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."

Again, greetings in the name of Christ.  I apologize about the tardiness of this third affirmation of 
the above proposition.  I appreciate the patience and attention Steve, the moderators, and all those 
following this discussion have given to the topic at hand.  As always, may God guide us.

Unfortunately to some I stand by my previously stated opinion that the role of women in public 
congregational instruction is indeed off topic. We are discussing the role of the men and all 
passages mentioned and cited are examined in the light of the male’s role only.  Application of 
these passages to our sisters is indeed another subject for another day.

It is a little late, but it might be good to consider the relationship of several words.  Steve and I 
have used the words "preach", "teach", "exhort", "edify", "instruct", and "admonish" quite 
frequently.  It might be well for us to examine how these words relate to each other. Steve said, 
"some preaching is exhortation" and later "some admonition is teaching" in his previous rebuttal.  
He takes issue with "my assumption" that passages which use "admonish one another" or "exhort 
one another" are speaking of preaching or teaching.  

What sermon is not an exhortation, and edification, an instruction, or an admonishment?  I've 
heard multiple sermons and class lessons and Lord's Table talks, and comments and ALL fall into 
one of these areas. 

To my understanding, preaching and teaching is simply passing on a message while exhorting, 
edifying, instructing, and admonishing describes the specific purpose of the message being taught 
or preached.  If our sermons or classes are tools to be used to instruct, admonish, edify, and/or 
exhort, these tools must be open to all men since the responsibility to instruct, admonish, edify, 
and/or exhort is given to all men.

Do I assume, as Steve states, that the exhorting in Hebrews 10:25 "is done in a church meeting?"  
Yes.  Why?  Because the context of the exhorting is clearly when the saints have assembled 
themselves together.   Do I assume this exhorting is teaching?  Yes.  Why?  For the reasons in the 
above paragraph.  Do I assume that it is "done by all male members"? Yes.  Why?  What part of 
"exhorting one another" is not applicable to all?  Steve, do you believe that the command to 
"exhorting one another" does not apply to all men?

Regarding Romans 15:14, do I assume "this admonishing is teaching"?  Yes why?  Because their 
ability to "admonish one another" was because they "were filled with knowledge."  I see this 
admonishing related to this knowledge and utilizing this knowledge; hence, teaching.  Do I 
assume this admonition "is done in a church meeting"?  Yes, as well as at home, at work, and all 
other places.  I see this command to teach by "admonishing one another" applicable to all times 
and opportunities--especially the public assembly.  What better time is there to fulfill this ability 
and responsibility than when the church is assembled?  Do I assume that it is "done by all male 
members"?  Yes. Why? What part of "admonish one another" is not applicable to all? Steve, do 
you believe that the command to "admonish one another" does not apply to all men?

Another statement was made.  "[Jeremy], you have not produced a command which forbids one 
man or even several men to provide all or most of the congregational teaching."  This is a poorly 
phrased question because it overlooks passages which do not use the word "teach" but are clearly 
speaking of teaching.  If by teaching, Steve means admonishing, then Romans 15:14 answers his 
question.  The command for all to admonish is equal to a prohibition of only one admonishing.  If 
by teaching Steve means exhorting, then Hebrews 10:25 answers his question for the same 
reason.  If by teaching Steve means edifying, then I Thess. 5:11 ("and edify one another") answers 
his question.

Steve seems to be insistent that the commands to edify, exhort, and  admonish one another do not 
apply to the sermon or public instruction.   My question is "Why not?"  Why is the time set aside 
for the sermon exempt from these commands?  Why are all men given the responsibility to 
admonish, exhort, and edify their brothers and sisters but they can be hindered in doing such when 
the congregation is gathered together?

To better illustrate my point, let us examine Ephesians 5:19.  "Speaking to yourselves in psalms 
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."  All are 
commanded not just to sing, but to sing to each other.  Steve's application to this passage would be 
that we can sing to each other in our homes and on the streets but when we come together, it is 
totally scriptural to hinder this "mutual singing" and limit music to a single soloist or a four person 
quartet while the rest of us never sing at all during the service.  If we admit that public singing is 
to be done by all then we must also admit that public admonition, exhortation, and edification 
through preaching and teaching is the same.

Steve has worked very hard to negate the impact of I Corinthians 14 on our present pattern of 
congregational instruction.  I appreciate our discussion on the matter but his approach that this 
passage is not applicable does not fit the passage.  He said, "First Corinthians 14 gives you no help 
because it speaks only to prophets."  So only prophets can edify since "he that prophesieth 
speaketh unto men to edification"? Since we have no prophets we cannot edify?  Of course not.  
Since we have no prophets is God now an author of confusion?  Of course not.  

The principle I presented still applies.  Using Steve's very good summation of the principle, "all 
men, inspired or not, must rotate the teaching because the prophets and tongue speakers did."  
Exactly. Looking specifically at the prophets, when they prophesied what was their purpose?  "But 
he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation, and comfort."  I Cor. 14:3.  
Edification through teaching is to be done by many (i.e., by two or three, verse 29).  Exhortation 
and comfort the same.  It is extremely perplexing to take the position that Steve has affirmed.  His 
admitted position is that inspired men were bound to share the public preaching and teaching but 
uninspired men are not.  I don't see I Corinthians 14 specific to prophets and tongue speakers only, 
but to men who exhort, edify, comfort, and admonish.  

Steve believe I err in my application of I Corinthians 14 because, "you overlook the fact that the 
'two or three' rule proves it was not the rule in all church assemblies, else that would have already 
been the practice of the church at Corinth."  The Corinthians had lost sight of many things and 
Paul spent much of I Corinthians reminding them of what they needed to do.  Paul reminded them 
in I Corinthians 5 to disfellowship from those who openly practiced lawlessness.  Paul reminded 
them in I Corinthians 11 to wait on each other when partaking of the Lord's Supper.  We all agree 
that the command to "wait on one another" is applicable for all assemblies for all congregations, 
not just Corinth.  Why would those commands in chapter 14 be any different. Does Steve wish to 
admit that not all congregations must "wait on one another" when partaking of the Lord's Supper?

Steve mentioned five passages supporting his position which were inadvertently overlooked on 
my part.  Here are my responses:

Acts 2:42 speaks only of the apostle's doctrine.  It is improper to assume, as Steve has, that only 
apostles can teach the apostle's doctrine.  The passage does not state who was instructing others 
about this doctrine.

Acts 4:33 speaks of the apostles witnessing the resurrection of Christ. This is a specific teaching 
because not all Christians saw the risen Savior.  One cannot witness, in the sense of this passage, 
what he has not seen or experienced.

Acts 20:7-12 is a snapshot of a single service at Troas and not an example of what they did every 
service.  In fact, the passage CANNOT apply to all of Troas' assemblies since Paul left Troas on 
Monday.  To use Acts 20:7-12 as a pattern would imply speaking at a congregation only once and 
then leaving for another congregation.

Ephesians 4:11-12:  "Pastors and teachers" is generally considered to be two terms for the same 
office.  This passage is also specific to the office and not the work.  If Steve wishes to use this 
passage to state that only some in the congregation could teach since only a limited few are in the 
office of "pastors and teachers" then Steve must also state that only some in a congregation can 
evangelize since only a limited few are in the office of an evangelist.

Acts 13:1 contains the phrase "prophets and teachers" which is again considered by many to be 
two words describing the same office.  It is therefore easy to see Antioch containing only five 
holding the office of the prophet.  These does not exclude all other men from teaching publicly 
since they were not prophets.

The history of the congregation at Antioch was brought up.  In support of his position, Steve 
stated, "as soon as conversions occurred the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas, and he 'began to 
encourage them all' [Acts 11:22, 23].  Who can doubt Barnabas did the lion's share of the teaching 
at this time?"  I can Steve because the Bible does not say he did the lion's share of the teaching.  
We know he didn't in Acts 15:35. 

Steve's own assumption meter goes wild here because he assumes that Barnabas' mere presence at 
a congregation necessitates him being the primary teacher and preacher during his stay.  This is an 
unfounded logical leap with no supporting evidence.  When details are given of Barnabas' 
preaching habits in Acts 15:35 we find that he did not do the "lion's share of the teaching."

Steve went on and said that "[Barnabas] was effective and 'considerable numbers were brought to 
the Lord' [verse 24]."  I don't know the purpose of the above statement but it appears to pass on the 
idea that a single man doing the lion's share of the preaching is more effective than multiple 
individuals doing the preaching and teachings.  First, we have no idea the comparative amount of 
teaching and preaching Barnabas did while at Antioch this time.  Second, Barnabas was no more 
effective on his own than what the congregation was doing by themselves.  While was Barnabas 
sent in the first place?  Because God used multiple individuals who spoke either to the Jews or the 
Greeks and "a great number believed and turned to the Lord."  Acts 11:21.  

In my second affirmative I covered the issue that not all who teach are teachers just like not all 
who evangelize are evangelists.  Steve did not disagree with this position but asked "tell us 
plainly, then, how one becomes a teacher" and "what must a teaching man do to become a 
teacher?"  The man must have a high level of respect.  James 3:1 addresses this very issue because 
of the influence a man who is in the position of a teacher has over people.  He is highly respected 
and must be careful not to abuse this respect.  The man must be "of full age, that is, those who by 
reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."  Hebrews 5:14.  This is in 
the context of describing teachers.  Unlike prophets, elders, prophets, and apostles, I do not see the 
position of a teacher gained by appointment but attained over time.  Do you disagree?

I believe my use of historical finding was misunderstood.  If there is confusion over how passages 
apply to the public worship service then we can use history to see how the first century church 
understood these passages AND their personal responsibilities.  Were congregations using "mutual 
edification" or did only certain men instruct and preach and teach?  I believe that the Bible teaches 
the public preaching and teaching is the responsibility of all men.  What do I find when I look at 
three different historian's observations?  I find that all men were given the opportunity to publicly 
instruct the congregation.  I believe the opportunity was extended to all men because it was the 
responsibility of all men.

Finally, and I know I've drawn this out for quite some time, what is a typical church meeting at my 
congregation?  I'm assuming this is in light of the topic at hand.  As I mentioned in my first 
affirmative, I defined teaching as instructing the congregation in either sermons, or Lord's Table 
talks, or classes.  Steve accepted this definition.  Sunday morning.  One man teaches the class of 
adults upstairs, one man some adults down stairs.  Another man leads the Lord's Table talk.  
Another man gives the sermon.  The class teachers rotate every three months and all other 
instructors rotate weekly.  Sunday evening is either multiple sermons by different men or a 
discussion led by a certain man.  Again, we rotate every week.  Wednesday night has a man 
teaching the adults upstairs and a different man offering the gospel invitation.  The class teacher 
rotates every thing months and the person giving the invitation rotates every week.  

If an evangelist is present things don't change much at all.  If he is just there things go on as 
described above.  If we ask him to participate then he does one of the above forms of instruction 
during that particular assembly but never all.  If an evangelist locates at a congregation and is 
present at all or most of the assemblies his work is not to do all of the sermons, or always lead the 
class or always lead the Lord's Table talk.  He participates as the other men would.  I apologize to 
Steve about the length of this final affirmation of the proposition at hand.  I tried to address all of 
his concerns and questions so he doesn't believe I am avoiding an argument he brought up. If I 
have neglected one it was not on purpose.  I thank the moderators of this list for allowing this 
discussion and a special thanks to Steve himself for agreeing to participate in it with me.

In Christ,
Jeremy Morris