Preaching And Teaching
When brethren have to make a play on words in order to uphold their position, their position is wrong and they need to change it. Brethren Ketcherside and Garrett are doing this very thing in the distinction which they are making between teaching and preaching. We know that all teaching is not preaching, but we also know that all preaching (if it is instructive) is teaching. The two words are not identical in all their definitions, but there is an overlapping of their meanings. For this reason they are sometimes used interchangeably, and again, they are used in the same connection for emphasis. The latter is done a number of times in the scriptures.
They Claim
These brethren claim that preaching is for the world, and that teaching is for the church; furthermore, it is impossible to preach to the church. Brother Garrett says: "Never, never, never do you find Paul or any other New Testament minister preaching to the church. Why? Because it is an impossibility." (Bible Talk, Feb. 1953) I heard Ketcherside say over the radio a number of times, "Preaching is for the world, and teaching is for the church. (I don't know which he was doing; preaching or teaching, for his message was directed to both the church and to the world.) He used the following scriptures to sustain his position: Matt. 4:23; Acts 5:42; 28:30,31 and 20:7. I shall examine these passages and see if they teach the doctrine which these brethren are advocating to the division of the church.
The Work Of Jesus
"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." (Matt. 4:23) If teaching is for the church, what church was Jesus teaching? Will these brethren take the position that the church was set up during the ministry of John the Baptist? Remember they say preaching is for the world and not for the church. Did Jesus preach to the world or was it to people who were in covenant relationship with God? Isn't it true that Jesus taught and preached to the same people? That which proves too much doesn't prove anything.
Matthew tells of two kinds of work that Jesus did, and he uses two terms in describing or emphasizing each of the two works. Jesus was engaged in instructing and healing. "Teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom," emphasizes His work of instruction; while "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people, emphasizes His work of healing. "Sickness" and "disease" are not the same word, nor are they identical in all their definitions, yet they are often used to describe the same thing. All sickness may not be disease, but all disease is sickness. There is about the same difference between teaching and preaching that there is between sickness and disease, and that is not enough to divide churches over.
The Work Of The Apostles
"And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." (Acts 5:41,42) In order to get the full import of "they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ" read both the fourth and fifth chapters of Acts. In Acts 4:18 the council commanded them not to speak nor teach in the name of Jesus; in verse 33 the apostles gave "witness of the resurrection"; in 5:20 the angel commands the apostles "Go stand and speak" and verse 21 says they "taught," verse 25 says it was reported they were "teaching the people." When the angel commanded them to "speak" did they obey him when they "taught"? "Speak" and "taught" are not the same words, but they refer to the same thing in these verses, and so does the word "witness" of 4:33. In 5:40 they are again commanded not to speak in the name of Jesus, and when verse 41 says, "they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus" it is merely emphasizing the meaning expressed by the words noticed above.
"And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." Was every home in Jerusalem a divided home? Some Christians and some unbelievers? If this was not the case then why did they "teach" and "preach" in every house? Remember according to the "Sommerite Twins," Carl and Leroy, "teaching" is for the church, and "preaching" is for the world. Did the apostles "preach" a while and then "teach," or did some of them "teach" while others "preached"? Or did they divide the Christians from the rest of the family while they were "teaching" and "preaching."
Paul Preached To The Church
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7) But we are told that the Greek word dialegomai which is translated preached in the King James Version should have been translated discourse or talked with them. Well, what of it? That wouldn't have proved their position. Ketcherside contends that Paul conducted an open forum; says that "discourse" means open forum. I grant that it does mean open forum sometimes, but not every time, for it means a sermon sometimes. Now, who told these brethren that it means "open forum" here? It might mean a sermon. When a word has more than one meaning we have to determine by the context it's meaning in a given passage. If there had not been anything else said but "Paul preached unto them" we would be at loss as to what he did at Troas, but since the writer says, "and continued his speech until midnight" we are not left in the dark as to what was done. It doesn't say "Paul continued his open forum," nor "they continued their talk" or "their discourse," but it does say, "his speech," therefore, the evidence is Paul preached a sermon to the church at Troas.
Dialegomai is the same word that Luke uses in Acts 17:2,14; 18:4,19; 24:25 to describe Paul's work, so whatever Paul did at Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and to Felix he did to the church at Troas, whether it was "teaching" or "preaching." If it was "teaching" then "teaching" is for the world too, and their contention is wrong. If it was "preaching" then "preaching" is for the church also, and they are wrong. They are wrong no matter which it is.
"And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 28:30,31) They use this to show that there is a difference between preaching and teaching, even if it proved that the two words were not remotely related, it doesn't prove that it is wrong to preach to the church.
What is the difference in the work described in verse 31 by "preaching" and "teaching" and the work described in verse 23 by the words "expounded" and "testified"? We all know that the work of verse 23 is included in the work of verse 31. I have just as much right to argue that the work of verse 23 is different from the work of verse 31 as these brethren do in arguing that "preaching" and "teaching" are two entirely different works. "Expounded and "testified" are different words from "preaching" and "teaching," but they have reference to the same work. The writer of Acts uses four terms to emphasize Paul's work in Rome, viz.: expounded, testified, preaching, and teaching. These brethren are making a play on words to the division of the church, and Paul's warning is timely against "...doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (1 Tim. 6:4,5)
Preaching To The Church Is Commanded
The solemn charge that Paul gives to Timothy in 2 Tim. 4 "Preach the word" is a command to preach to the church. This is out of season with Carl and Leroy. The word "preach" comes from kerusso which means to herald. Will these brethren say that this chapter does not apply to the church? Surely they haven't drifted that far from the truth! If they deny that this applies to the church they do so in defiance to the scholarship of the world. If they admit that it has reference to the church away goes their hobby.
MacKnight says: "This solemn charge the apostle gave to Timothy, not because he suspected him of any unfaithfulness, but to shew his own extreme solicitude for the preservation of true doctrine, and for the prosperity of the church of Christ; also to leave on record an injunction to the ministers of Christ in succeeding ages, to be faithful and diligent in all the duties of their function. They ought therefore to consider it with attention, and should make a due application of it to themselves."