. Their enemies could follow them about and try to catch them in wrongdoing and, as the case of Daniel, their enemies would fail (Dan. 6:4-5).

They are fun-loving and enjoy good humor, but holiness is ever about them. Both of them are devout students of the Bible. Their family life with their two little girls was conducted so that the world with its corruption was kept far away. Yet so deeply was faith and commitment to God instilled in Judy and Sandra that when they faced the assault of the world, their shield proved strong and their armor complete.

I learned much of life and character from my parents, but what I have become now is due in large part to the influence of the Lees through their daughter Sandra. Honor, responsibility, joy in hard work, a pure, unselfish love and incredible devotion to any cause espoused is what I have seen and what I have learned from them.

Naturally, Mommie and Daddy Lee are not the same. They are remarkably different in many of their characteristics. In their own way, both are noble characters. Daddy Lee has spent himself unstintingly in the Lord’s work. He has preached more sermons than most men of his or any other generation. He has established more churches than anyone of this modern era that I know of. At home though, he had an incomparable keeper of the fires. I have told him before, that he could have summarized all his advice on rearing children and having a good home by saying to be sure and marry a woman who would love her husband and children and who would share with those children her own childlike delight in the stories of God’s marvelous works, and who would provide the discipline and the moral stamina they would need.

Mommie Lee is the center of the home. Through thick and thin, she has given herself to her husband and to her children. She is a woman who has chosen to exercise her very considerable intellectual gifts in attaining a profound understanding of God’s word and in sharing her knowledge and insight through classes and through the written word.

One of the things that has impressed me most about their marriage is that there are enough differences in personality and temperament in Mommie and Daddy Lee that if their marriage had been in the spirit of this age, they might have gone their separate ways. But to them, marriage was a sacred commitment in the eyes of God, not only to remain together, but to love one another. This they have done and have taught their children to do.

How heavy upon my shoulders do the challenges of the future lie when I contemplate life without them. Yet, as they celebrate their fiftieth anniversary and mark this milestone well toward the end of their journey, I take comfort in knowing that their influence will help to guide us. I know that they can rejoice in the anticipation of heaven, and all of us, both family and friends, hope that they can also find satisfaction in knowing they have provided us with a legacy more precious than gold.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, pp. 273, 277
May 1, 1986

By Dick Blackford

Some Questions And Answers

“. . . but if he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican ” (Mt. 18:17).

“. . . mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned. and turn away from them” (Rom. 16.17).

“. . . I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no, not to eat” (1 Cor. 5.11).

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jew Christ, that)v withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly. . . ” (2 Thess. 3:6).

“And If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

“A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse. . . ” (Tit. 3:10).

Question 1: Why is it that many churches do not practice withdrawal as the Bible teaches?

Answer: There are several possibilities. It may be for any of the following reasons: (1) Because it is unpleasant. Parents ruin their children by claiming they love them too much to discipline them. The same thing can happen to children of God. Refusing to administer corrective discipline when needed actually indicates a lack of love. If we love the Lord and our brethren we will fulfill both the pleasant and unpleasant duties given to us. (2) Because it is abused. Nothing has been more abused than baptism, but should we quit practicing scriptural baptism? (3) Because of fear. There is fear of what others will think, fear of retaliation, and fear of hurting someone’s feelings. “. . perfect love casteth out fear, . . . he that feareth is not made perfect in love” (1 Jn. 4:18). (4) Because of ignorance. This shows a need to study. And though we may not always understand God’s motive (Deut. 29:29), it is still necessary to obey. When we do come to an understanding we will be able to see that it was good for us all along (Rom. 8:28). (5) Because of rebellion. It may be that some are not really serious about Christianity. Let it not be so.

Question 2: What means does God use to discipline His erring children?

Answer: I speak facetiously, but He could have chosen that the disorderly one be turned over an elder’s knee while another elder delivered a thrashing commensurate to the sins committed, but He did not. Instead, He has chosen that we “withdraw ourselves” as one means. We must quit keeping social company with the one who won’t repent. No more hunting, fishing, golfing, sewing, shopping, picnics, games, etc. until there is true repentance.

Question 3: For what sins are we to withdraw from one?

Answer: This question is easier answered than it appears. We must “withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6). Every known sin for which a man will not repent causes him to be subject to withdrawal. Difficulty may come in determining if a sin has been committed. For example, we are not to keep company with a covetous brother (1 Cor. 5:11). Unless one openly admits this sin, it is not always easily perceived. This writer’s judgment is that a church is out of place in hiring a detective agency or expecting the preacher to become a “private eye” in such cases. Such situations must be handled with all care – and prayer.

Question 4: What does “with such an one, no not to eat” mean (1 Cor. 5:11)?

Answer: Just what it says. This is the extent to which we are to withdraw. The Lord intended that we get the point, so He showed the extent to which it is to be carried. We are trying to bring the erring to repentance. If we grow lax in following the Lord’s teaching, the chastening will lose its effect. Some have failed to take all that the Bible says on this subject. They think so long as they don’t eat with an unrepentant member that they can still keep company in all other ways. But we are not to “keep company” (socialize) of any kind. (This, of course, does not refer to incidental eating such as in a restaurant, at school or work, etc.). Difficulty in obeying this command should not keep us from understanding it.

Some have suggested that this means we are not to eat the Lord’s Supper with the withdrawee. The Bible does not teach closed communion. Each man is to examine himself regarding the Supper (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

Question 5: What if a person ties about his sins and there is no way of knowing?

Answer: We are not responsible for things beyond our control. The Lord never expects more of us than we can perform (Mt. 25:14-30). He will take care of the matter on judgment day.

Question 6: Are we guilty of judging when we decide to withdraw (Mt. 7:1-5)?

Answer: There is some judgment involved, but no guilt if done properly (1 Cor. 5:3,12,13). Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for trying to get the mote from another’s eye. They were condemned for not getting the beam out of their own eye. He told them “first cast the beam out of thine own eye and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Mt. 7:5). (This is probably the most often quoted and most misunderstood passage in the Bible.) We are commanded to “judge righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24).

Question 7: Is it wrong for the withdrawors to speak to the withdrawee?

Answer: Some have thought that “keep no company” means we should turn up our noses at the erring. God forbid! “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). Our association with the erring should be for spiritual reasons, not social.

Question 8: Isn’t withdrawal individual action? Where do we get authority to read a letter before the church?

Answer: Withdrawal is both an individual and a congregational matter. We withdraw ourselves (individuals) (2 Thess. 3:6). But this results when one refuses to hear the church (Mt. 18:17). The withdrawal announcement is to take place when we are “gathered together” (1 Cor. 5:4). Reading the letter is an expedient way of carrying this out. The information could be conveyed in other ways that are not as expedient. Remember though, it is just an announcement and not the withdrawal itself. The withdrawing is to take place in the life of each Christian after the announcement has been made. Our duty is not fulfilled just by reading a letter before the church, but the Scriptures do necessarily infer that some kind of an announcement be made.

Question 9: How long should brethren wait before withdrawing from a disorderly person?

Answer: This cannot be answered in terms of days, weeks, or months. So far as I know, the Bible does not mention a “grace period” consisting of so much time. Brethren must use mature judgment in such cases since the Lord has not told us how long to wait. However, there are two dangers that we should avoid: (1) Being too “quick on the draw” (or “withdraw” in this case). Punitive discipline is for those who refuse to repent. Effort should be made to restore the fallen (Gal. 6:1). There is no need for punitive discipline if the erring person is willing to repent when we seek to restore him. (2) Procrastinating, hoping for a change of mind which may never come. What parents would wait several months before correcting a child for a wrong deed? “Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11).

When it is determined that a brother or a sister is walking disorderly and refuses to repent, withdrawal should then be practiced. It is a command of God (2 Thess. 3:6,14).

Question 10: What if the withdrawee is a member of one’s own household?

Answer: This is probably the only exception. One command does not cancel out another and withdrawal was not designed to destroy the family. However, the realm of the home is not merely a social thing. It is a divine and permanent relationship. We are not to stop fulfilling our roles and responsibilities to other family members (Eph. 5:22,23; 6:1-3). Even then, one should not act so as to condone or encourage the sinning child of God in any way.

Question 11: Won’t withdrawing drive people away?

Answer: That depends on the kind of people you have in mind. It may drive away the worldly minded. But it will draw those who respect godliness, love the Lord, and want to go to heaven. Our primary concern should be quality, not quantity. On the other hand, it may be the very thing (and the only thing) that will shake up and wake up those who are drifting rapidly over the falls to destruction.

“Deliver such a one unto Satan . . . that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Some must be “snatched from the fire” (Jude 23).

Question 12: How can we withdraw from those who have already quit assembling?

Answer: Forsaking the assembling does not seem like such a bad thing to most folks. It isn’t immoral and other sins are far worse, they reason. However, it is far more serious than most realize, for it involves other sins. There is the failure to remember the Lord’s death in the way He has taught us (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Who can say immorality is worse than this? The command to sing praise to the Creator is omitted (Eph. 5:19). There is a refusal to teach and admonish others through congregational singing (Col. 3:16). Also, there is the responsibility to support the Lord’s work by the contributing of one’s means (1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 9:7). More than likely such a person has laid an occasion of stumbling in the way of another (Mt. 18:7). Who can say these are not serious matters? The Bible does not teach that sins of immorality are worse than religious sins. It is a man-made distinction.

Question 13: What should be the attitude of the one we are seeking to restore?

Answer: Naturally, we would hope he would show a willngness to repent. Sometimes, though, the person will refuse to discuss the problem. Should elders be forced to wait until such people “get in the mood” to talk? That could involve several years of waiting. The rebellious have long sought for ways in which they could gain an upper hand against the Lord. This and the “floating membership” concept (“I never identified with that congregation – even though it’s the only one I attend – so they can’t withdraw from me!”) have often been used. But when one is unwilling to discuss reasons for his unfaithfulness it is evident that he is unwilling to repent. His attitude should be that recorded in Luke 15:21.

Question 14: Is one congregation bound to accept the withdrawal decisions of another congregation?

Answer: No. Each congregation is independent and selfgoverning and cannot issue edicts for, or receive them from, other congregations. It could be that a congregation has abused the Bible’s teaching on withdrawal. Another congregation would certainly not have to submit to that! However, this does not mean that another congregation’s withdrawals should be ignored. Common sense would tell us that an investigation should be made. Indeed, in this age when many church jumpers think they have found a flaw in God’s plan and would use it to their sinful advantage, we should be extremely careful.

Question 15: If one who has “quit the church ” starts attending again, doesn’t this show that he has repented and can be used in the services?

Answer: The only way it might would be if we could read the person’s mind. No one can do that (1 Cor. 2:11) and it would end up being a “guessing game.” A person can change his habits without changing his mind about past conduct. One may commit several murders and then decide to quit murdering (for various reasons other than repentance). But if he does not repent of those murders he committed, he is still guilty. Cessation from wrongful deeds does not necessarily prove that one has repented of them.

If a quitter starts attending again without letting us know in some way (a confession) that he has repented, and we call on him to take part, we are acting as though nothing happened and may be endangering that person’s eternal welfare by giving him a false sense of security. The Corinthians were rebuked for continuing to act toward an unrepentant brother as though nothing had happened (1 Cor. 5). Before a man was to be appointed as a deacon, he was to prove himself (1 Tim. 3: 10). Again, common sense would tell us the same thing about anyone before he is used for a particular work.

Question 16: What are the consequences of not withdrawing from the disorderly?

Answer: (1) We displease God and place our own souls in jeopardy. (2) We may cause those needing correction to be lost. (3) The congregation becomes a haven for every religious misfit. This happens when people look to the church for what they can get from it socially. What we gain from the church socially should come as a by-product of being a Christian and not be looked on as an end in itself. (4) Respect for the church is lost by outsiders. The church becomes no different than any social club (which are a dime a dozen). When God intervened directly in a case of divine discipline, the Bible says that “great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things” (Acts 5:11; also read 1 Tim. 5:20).

Question 17: In the parable of the tares and wheat, Jesus said let them grow together (Mt. 13.28-30). Doesn’t this show it is wrong to withdraw?

Answer: No. The passage is misapplied when used this way. In the parable, the field was not the church, but the world. The wheat represented those in the kingdom and the tares were the children of the devil. The harvest was the end of the world. Jesus said so (Mt. 13:36-40). We should accept His interpretation and not our own.

Question 18: What should be our attitude when the withdrawee repents?

Answer: Forgive him, comfort him, and confirm our love toward him lest he be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow (2 Cor. 2:5-11).

Question 19: Do you really think it will work?

Answer: Whether we see immediate results is beside the point and does not nullify our responsibility. If we have not procrastinated or acted hastily, if our attitudes are right and we sincerely pray, there is a good chance the erring will repent. Even if he does not, there are still other benefits. It will keep the church pure, maintain its good reputation, and draw those who respect godliness.

Question 20: What about those who should have been withdrawn from years ago, but because of our indifference we dragged our feet and did not do our duty?

Answer: We can repent and God (who is faithful) will you know. The one who has power to remove a congregation’s candlestick called upon the church at Ephesus for congregational repentance (Rev. 2:1-7). Let us look into the mirror of God’s word and see if one or more of those churches of Asia does not describe us.

There is no way to change the past. Since withdrawal is to be done without partiality, it would be impossible, in most cases, to go back and rectify the situation. Some of those people have moved away, been restored, or died. While we cannot undo the past, we can look to the future with the resolution that, beginning right now, we are going to do what is right.

Conclusion

Perhaps the point has not been emphasized enough that scriptural chastening is an act of love, not vengeance. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. He will recompense (Rom. 12:19). When brethren fail to fulfill God’s will, they are not demonstrating love – but a lack of it. “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Heb. 12:6). Withdrawal is a means which the Lord uses. When brethren will not practice it they are preventing His plan from working. It is no wonder that there are many weak churches and ungodly members. God’s plan for bringing His erring children to repentance is as much essential as His plan for alien sinners (Gal. 6:10). If a member of my family walks disorderly and will not repent, I want the brethren to withdraw in an effort to save his soul. It may be unpleasant for me at the time, but I can endure it if it will bring my loved one to shame and cause him or her to repent. It is much better than standing in judgment, not having done the Lord’s will.

In this age of television and as the crime rate is soaring, the consciences of many of God’s children have become dull. There is not the remorse for sin that there used to be. The senses of many are no longer shocked at the terribleness of sin. David said: “Through thy percepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way ” (Psa. 119:104). If your attitude toward sin is not the same as David’s, it is time to awaken!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, pp. 268-269, 276-277
May 1, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

Fire In The Bosom

“Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?” (Prov. 6:27, 28)

The questions posed in this proverb are designed to remind us that certain actions produce painful consequences. The subject under consideration is illicit sex (fornication).

Sexual Immorality

Some Americans are pleased with the outcome of the “sexual revolution” of the twentieth century. Sex has become the center of attention in movies, advertising, magazine articles and pictures, some newspaper columns, and certain styles of dress. Sex education courses, without moral guidelines, have been added to the public schools. Numerous TV programs give emphasis to sex. Nothing is too intimate for open discussion and public portrayal.

To God-fearing people who value morals, the so-called “sexual revolution”of the twentieth century. Sex has become the center of attention in movies, advertising, magazine articles and pictures, some newspaper columns, and certain styles of dress. Sex education courses, without moral guidelines, have been added to the public schools. Numerous TV programs give emphasis to sex. Nothing is too intimate for open discussion and public portrayal.

To God-fearing people who value morals, the so-called “sexual revolution” is a sad chapter in our nation’s history. Homosexuality, adultery, and prostitution have gained respectability in modern thought. God’s laws are violated, disregarded, and defied. The champions of sexual freedom are enslaving millions of victims in sensuality and wickedness.

It has become common for unwed couples to live together. Extramarital relations, wife-swapping, and other adulterous practices are considered normal. Some who have been there testify that university dormitories are often like brothels. High class “call girls” entertain business men away from home. The yellow pages list “dating services” and “massage parlors” for the convenience of “customers.” And some of the well-organized prostitution setups will gladly accept a credit card!

Sexual immorality is the product being pushed by the sexual revolution; people by the millions are buying.

It Takes Two To Tango

The author of the proverb now being studied “is unwilling to leave the impression that immorality is all due to the tempting wiles of the woman, as is all too often implied in gossip concerning the break-up of a home or a baby born out of wedlock, and in newspaper reports concerning police raids on houses of prostitution. While the adulteress plays her part, the adulterer is a more than willing partner to it when he allows his passions to take control of his body and to becloud his mind so that he thinks that laws of decency and morality no longer apply to him, so he will ‘get away with it'” (George Kufeldt).

Painful Consequences

Fire in one’s bosom will burn his clothes; walking on hot coals will burn his feet. A burn leaves a scar after the wound is healed. Illicit sex destroys character and leaves a scar in the heart. The consequences of sexual immorality are inescapable.

Imagine, if you can, a man walking over to a fireplace and removing hot coals and placing them inside the shirt he is wearing! This illustrates the dreadful consequences of adultery.

Hophni and Phinehas, sons of Eli the priest, “lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” (1 Sam. 2:22). Their immoral conduct brought severe judgment. A man of God prophesied that “in one day they shall die both of them” (1 Sam. 2:34). In the battle when the ark of the covenant was captured by the Philistines, both Hophni and Phinehas were slain (1 Sam. 4:11,17). They took fire in their bosom and were burned. They disgraced the priesthood and the whole nation of Israel.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11). In his attempt to conceal his guilt, David had Uriah slain. Although he repented and God put away his sin that he should not be put to death (2 Sam. 12:13), the fire that David had taken in his bosom left ugly scars. God decreed, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.” The child that David fathered in adultery died. David acknowledged, “My sin is ever before me” (Psa. 51:3).

Amnon, a son of David, fell in love with Tamar, his half-sister. He tried to persuade her to commit fornication with him, but she refused. He forced her against her will (2 Sam. 13:1-4). He took fire in his bosom and was burned. After taking away her virginity, “Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. ” Absalom, Tamar’s brother, ordered his servants to kill Amnon (2 Sam. 13:28,29).

Satan loads temptations to make it attractive and exciting. Beware! Once sin is committed, its ugliness is shocking and sickening.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, p. 267
May 1, 1986

By Luther W. Martin

According to Young’s Analytical Concordance, the word didasko, is rendered “teach” 97 times in the New Testament. In similar manner, the word kerusso, was used some sixty times for preach, proclaim or publish. Another word, taleo, is translated “preach” six times. Still another word, euaggelizo, is used some fifty-four times, meaning to “preach, proclaim or bring good news”.

Some Interesting Examples

Acts 4:2 – “. . being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.”

Acts 5:42- “. . And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”

Acts 15:35 – “Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.”

Acts 28:31 – “Preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .”

A Liberal Scholar – Charles H. Dodd

Fifty-some years ago, Mr. Dodd concluded that the Book of Acts, for example, was not really completely authored by Luke, but that it consisted of an eclectic text: a collection of excerpts from various sources or writers. He evolved a theory that essentially taught as follows: A spokesman can only really “preach” the gospel once to a hearer… and from then on, it is no longer “preaching” but the instruction becomes “teaching.”

Dodd further carried his theory to a point wherein he asserted that the early church had “preachers or public proclaimers” to initially present the good-news to the hearers, and then these same hearers were turned over to a “teacher” who continued their instruction, building upon what the “preacher” had first told them.

Mr. Dodd was very persuasive. Some of our own brethren have succumbed to Dodd’s theories. But interestingly, quite a number of authors of religious books now quote Dodd as their source for their articles on “Teaching and Preaching.” Even the Editor of A Theological Word Book of the Bible, Alan Richardson, quotes from Dodd, as if Dodd’s conclusions were factual rather than theoretical (pp. 171-172).

The Translator’s New Testament, as published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, credits C.H. Dodd, at the end of its glossary note on “Preach.” A half page, approximately, is devoted to Dodd’s teaching on the difference between teaching and preaching.

Another author, Josh McDowell, a denominationalist, but far less liberal than Dodd, refers to Dodd as a “form critic,” but less radical than Rudolph Bultmann or Martin Dibelius. See More Evidence That Demands A Verdict, page 187.

Mr. Dodd was a leading proponent of the idea that the author of the fourth gospel (Gospel According to John), was not the same writer as authored the First Epistle of John. He also contended that in the N.T., preachers and teachers had different duties, and that the content of their message was also different.

Dr. Robert C. Worley Of McCormick Theological Seminary

In 1967, R.C. Worley authored a book entitled: Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church. It was published by The Westnunster Press, Philadelphia. In a chapter entitled: “The Criticism of Dodd’s Theory,” Dr. Worley concludes:

On the basis of this study I conclude that teaching and preaching in the earliest Christian community were the same activities and had the same content in many instances. Also the activities of preaching and teaching and the content communicated in these activities were referred to and described by words other than “preaching” and “teaching”. . . (p. 86).

Some Additional New Testament Examples

Although the Apostle Paul had not yet been to Rome, he wrote in his letter to the congregation in Rome, that he was ready to “preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also” (Rom. 1:15). Here was a congregation already in existence, yet Paul was eager to preach to them. Now, according to the Dodd theory, Paul would have had to “teach” them, instead of “preach” to them.

Paul also wrote to the church in Colosse: “. . Christ in you the hope of glory. Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom. . . ” (Col. 1:27-28). So Paul utilized announcing and proclaiming (preaching), as well as teaching or instruction.

In the twentieth chapter of Acts of the Apostles, Paul summoned the Ephesian elders and spoke to them: “. . . how I kept back nothing that was helpful to you, but declared (evangelized – LWM) it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house . . . . And indeed now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching (proclaiming – LWM) the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. . . . For I have not shunned to declare (evangelize – LWM) to you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:20-27). It appears that the Apostle Paul was not aware of the Dodd theory!

The Great Commission

When Christ gave the world-wide commission to His apostles, Matthew’s inspired record used mathetes (make disciples of), thus teach or instruct in order to produce faith and obedience. The King James Version reads: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations. . . ” (Matt. 28:19). Mark’s record of the same instruction by Jesus, used the word kerusso (to proclaim as a herald): Thus, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mk. 16:15).

One interesting point to observe in this study, is, that John the Baptizer was always described as “preaching” or “crying. ” The word for “teach(ing)” is never applied to John’s activities.

Introduction To Acts of the Apostles

Luke, in writing his introduction to the Book of Acts, made reference to his earlier work, the Gospel According to Luke, by writing: “The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). So, Luke refers to all the content of the Book of Luke, when referring to Jesus’ instruction, as being that which He taught. Teaching is really a broader term than “preaching,” inasmuch as in man’s thinking, “preaching” is more of a public proclamation. . . yet it is still teaching or instruction. Private instruction is still “teaching,” but is not commonly called “preaching” or proclamation. So, teaching is a more generic term, covering all kinds of instruction.

Conclusion

Although men have developed ideas and theories concerning Bible teaching, there is nothing to equal Holy Scripture itself. If we will just read and study all that the Bible has to say concerning a given subject, and reach a conclusion that harmonizes with all that Scripture reveals on that subject, we will not go astray.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, pp. 270-271
May 1, 1986