Vol.V No.III Pg.7
May 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Rom. 10:15 teaches that a preacher must be sent by a church. If several churches supported him, would it not follow that they should send this support through the "sending" church? HJ


Rom. 10:15 teaches no such thing!! Paul's own explanation of his statement is to cite Isa. 52:7, part of a prophecy basically Messianic. He is contending that the gospel, not the Law of Moses, is God's power unto salvation; and that this is to Gentile as well as Jew.

"Whosoever" (Jew or Gentile) shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved (vs.28). But to hear, believe, and obey the gospel, the gospel must be made available -- to both Jew and Gentile. By citing the Messianic prophecy, Paul argues that God sent His message to both Jew and Gentile. (Note vs.19-21) Rom. 10:15 has no reference to "a church" "sending" out a present-day preacher; but refers to the Divine "sending" of Spirit-Inspired Apostles, messengers of Christ.

"Sent" in this passage, is from "apostello." Vine says this means "to send forth, akin to "apostlos" -- an apostle; denotes to send on service, or with a commission."

In Acts 13:1-4, often used to prove(?) the church in Antioch "sent" Paul and Barnabas, the word "apostello" ("sent" of Rom. 10:) is not used at all. The H.S. said "separate" Barnabas and Saul -- meaning, "limit off, sever," (as cut out of herd) from the Greek "aphoridzo." Then, "whereunto I called them" -- from "proskeklemai" to "call to oneself, summon, appoint." The Holy Spirit did all of this. Then the church "sent away" -- from "apoluo" "to loose away, cut off." They simply did what the H.S. instructed them to do. If there was any "official" sending at this time, it was by the H.S. Verse 4 reads, "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost.." (From "ekpempo" "to send out, away.")

The idea that "a church" must send (officially sanction, oversee, stamp with approval) a preacher before he can carry the gospel to the world, is gross error, whole cloth. It is rooted in errors -- those of an official clergy, church authority, creedalism, and perhaps many more. By it truth is opposed, and its proclaimers bound. Not only is there no authority for such an idea in God's word, but history so completely validates these charges against it, I am amazed that the idea continues to claim an honorable place among brethren.

The conclusion of the querist follows neither scripture nor logic. Paul received wages from churches, (2 Cor. 11:8) with no evidence of a so-called "sending" church.

John Dart, in LOS ANGELES TIMES quotes Dr.J.D. Thomas (ACC) as saying, But without "one boss to oversee your operations and see you through" it is a tenuous existence for a missionary. Here bro. Thomas inadvertently confirms our appraisal of the "sponsoring" "sending" church. It is a "boss", not a church in need (2 Cor) and as such goes beyond God's plan for scriptural cooperation.