Handling Aright The Word Of God
Many sermons have been preached and many articles have been written on Paul's admonition to Timothy to "handle aright" or "rightly divide" the Word of truth. It would seem that brethren would know the lesson by now. Yet such is not the case as is evidenced by the cases of mishandling that are frequently seen in articles and sermons. It is discouraging and frightening to observe the tactics employed by some in their attempts to establish their point. In view of the dread doom reserved for any who pervert the gospel, how can one who knows better be so audacious as to mishandle the word of truth.
The word must be received "as it is in truth, the Word of God." 1 These. 2:13. It must be taught also "as of God." 2 Cor. 2:17. In 2 Cor. 2:17 the apostle contrasts his handling of the word with that of the "many." He says, "For we are not as the many, corrupting the Word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight, speak we in Christ." The corrupting of the Word by the many is put in contrast to the way Paul spoke. He spoke "as of sincerity," "as of God," "in the sight of God." If such were the way all spoke and wrote today, there would be a gratifying absence of "corrupting the Word." In this article some passages will be considered. As we study let us try to keep in mind that they are of God and as we handle them we will do so as of sincerity — not as we would examine a passage from some human production but "as of God" — not as if our thoughts with reference to the passage were hidden but "in the sight of God."
The first passage we will notice is 1 Cor. 14:16-17. "Else if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified." Does 1 Cor. 14:16 teach that "prayer is not only designed as a petition to God, but public prayers are a means of teaching," as brother G. K. Wallace contends, in his article endorsing "The Herald of Truth"? No, the passage has no bearing on the matter of teaching. The assertion doesn't touch the principle that Paul was dealing with at any point. This tactic of making an assertion and arbitrarily tacking a reference on to it, is not a new device. The only thing about it is its being utilized by gospel preachers. Teachers of error have in the past availed themselves of this device to delude the masses who would not go to the Bible to see what the passage referred to said. There are too many brethren today who like young birds will swallow any assertion readily just so some prominent brother makes the assertion and gives a Bible reference. To simply line up a number of Bible references is not giving a "thus saith the Lord" and certainly not when what the Lord said in those references has no bearing on the assertion.
What does 1 Cor. 14:16,17 teach? The context shows that the apostle is teaching the utility of spiritual gifts in general with particular attention to the gift of tongues and some of the abuses of that gift. He shows that the gift of tongues had a definite utility. 1 Cor. 14:22 "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe." The Word preached by those members of the early church had to be confirmed to the hearer. It was necessary that the unbeliever be convinced that the one speaking was a teacher from God. The sign of tongues was the sign utilized by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This confirmed the message spoken on that occasion. The multitude heard in their "own language." They could understand what was being said. But later in the church at Corinth the believers would gain no profit by a member exercising his gift of tongues if that tongue or language were not spoken to the believer. It was an abuse of the gift of tongues to utilize it in praying and singing. The brother occupying "the place of the unlearned" would not know what was being said, hence, he would not be profited. If he could not understand what was being uttered he could not enter into the worship in song nor in prayer. He could gain no edification from worship conducted in a foreign language. He could not "say the Amen." The unlearned of the passage is the brother who is unlearned in the "tongue" which the Spirit had given. Each member of the church is to enter into every item of worship, hence to conduct any part of the worship in a foreign language is prohibited. The passage has no application to the "man of the street" who is not a member of the church for that one can not say the Amen" to the prayer of children of God. Prayer is a privilege and duty of the child of God. It is an item of worship for the church to engage in, not for the world.
Rom. 10:15, "And how shall they preach except they be sent? — " is another passage that is being wrested to serve the ends of some pet hobbies. Denominational preachers have tried to prove by this passage that they were called and sent by God. Now some brethren who know better are trying to convince themselves that the church must send the preacher. That the preacher can't preach except he be sent by the church. The logical end of such reasoning will be authority vested in the church to decide upon the qualifications of one to preach, and to authorize him to preach. That the elders of a local congregation have the responsibility of trying men that they plan to use in the work over which they have the oversight is not questioned. But this passage is not touching that principle. Neither does this passage rule out the right and responsibility of the individual going and preaching as he has opportunity. No Christian is required to wait until the church sends him before he can go preach the gospel.
There are several dangers in some of the assertions which have been made about this passage. In addition to the dangers of a formal church ordained clergy, there is the retarding of individual effort. To construe Rom. 10:15 as teaching that one cannot preach the gospel unless sent by the church is to deny to the individual the right and responsibility of exercising himself in preaching the word at every opportunity. What is Rom. 10:15 dealing with? It is dealing with the original proclamation of the gospel by the apostles. They are God's ambassadors. They were sent by the Lord. Flesh and blood did not equip them but the Father in heaven. They did not receive the gospel from man but by revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:12. Here are comments from some of the commentaries by brethren. Lipscomb — "And how shall they preach except they be sent? Here he shows the necessity of him who went forth being sent of God. He must have the credentials from God. This refers, of course, to the original proclamation from the gospel." "This passage is sometimes used to prove that the churches ought to send forth preachers to preach now. Such an application of it is a perversion of it, and destroys the force of the grand truth that those who proclaimed the gospel in the apostolic period were supernaturally endowed and sent of God to make known the terms of salvation to both Jews and Gentiles." Whiteside — "These are rhetorical questions and are equal to direct statements. No one can call on one in whom he does not believe, and he cannot believe in one of whom he has never heard. And we never would have heard of Christ and his gospel had he not sent men to preach it. It had to be proclaimed in order that people might hear and believe. Paul is here speaking of the original proclamation of the gospel. It is a perversion of Paul's language to use it to prove that a preacher cannot preach unless the church sends him. It is also an argument contrary to facts, for a man can go out now and present the gospel of Christ without being sent by any church or any man. But the original proclamation of the gospel required men whom the Lord qualified and sent — ."