Truth Magazine

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

By Morris Hafley

If you are thinking that this sounds like something God wants, you are exactly right. How ever, to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, as we are commanded in Titus 2:12, we must first know the meanings of the words. Then we can go from there.

(A) Soberly: self-governing, self-restraint; which means you are able to control your self through self discipline. You control your appetites, passions and affections, not the other way around. For example, many are familiar with Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics basketball team. He recognizes he must practice self control concerning his appetites. He knows that he cannot eat a dozen White Castles (who can?) after each game and still expect to perform as he does. Can we be Christians and not have self-control? See Proverbs 23:21. We must be able to control our thoughts and not let temptation lead us to sin.

(B) Righteously: whatever conforms to God’s will, whatever has been appointed by God to be obeyed, the sum total of the requirements of God. These definitions require us to study to be able to know exactly what God would have us to do. We must study (2 Tim. 2:15). It was required of us in school so we could pass the teacher’s tests. Jesus says, come to my school in Matthew 11:29; “come learn of me.” Get your Bible out a few minutes each day and learn how to be righteous.

(C) Godly: to live in a way that will be pleasing to God, according to God, or after a godly sort. The Hebrew writer tells us that to be pleasing to God we must have faith (11:6). Paul tells us, in Romans 10:17, that faith comes by hearing the word of God. A good place to hear the word of God is at the regular services of the church. Will you be there?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, p. 260
May 1, 1986

By Steve Schlosser

Parents who take seriously God’s requirement that they instill within their children the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) try to teach various principles. Such concepts as loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind; having your hope fixed completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus; seeking first God’s kingdom and His righteousness; and hungering and thirsting for righteousness, are taught from an early age. How-ever, many parents destroy the impact and effectiveness of such teaching by allowing almost any activity that conflicts with an appointed assembly of the saints to take precedence.

When there is a conflict between a school-activity or a conflict between a sports-activity and an assembly of the saints, many children are allowed to attend the secular activity. Isn’t that child being taught that other activities are more important than spiritual-assemblies?

Let’s assume a hypothetical situation for the sake of illustration. An eldership has determined that parents within the congregation over which they have oversight are failing to require their children to attend spiritual-assemblies for various reasons. Some parents just don’t see the need to assemble. Others, allow various activities (i.e., band concerts, plays, honor-roll award banquets, sports-events, etc.) to take precedence. Perhaps others just don’t believe in “forcing a child to attend church against his will.” This eldership, concerned for the souls of the young people, makes an announcement to the congregation that because of a continuing problem with teenage attendance, the following policy is now being put into effect:

1. When it is determined that there is a problem with a child’s attendance, a private conference with the child’s parents will be arranged. It is hoped that this will resolve the problem.

2. If, after a private conference, the problem is unresolved and continues, a formal conference will be held. Attending this conference will be the elders, the involved Bible-class teachers, the parents and the child. If it is determined that the child is “out-of-control” within the home; that the parents do not have enough control of the child to insure his satisfactorily attending assemblies of the saints, the child will be removed from the home and placed in another home that can and will insure the child’s proper attendance.

What would be your reaction to such a policy? Would it not be one of total shock? Perhaps you would keenly resent the elders’ attempt to require you as a parent to teach your child, in application of life, to “seek first the kingdom.” You perhaps would resent their expectation of you that your “teaching” come both in word and in deed. Therefore, their expectation requiring you to demand of the child attendance at spiritual-assemblies, regardless of the conflict, would be resented. Besides all of that, “Who do they think they are saying they’ll take the child from my home?”

Did you know that all of us are living daily under similar rules? Check your local school-district! If your child is having a problem with school attendance a policy very similar to that outlined above is mandated by law and will be followed. Yes, if the legally appointed school officials, in conjunction with the juvenile-court and/or probation-office find that you have been negligent as a parent, your child will be taken from you and given to a foster-home or institution. Further, in extreme cases, you can be prosecuted, fined, and in California placed in jail for up to six-months.

How many children would go to school if they were not made to go? Who among us wishes to say that secular education is more important than spiritual education? How does God view your efforts as a parent to insure the spiritual education of your child? Spiritual education must take place first in the home. Don’t erode your good teaching (words) as a parent by allowing your actions (in this case, secular conflicts allowed to interfere with spiritual-assemblies) to take away that teaching. We must serve Him in word and deed. If you were facing God in a review of your child’s attendance record at spiritual assemblies would He find you negligent as a parent? Would He want to place your child in another home where spirituality is practiced not just talked about?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, pp. 259, 277
May 1, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please explain James 2:10 in light of the context.

Reply: James 2:10 reads: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.”

In the previous verse James is teaching his readers not to show respect of persons. As an example of how this would be done, James wrote in verses 2-4: “For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing: and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou here, or sit under my footstool; do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?” The word “synagogue” (Gr. sunagoge) can also mean “assembly” or “a place of assembly.” The context favors the idea of an assembled congregation. Following the illustration of how respect of persons can take place, James says in verse 9: “but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.” By keeping all other points of the law, while showing respect of persons, did not excuse them. These verses are the background for the statement in verse 10.

The passage in question can best be explained by simply pointing out first, that sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4). Showing respect of persons is a transgression of God’s law; therefore it is a sin (v. 9). James is not teaching that they had violated other provisions of the law, such as “Do not commit adultery” and “Do not kill.” In other words, if they showed respect of persons this did not mean that they were also guilty of adultery and killing (murder). The meaning of verse 10 is that they were transgressors of God’s law if they violated one part of it. How one becomes guilty of “all” the law by violating one part of it is easily seen in civil law. A man becomes a criminal. What makes him a criminal? Is he a criminal because he has violated every law of the land? Of course not. He is a criminal regardless of whether he has violated one law or a hundred. When he violates one part of the law, he is a criminal because he is guilty of a crime. A murderer does not have to also commit the crime of stealing before he can become a criminal. He became a lawbreaker when he committed murder, and thus became guilty of the “whole” law. He may be keeping all of the other laws, but his violation of one constitutes him a transgressor of the law; thus he is guilty of the “whole” law.

We are not to suppose that if we keep part of God’s law, we are excused from keeping other parts of it. The person who steals, for instance, but declares that he does not lie, murder or commit fornication does not stand justified before God. We must submit ourselves to all of God’s will, not just part of it. It is not our will, but God’s that must be performed. By faith, we are to submit to every ordinance of God. Our conduct should be that which is enjoined upon us in verse 12: “So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty”; that is, by the law of God which liberates men from sin (see also Jas. 1:25). By it we are to live, and by it we shall all be judged (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 9, p. 261
May 1, 1986