Preaching and Teaching

[Guest]

Hello Aaron,

Without getting too technical, I believe you are generally correct. So, if I take your definition as correct, then I would have to question why a "preacher", Greek keryx, would be proclaiming the gospel within the body of believers. As I understand it, preaching in the technical sense took place outside the body of believers. Assuming those attending your fellowship do so because of an existing understanding of the gospel, then they would require teaching only. There's much more to say about this but maybe you would want to comment on whether this is what you understand.

livingink

Yes, I do agree that truly what is taking place is teaching, or maybe it is more properly exhorting. I also believe this is a good thing and a needful thing. I guess the main problem I have with it is the semantics. We call it "preaching". The pastor approaches the podium to "preach". I would just rather call it exhorting.
He is doing something different than I do. I go into the details of the lessons and he makes the appeal to action.
I agree with many of the points that have been made by everyone on here. Thanks so much.

[Guest]

Let's make sure we're on the same page here. When I use the term "preacher" I am referring specifically to the Greek word "Keryx" and when using the term "teacher" I am referring to "Didaskalos". I am not, and I don't believe that Steve and Aaron are, referring to the word preacher as a person who shows up at your church on Sunday morning to deliver a sermon, baptize folks, bless the communion bread, participate in the board meetings, etc. That's not the strict way the word was used in New Testament times. If I've learned one thing on this forum, it is to look first at the way words were actually used in the early church and, for this reason, I respectfully want you to know what point we may get at as this discussion continues.

It appears that the didaskalos was given his authority to teach through the process of becoming an overseer 1 Timothy 3:2. If I understand correctly, Jesus appointed Apostles who then appointed overseers for the ekklesia. The teaching part of the overseeing included instructing disciples how to live in light of a correct interpretation of scripture and of the recent teachings of Jesus. So, the teacher had a delegated authority. The didaskalos aimed at increasing the understanding of the disciples. The disciples learned and assimilated the teaching into a better understanding of scripture. As an example of the things that were taught and learned please refer to Hebrews 5:11-6:3 re:elementary vs. mature truths.

The keryx preached or proclaimed the gospel. This word does not inherently express the expectation of learning or assimilation. It is simply a spreading of the message of salvation to all who will listen. The keryx has no authority himself. The authority remains within the word that is proclaimed. The authority remains with he who offers salvation and who spoke the word and who sent out the proclaimer. As you look at Romans 10:14-15, notice the reference to the "sent out ones" or those sent by God to proclaim. Ekklesiastes is a word meaning "speaker of a called out assembly". So, Ecclesiastes is written to those who have been called out from a life "under the sun" (apart from God) by a proclaimer to be instructed further by Solomon the teacher.

Could I ask a question to clarify my thinking? As you know, some go to great lengths to say that women should not be ordained as preachers. If I understand that idea correctly I would have to disagree on the grounds that NO person should be ordained as a preacher since it does not appear that preachers were ordained in the early church. Overseers were appointed and they had to be men 1 Tim.3 and apparently not young men 1 Peter 5:5. Teachers were apparently drawn from among the overseers or from those asked to teach by the overseer. Further, 1 Timothy 2:12 uses only the word didasko--teach--as the prohibited activity that women are not permitted to do in the formal meeting of the ekklesia. That is not a prohibition against preaching, prophesying, praying, etc. Am I correct? Do NOT refer me to a website. I won't look at it.

meekly,

livingink

[Guest]

Aaron,

You might also be interested in a Church Life topic that was entitled Preaching, Teaching, Pastoral Ministry and Women from several months back.

livingink

[Guest]

Hello Livingink,

You said:

If I understand that idea correctly I would have to disagree on the grounds that NO person should be ordained as a preacher since it does not appear that preachers were ordained in the early church.

I'm writing from memory here, but weren't Paul and Barnabas "ordained" through the laying on of hands to go and preach the gospel? I believe ordain basically means to appoint. The modern practice of ordaining ministers is unbiblical in my mind. People become "ordained ministers" in the sense of being in a different class, as though they are marked with an indelible mark. They are "clergy" and we are "laity". They are considered as ordained whether they have a job or not.

I believe a person who is ordained as minister in a particular congregation is no longer ordained if he leaves that congregation. How can they ordain (appoint) him as a minister at any other church or as a perpetual minister?

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Thanks so much for saying something as I thought I had killed yet another conversation with my comments. I believe you're right about the modern practice of ordination and I might have used the wrong word there. It's pretty late as I write this and I have to look up a few terms(such as ordination) plus the verses about Paul and Barnabas. I really need to get this straight since I plan to bring it up in a small group discussion at some point. If you see anything else in my previous post that deserves revision please mention it.

Thanks,

livingink

[Guest]

In a previous post I said that no one was ordained as a preacher in the early church. After further study, I believe that I was wrong. Mark 3:14 states "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,"...KJV. While Jesus was appointing Apostles it appears that one of their functions was clearly preaching. I would note that he does not perform any act such as laying on of hands during this ordination. He simply appointed them verbally.

In Acts 13:1-4, Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the Holy Spirit after the HS had called them to go forth. Verse 3 says the church laid hands on them after prayer and fasting but then got out of the way so the two "sent out ones" could accomplish the work of the HS. Some of the reading I did seemed to repeat this concept several places in scripture. The Holy Spirit called people for service and the laying on of hands appears to be ceremonial. If the HS calls, the person must answer whether the church lays hands or not. Homer's point would be quite correct since the current church really does not ordain in the sense that the word was used in scripture.

Since the usage of the word preacher in the modern day seems markedly different from scripture I am not sure that an easy comparison between roles of men and women can be made unless some ground rules can be set first. I do still wonder if any of you see anything more than teach--didasko--in Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:12. I do not.

thanks,

livingink