Proposition: 
 "The Scriptures teach that all of or most of the public preaching and teaching of a congregation is 
not to be done by a single man.  It is the responsibility of all male members to publicly instruct the 
congregation."

Thanks to the list owners for providing this arena in which we can  examine this proposition.  I 
appreciate Jeremy Morris’s willingness to defend  his position as well as those who are interested 
in this study.  May we all  find new insight and deeper understanding of Biblical teaching on this  
subject.

The definition of terms is acceptable, so far as I can see for the moment.  Likewise your list of 
non-issues, though a question or two might be raised in regard to classes.

This proposition contains two distinct ideas. The first is a powerful prohibition:  one man must not 
do most of the teaching.  Therefore, your first duty must be to prove this prohibition Biblical.  The 
second idea demands all men must share the role of teacher. Thus next on your affirmative agenda 
is the need to prove this shared responsibility.  However, even should you prove one man must not 
do all or even most of the teaching, you must climb yet higher to establish that none is exempt 
from the duty to be a public teacher.  

You say ‘the Scriptures make it quite clear that the preaching and teaching of a congregation is the 
responsibility of all men, not a single man’ in fact, you insist this is ‘the meat of the matter’  

How does Scripture do this?  You say, ‘this is clear by both command and example’ yet you cite 
no apostolic command that prohibits a single man to do all or most of a congregation’s teaching. If 
such a command is in the NT, surely you would have presented it, but you did not.  Either such 
does not exist, and you know that, or it does exist and you are holding it for a later article.  Which 
is it?  We will watch this closely.

The first passage you cite is Hebrews 10:25. None can fail to see the beauty and power of 
encouragement here, yet nothing in the context limits the passage to men.  You seem to seek this 
limitation by giving ‘encourage' he meaning ‘to address, to speak’ and then applying this to male 
speakers.  Next you go a step even further to declare it a command to which all brothers stand in 
equal relationship, but in doing so you cross the line from authority into assumption. 

You are quite fond of the word ‘mutual’ Seventeen times this word is found in your article, but the 
word is not used properly.  The basic meaning is a reciprocal relationship between two or more 
people.  Your "mutual ministry" in practice is only partial; that’s, only men have a true mutual 
ministry in that each is edified by the other.  Women are relegated to be only observers as all men 
mobilize for this mutual male ministry.

Even though you admit ‘ministry and edification can be achieved in many different avenues’ you 
speak only of ‘the practice of how a congregation is to be instructed’  Hebrews 10:25 says nothing 
about how a congregation is to be instructed, and certainly not one word calling all men to come 
one-by-one to stand before the congregation as a teacher. 

Likewise your citation of Romans 15:14.  You see ‘admonition as a type of teaching’ and 
immediately summon all men to stand before the assembled congregation as teachers.  What in 
this text excludes women and creates your mutual male ministry?  Certainly not the word 
‘brethren’  It is found 13 times in Romans:  1:13; 7:1,4; 8:12,29; 9:3; 10:1;11:25; 12:1; 15:14,30; 
16:14,17.  Read them all carefully, but not even one refers exclusively to males.  

What about 1 Corinthians 14?  Having found no command to support your ideal of a mutual male 
ministry, you give us the example of the Corinthian congregation.  Even though the chapter 
regulates the practice of spiritual gifts, you argue that ‘a principle is set forth’  What is this 
principle?  ‘Paul encouraged the members to all pursue a gift which would edify and exhort and 
comfort the congregation’ 

How are we to understand verse five?  Paul says he wished all the Corinthians had the gift of 
tongues.  Is this a command for all males to stand before the congregation as teachers?  No. First, 
nothing in the verse limits ‘all’ to males.  Second, Paul had just reminded these brethren that ‘not 
all are teachers’ and ‘not all speak with tongues’ [see 1 Corinthians 12:29,30].  Third, this was not 
a mutual male ministry because it was limited to only prophets and tongue speakers.  The only 
way to make this fit your mold of a mutual male ministry is to demonstrate that all men were 
prophets and/or tongues men.  You might assume this, but canyon prove it?  No.

You insist this chapter is the pattern feral church meetings because ‘why do we feel that non-
inspired men can do anything less?’  Again I ask, Were all male members of the Corinthian 
congregation prophets and/or tongues men?  Unless they were uniformly gifted, the practice here 
is clear:  some men were speakers, and others were not.  There was no mutual male ministry at 
Corinth.

In commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:26 you misspeak yourself.  ‘Here Paul describes the practice 
of the congregation at Corinth.  What practice do we find?  Mutual edification/ministry.  All 
members participated’ Read that last sentence again.  ‘All members participated’ I suspect you 
meant to say that ‘all male members participated’ since that is the demand of your proposition.  
Will you tell us how you exclude women from your so-called ‘mutual ministry’ in verse 26?

Acts 15:35 is offered, and we are told this passage is critical to the debate’ Perhaps, but your 
assumption about this verse is critical to your position.  You assume Paul, Barnabas and every 
other male Christian at Antioch stood before the congregation as a teacher. It is not enough to say 
for you to say that ‘many others’ participated in the public teaching.  You must prove ALL male 
members were held responsible to instruct the congregation publicly.  This you have not done, nor 
can you do so.  In fact, it denies your proposition, because to support your idea it should read "all 
others" instead of "many others."  Luke has specifically disproved your proposition.  

Having looked at the passages offered in the first affirmative, let us now examine other verses 
which your proposition clearly contradicts.  For instance, 1 Corinthians 12:28-30.  Here Paul says 
God appointed teachers in the body of Christ, yet not all members of this body are teachers.  Are 
you prepared to insist that all men are teachers and those who are not teachers are the women?

One requirement for an elder is the ability to teach [1 Timothy 3:2].  If each and every man is 
expected to be a teacher, why would Paul insist only a competent teacher should be considered for 
the work of a bishop?  This proves not all men are apt to teach.

James 3:1 says plainly, ‘Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren’ yet you demand all 
men do exactly that. Urging all men to be public teachers forces some brothers to ‘be teachers' 
even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they 
make confident assertions’ [1 Timothy 1:7].

You asked, Where in the scriptures do we find the public teaching and preaching of a congregation 
limited to a single man or limited few?  Here are five such passages.  Early converts were taught 
by the apostles and none others Acts 2:42].  The apostles gave their witness to the resurrection to 
the congregation of those who believed, and abundant grace was upon them all [Acts 4:33].  There 
were five teachers in the church at Antioch, a congregation with "a large number" [Acts 11:22 and 
Acts 13:1].  Acts 20:7-12 shows only one speaker at a first-day-of-the-week gathering to break 
bread.  Some, but not all, were given to be teachers to equip the saints [Ephesians 4:11,12].

In summary, you have not produced a Biblical command prohibiting one man or even a few men 
from doing all or most of the public teaching.  You also have not cited the command for all male 
members to participate in public teaching.  Thus both sides of your proposition remain unproved.

There is more to be said, and I hope to expand my response as the discussion continues.  May we 
grow in grace as well as in truth.

-- Steve Bobbitt