Is our preaching still relevant? To ask this question is to focus attention on both the preacher and the hearer: is what the preacher says relevant and is it judged to be so by the hearer?

Some of both categories of people (preachers and hearers) may think such a question ought not even to be asked. Some may be so sure of their positive answer that there is no room for discussion at all. Others may feel so sure about their negative answer that they may think any discussion is an exercise in frustration. It is hoped that neither extreme will be found among our readers; however, it is possible that tendencies towards these positions may be found among us.

There are questions being asked which ought to give preachers cause to reflect. Some of these questions are asked out of real concern for the church and the cause of the gospel.

All who have been called by the Lord to preach, have been faced with questions, either put to us or arising in our own hearts. Some of the more common questions are: What, really, is preaching? What happens in the preaching? How does God use the Word? Does God Himself speak through the Word; is the preacher's voice God's "voice"? What is the authority of preaching? What should be its content, its address? How should the preacher deal with his text and how should he choose his text?

But are these questions the only reason for dealing with this subject? Is there not more to it? I believe there is. It seems to me that preaching, in general, has fallen on some hard times. What has happened in general also has a spill-over effect into our own churches. We do not live in isolation.

There are three things which effect the preaching today, more than in the past. The effect is not good. There is, first, the generally "low" view of Scripture. The Bible as the infallible, inerrant and divinely inspired Word of God, just does not seem to hold the same authority for so many people as it once did. Of course, that is because many people no longer recognize it as just that: infallible, inerrant and divinely inspired.

Secondly, evangelical circles are infested with the idea that preaching should address "felt needs"; preachers are more and more expected to be pop psychologists. There are a few men on radio, in print and on the speaker's circuit, who are eminently gifted in dealing with human problems. They have the great ability to reduce many complex issues to a few simple statements and then they apply Scripture and, Presto! there is your answer. When other preachers cannot perform at this same level, they are sometimes lightly dismissed.

In the third place, there is the impact of modern communications theory. The Reformers developed the art of homiletics (preaching) supported by the principles of good public speaking, worked out by such great thinkers as Aristotle. This approach was in vogue until about twenty-five years ago. Then the information age broke loose; now preaching is governed by the principles of communication. Result: undue reliance on humour and illustration. The rule is "keep it light, positive and upbeat." Hardly the place for sound exposition and thorough application.

Now, it is not my intention to write about all these things in detail. There are books on the market which deal with these and other matters relating to preaching. What I do hope to do is pass on some information about preaching and listening to the preached word and to do that in an informal style by means of some articles.

As with any inquest into a subject, we must begin with a definition of our terms. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his book Preaching and Preacher, said,

"So often when people are asked to lecture or to speak on preaching they rush immediately to consider methods and ways and means and the mechanics. I believe that is quite wrong. We must start with the presuppositions and with the background, and with general principles; for, unless I am very greatly mistaken, the main trouble arises from the fact that people are not clear in their minds as to what preaching really is."¹

Where do we get these basics, these presuppositions? For that, we turn to Scripture.

Scriptural Terms for Preaching⤒🔗

There are various terms in Scripture for preaching; we limit ourself to a few. In the New Testa­ment we find these words: kerussein, angelizein and its composites, anangelizein and euangelizein, didaskein and marturein. Although there are others, these four, kerussein, angelein, didaskein and marturein, are the most important. If we begin with a simple word study of these terms, we will have made a good start in finding out what preaching really is.

KERUSSEIN – "to herald"←↰⤒🔗

The most common word which the New Testament uses to describe the act of passing along God's thoughts on salvation is kerussein, to preach. Originally, this word depicts the act of a herald who, on behalf of his king, publicly presents to the people the words of their lord. The act of preaching is kerugma; the preacher is a kerux.

This word indicates that the message of salvation is based upon the authority of God, the King of his Realm. When Jesus sends out his disciples, they go as heralds and act on behalf of Jesus, the Lord. Further, there is the thought in kerussein that this is to be done publicly. Wherever the information is passed on, whether it be on the street, in the synagogue or in someone's house, there is always this public aspect. There was nothing secret about the doctrine, the teaching of our Lord. "I spake openly to the world … and in secret have I said nothing" (John 18:20). The apostles, sent out by Jesus, did the same thing. The heralds of Christ must let their voices be heard loud and clear. There is nothing secretive about the Christian faith; we hold public worship services to which everyone is invited.

A herald is also someone who is specifi­cally appointed by the king. He has a commis­sion. It is not just anyone who may get up and speak the king's word. So it is with preaching. The herald is to be appointed, commissioned, sent out. This happens through the process of calling and ordination to office, by the church.

EUANGELIZEIN – "to give a good message"←↰⤒🔗

If kerussein focuses on the formal act of preaching, euangelizein has to do with the contents of the message. The word "angelein" means "to give a message." An angel ("angelos") is a messenger. A message can be either good news or bad news. The message which God has committed to his heralds is one of eminently good news. It is, therefore, euangellon; it is good news. It is the message that the promise of God regarding salvation has now been fulfilled. Remember the words of Zacharias (Luke 1:72): "To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant." This good news does not originate with man; it is God's plan of salvation and, thus, the message, the good news, comes from God, both with respect to its content and its authoritative nature.

DIDASKEIN – "to teach"←↰⤒🔗

This euangellon, this evangel, good news, is also instruction. They who are ignorant of the way of salvation are instructed in that way. The message of salvation is addressed to rational people, people who can think and reason and make comparisons and draw conclusions. Instruction in the things of God is the way in which the Lord works faith in a person. It is not by chance that our Heidelberg Catechism lists as the first aspect of faith "…a certain (i.e. sure) knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed in His Word…" In the New Testa­ment, the preaching of the gospel, the "bring­ing of the good tidings (euangelein!) of great joy" is repeatedly referred to as "teaching" – didaskein. Jesus taught in the synagogues, in the temple, by the sea, etc.

Sometimes the terms are used in conjunction with each other. In Luke 20:1 we read "…he taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel…" didaskein & euangelizein – teaching and bringing good news. In Matthew 4:23 we read "…teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom…" didaskein and kerussein the euangelion of the kingdom – teaching and heralding the good news.

MARTUREIN – "to witness"←↰⤒🔗

The basic meaning is that one gives confirmation that a certain fact is true. It is striking that of the 76 times this word is used in the New Testament, we find 33 instances in John's gospel account, 10 in his epistles and 4 in the Revelation. The same is true of the noun form which appears 37 times: 30 of these are in John's writings.² John uses it to show that Jesus is the Son of God.

It is also of some importance to note that from this word we have our English word "martyr." A martyr is one who witnesses to the truth of Jesus and is willing to seal this witness with the ultimate sacrifice of his or her own life. One of the prerequisites for being an apostle was that he had to be an eye witness to the fact that Jesus had, indeed, risen from the dead. This was necessary so that he really could "marturein" of this truth.

Summary of these Terms←⤒🔗

Kerussein indicates that the message of salvation is brought as the proclamation of the Kingdom, commissioned and authorized by the King. This proclamation is public, whether it be on the street, in the temple, the synagogue or in a house. The gospel is not a secret matter, meant for some insiders only. Heralds must cause the message of the Kingdom which has come and is coming, to be heard everywhere. Euangellzeln is almost synonymous with kerussein. It refers to the content of that which is heralded as glad tidings, a good message. Jesus Christ and His saving work form the contents of the glad tidings. It refers to this proclamation both within and outside of the church.

Didaskein has the same contents as kerussein. That which is heralded is also taught. The form of transmitting the information is different; in didaskein the teaching aspect stands on the foreground. It cannot be said that kerussein and euangelizein form the opposite of teach­ing. More than once, didaskein is used in the same breath with these words to indicate the work of Jesus and the apostles. Didaskein does indicate that the witness about Jesus and the bringing of the gospel take on the specific form of teaching. As such, it can be used to describe the further unfolding to the hearers of the salvation which is in Jesus. It is incorrect to limit didaskein as referring only to things which ought to be done.

Marturein is especially an apostolic action, passing on the message about Jesus Christ. This task is also entrusted to the church and its members who have this witness by faith and it refers then especially to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and that the facts are the foundation and explication of that message.³

Definition of Preaching←⤒🔗

Having now briefly looked at the Scriptural terms involved, we are ready to consider next the definition of preaching. Each theologian will probably have his own definition. I think the one taught by Herman Hoeksema is as good a definition as any: "Preaching is the authoritative proclamation of the gospel by the church in the service of the Word of God through Christ."⁴

Preaching with Authority…?←⤒🔗

By placing the punctuation in this (unorthodox) way, we are, of course, trying to make a point. The point is that true gospel preaching is authoritative – but we need to question a little more closely what we mean by this term and what is the origin of this authority. It is my contention that when controversy arises because of the preaching, it sooner or later will focus on this question of authority.

Our definition speaks of "…authoritative proclamation … through Christ." The rest of the definition we let be, for now. In fact, we do not even dig deeply into the term "proclamation" although the idea is very much in line with kerussein ("to herald"). We are concerned about the authority aspect. What do we mean with the term, "authority"? Authority is the power and right which one receives in order to command and to enforce laws. Most dictionaries will give a definition along this line. This implies that authority has to be given, it has to be recognized and it must be observed or obeyed. Applying this to preaching, we may conclude that if preaching is authoritative, it must be obeyed. Note how this is stated: it is not the obeying that makes preaching authoritative or that seals its authority but it is, inherently, of itself, vested with authority and, as a result of that, it must be obeyed.

How do we know this is so? One of the criticisms sometimes made against preachers is that they have elevated themselves above other believers and office bearers and have assumed this authority; it is only the indifferent attitude of the rest which allows them to get away with this. Others claim that the "general population" in the church has been hoodwinked and cowed into submission with threats of damnation on the part of the preachers and therefore, quake before their authority. (Criticism, however far out it may appear to be, should always be taken seriously; even if it is not aimed at us directly, we should always ask, "Does this apply to me?" This goes for preachers, too!)

Obviously, we need an answer to this kind of rather nasty criticism. Even though some preachers may have falsely assumed their authority, even though some may abuse their office by their threats and manipulation, this does not take away the fact that there is a genuine authority which is given to all true preachers. The Scripture makes this very clear.

We can refer to the prophetic utterances recorded in the Old Testament, in which the authority is presented in this way, "…thus saith the Lord…" Some preachers may be tempted to do that and base their case on the fact that they stand in the special office of prophets – New Testament version. It makes little difference whether we come to this "prophetic" conclusion along the lines of Reformed thinking (as per Lord's Day 12) or along the thought patterns of various "prophets" in charismatic circles, the conclusion is wrong and will lead to harm for the Church. Yes, believers are prophets (and priests and kings); yes, we do recognize that in the church today this general office may be distinguished from the special office of prophet/preacher, priest/deacon, king/(ruling) elder, but no! this prophetic office does not give any preacher the right to claim, "Thus saith the Lord," in the same way as did the Old Testament prophets. (Note emphasis!) Their authority does not reside in their "prophetic office" in that way; or, we may say, the authority that does reside in their office is not of the same kind and does not go to the same extent as did the authority of Old Testament prophets. Those prophets were revealers of God's will; they gave the Word of God to man; today's preacher is called to do no more than to proclaim and explain what has already been given. So then, to look for the preacher's authority in the Old Testament in this way, is to look in the wrong place.

Shall we then find it in the New Testament? If we look to the apostles and claim to have that kind of authority, we again are quite wrong. Apostles, too, were revealers of God's Word; their words, in some instances, were

God's Word. Not every word spoken or written by the apostles is to be considered as the "Word of God" but those words which, through the good care of the Holy Spirit have been recorded and kept, are. The apostles were aware of this, too – see 2 Peter 3:16. They explained the Word already given and, from time to time, they added to that Word (through their inspired writings). They were heralds and witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ; they spoke His word and testified of the fact that He was risen from the dead. We, too, as preachers, are heralds and witnesses of the Lord Jesus but

…we are not clothed in apostolic authority. We cannot bear their eyewitness to the risen Christ. But by God's grace we are numbered among those faithful men into whose hands the apostolic deposit has been placed. Like Timothy we must guard that good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwelleth in us (2 Tim.1:14). We do so when we hold to the outline of sound words which we read in that Book which contains the witness of the apostles and is the Word of God.

The authority of preaching is not heightened but lost if the preacher forsakes his place behind the book. We are called to be Christ's but not Christs. The Incarnation is not continued in us, so that we may declare "I say unto you." Nor are we apostles or prophets, inspired by the Spirit to lay afresh the foundations of the church for a new day. We are ministers of the Word; by God's grace wise men and scribes sent by Christ (Matt.23:34); evangelists, pastors and teachers; men of God thoroughly furnished by the Holy Scriptures for every good work of our calling."⁵

It is becoming clear, then, that the preacher's authority is not of the same kind as that of the apostles and prophets. They were used by God to lay the foundation of the church, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20); preachers do receive authority but it is derived, secondary, from the apostles through the laying on of hands, rather than from God directly, Himself. Surely, we recognize that even as the calling of the apostles and their commission was direct, and in that sense different from anything any preacher may experience no matter how strong his sense of calling, so the gift of authority is different both in the manner of giving and in the kind of authority given.

But does this leave preachers with any authority at all? Does this not make it all seem rather weak? Not at all! Preachers do come with authority, even of the highest order. This authority is so great, that any man who is called to preach and who understands a little of the nature of this authority, will be humbled deeply before God and will ascend the pulpit with fear and trembling. (All too often such terms are used loosely; sometimes they may even be used to create an impression of spirituality; however, let there be no mistake about it: even though the trembling may not be noticed and the fear may be masked, ascending the pulpit to bring the Word of God is the weightiest of all tasks.)

The authority of preachers comes directly from Christ. Christ speaks through them. No, this is not in conflict with what was written above in connection with apostolic authority but it flows from the terms which the Holy Spirit uses for preaching and it is directly confirmed by the Word itself.

When a herald speaks, he speaks not his own word but that of his sender. To the extent that he speaks his sender's words, to the same extent he is being a faithful and a good herald. You find the same thing in negotiations: a spokesperson for the one party cannot make promises or commitments which he has not been authorized to make; he must first confer with the party he represents. How often do we not hear of that in, for example, labour disputes? Preachers cannot bring their own word; it must be the Word of God.

That does not mean that whatever preachers say, in their official capacity, is the infallibly inspired Word. Here is where the tension comes in for when we preach, no matter how "good" the sermon is, there is always the element of sin, for the preacher is human and, hence, a sinner. If the preacher may be compared to an instrument, we have to say that it is an instrument with many imperfec­tions and of poor material; however, the One playing the instrument is willing to make use of it. In His great wisdom, the Lord has seen fit to use men to bring His Word. To the extent that they let that Word sound through clear and undefiled, to that extent they are being true to their calling.

This truth also gives them their authority. It is not vested in them as persons but in their capacity, their role, as instruments or as heralds. They may bring nothing of themselves; it must all be the Word of God. A truly humbling and are we inspiring thought!

In addition to deducing this from Scripture's terms for preaching ("herald," etc.) there is also direct textual proof for this. The well known passage of Romans 10 comes into the picture, especially verse 14. Our KJV translates the pertinent (for our discussion) middle section, "…and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" John Murray, in his The Epistle to the Romans, uses the translation of the American Standard Version of 1901 which, in this instance, is correct: "…and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?" Notice that the preposition "of" has been dropped. Professor Murray also notes that "there is no need to insert the preposition 'in' before 'him.'" Without going into a grammar, we do note there is quite a difference between hearing him and hearing of him.

The one is direct, the other, indirect. The point is that through preaching, Christ is heard.

"A striking feature of this clause is that Christ is represented as being heard in the gospel when proclaimed by sent messengers. The implication is that Christ speaks in the gospel proclamation … The personal commitment which faith implies is coordinate with the encounter with Jesus' own words in the gospel message. And the dignity of the messengers, reflected on later, is derived from the fact that they are the Lords spokesmen."⁶

What greater authority could one have but this? Christ, speaking through the preacher! But then, the preacher must use that authority as Christ would use it! This we hope to develop a little the next time. For now, we remember that Christ commanded his ministers (= "servants") to "feed his sheep and lambs." Christ stands in the threefold office of prophet, priest and king. Preachers stand in the (special) prophetic office but it is not divorced from the other two. When there are problems or questions surrounding the preaching, there is often a defensive action by preachers in which we reach for the kingly office; we, almost naturally, seek to shore up our sense of authority. But do we also realize that there is a priestly aspect to our ministry? We are to preach not only with the authority of our King, but also with the mercy of our High Priest.