He taught them.
He expounded all things to his disciples.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Not only so, we find the Lord expounding the Scriptures. Also Peter, in vindicating his ministry to the Gentiles, "...rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them,..." Acts 11:4.
So we find teaching in the New Testament, and we find expounding, and of course the two are related. What we do not find is the institution known as "expository teaching" and which has dominated in the churches for centuries, especially since the Reformation.
Expounding is simply explaining. If one searches the internet for alternative translations of Acts 11:4, for example (where it says that Peter expounded in the KJV), he will find that many of the translations simply render it "explaining." And that is because expounding and explaining are exactly the same thing.
I am all in favor of good teaching in the churches on the first day of the week. What I am not in favor of is 1) the length of the teaching, 2) the number of teachers heard, and 3) the idea that "expository teaching" is anything.
There is simply good and bad teaching. Much bad teaching has been and is being done via the medium of "expository teaching." Much good teaching has been and is being done without the form known as "expository teaching." The common thread between expository and topical teaching is that both occupy forty minutes or so in the center of the Sunday meeting.
But here is the key to the matter: "expository teaching" is virtually the sole form of teaching recognized in the churches. Every other form of teaching is considered inferior, and the teachers not using this form--or not "licensed" to use the form by virtue of no scholastic training--are in effect given short shrift.
In nineteenth-century Europe, Christian teachers needed a license from the state in order to teach. The only thing that has changed is that, now, the teachers need a seminary degree. One was law; the other is corrupt human tradition. The apostles would have a hard time "getting hired" (a corrupt phrase in its own right) today.
On the chapter entitled "The Sunday sermon" in my book, I detail how the sermon is the principal vehicle by which a mutual ministry of the saints described in Romans 12 is displaced. Now, what is the justification for the sermon? Why, the purported necessity for "expository teaching" of the Scriptures! And make no mistake, the "necessity" is believed in by both "clergy"
and "laity." Indeed, it is "the laity" that demand it and believe so fervently in it. It is a sacred tradition. And it is found nowhere in the New Testament. Instead it is a form favored in Spectator Christianity with the justification that "we can always learn more," or "listening to the sermon shows how teachable we are," or some other such false humility.
The truth is, we always CAN and should learn more, and this is not the slightest justification for "expository teaching."
It is not that line-by-line teaching of the Scriptures is wrong. It is wrong that we put our faith in it. It is wrong that we hold it sacrosanct, meanwhile treading under foot the indicated New Testament church practices. It is wrong that one man do "expository teaching" every week to the detriment of every other speaking gift in the assembly.
You understand, I hope, that in the manner of meeting indicated in Romans 12 and I Corinthians 14, several or many men may expound or explain or teach the Scriptures. "Explaining" is not the institution known as "expository teaching." A man may explain or expound the Scriptures in three or four of five minutes, and then another man may speak. Occasionally one man may speak at length, as when a teacher visits the church, or when the subject at hand requires more time to expound. By contrast, "expository teaching" in the form of the sermon dominates the meeting every Sunday morning without fail and in perpetuity.
I believe the churches that put their faith in the institution of expository teaching are worshipping an idol. I would go so far as to call it Bibliolatry, and I believe this was one of the Pharisees' problems. After all, who knew the Scriptures better than the Pharisees?
Don't misunderstand me. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word and true from first to last. I venerate the Scriptures but I do not worship the Scriptures. I worship the Christ revealed in the Scriptures. The theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ, and that is Whom I worship. By contrast, the Pharisees worshipped the Scriptures and killed our Lord and Savior.
Do not tell me that believers cannot be like the Pharisees in their attitudes toward the Word. Of course we can. Believers cannot be and are not like the Pharisees in their attitude toward Christ, and I do not suggest this for a moment. But believers may certainly be like the Pharisees in their attitude toward the Word, e.g., that the Bible is a book to be worshipped. Besides, not a few of the people who put so much faith in "hearing sermons," and by extension, "expository teaching as the principal if not only way of showing our love of Scriptures," are not saved.
I find it ironic that it is the Bible-believing churches and not the apostate churches in Christendom which place so much confidence in "expository teaching." But I have also noticed that most of these churches are on the road to Rome.
When a teacher teaches, he expounds the Scriptures, period. This may or may not take the sermon form. By contrast, the practice--no, the unassailable, sacrosanct, and inviolable tradition in the churches--is "expository teaching" by one man in the form of a forty-minute sermon, and this displaces the ministry of the other speaking gifts in the churches, in the full assembly, when others may judge the teaching (unlike in Sunday school), with the consequence that the members of the body with speaking gifts are unexercised and become weak, never grow up spiritually, remain carnal, even babes in Christ. This describes "the clergy system," where even the pastor is never built up by the other members of the body, seeing as how they never minister to him, except, perhaps, "after church," or on Tuesday.