Let's examine the three methods of establishing the validity of our Christian practices. Although Examples occur so often that substantiation seems hardly necessary, a few illustrations in respect to:
Paul instructed Timothy, "These things command and teach."
(1 Timothy 4:11)
Peter said, "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps." (1 Peter 2:21)
Paul, referring to God's Judgment against idolatrous Israelites, warned us that "all these things happened unto them for examples."(1 Corinthians 10:6)
As for Necessary Inferences: In His reply to the Sadducees trick question concerning the Levite law, Jesus Necessarily Inferred that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living somewhere, even though there physical deaths had occurred centuries before. (Matthew 22:22-32)
In Acts 15:12, Luke Necessarily implies that the miracles and wonders wrought by Paul and Barnabus among the Gentiles proved that God had accepted the Gentiles as proper candidates for conversion upon the same basis that He did the Jews. In other words, without being made to keep the Law of Moses, or any of its provisions.
A "necessary Inference" drawn from Acts 8:14-18, which concludes with, "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given ..." is that the miraculous spiritual gifts of speaking in "tongues," "healings," etc were temporary, and would last only until the last person the apostles had laid their hands on died --- because they were "given --- through the laying on of the apostles hands."
In 1 Corinthians 11:26, Paul necessarily implies the use of one cup in the observance of the Lord's Supper by using the figure of speech called metonymy in the phrase "drink this cup"
Finally, in Hebrew 7:14, the writer necessarily implies that Jesus could not be a priest on earth because it is evident our Lord sprang out of Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing about the priesthood."
The point of these illustrations is that We Establish Bible Authority By Command, Example, And Necessary Inference - Not Because Anyone Else Does Or Does Not Do It This Way, But Because That Is Exactly How Jesus And The Apostles Applied Their Lines Of Argumentation In The Record Of The New Testament!
· Are There Differences Between Commands, Exhortation, And Principles?There are subtle differences between these words, but generally they have the same meaning: to give an order to; to direct with authority. When the reference is of giving of orders, the command implies a formal command of absolute authority, as by a sovereign or military leader. Synonyms include: PRECEPT, DIRECT, INSTRUCT, ENJOIN, or CHARGE. There are at least eight different Greek words that essentially have the same meaning as our English words, which are translated command!
A PRECEPT is a commandment or direction meant as a rule of action. Precepts are the direct commands, rules, regulations, codes, or requirements of Scripture.
To EXHORT means to admonish or to urge someone to pursue some coarse of conduct. It is always prospective, looking toward the future. In contrast to the meaning of COMFORT, which looks backward, having to do with a trial or experience. EXHORTATION also carries with it the idea of advice, with strong warning or encouraging some action on the part of the hearer.
PRINCIPLES may be either rules of conduct or a fundamental law, doctrine, or motivating force on which others are based. Principles are the underlying truths that are the basis and reason for the PRECEPTS. A principle is a standard of truth that may be applied to more than one situation. Principles further help to explain the "why" behind the precept. Never-the -less principles are also commands.
The broader principles underscoring these specific precepts are found in passages like Matthew 6:33, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God"; Ephesians 5:15-16, "Redeem the time"; 2 Timothy 3:1, "Be ready unto every good work"; 2 Timothy 10:12, "Take heed lest you fall"; Ephesians 6:10, "Be strong in the lord"; Mark 8:34, "Deny self"; Matthew 5:13-16, "Let your light so shine before men"; James 14:15, "Love God".
Whatever differences may be construed between command, example, and necessary inference, it must be recognizes that the object of all three is to make action obligatory.
In determining whether or not a specific imperative is bound upon us today we must first determine the writer's purpose. All of the rules of interpretation must be correctly applied to the passage.
· Is It Possible For The Meaning Or Sentiment Behind A Command To Be Authoritative And Not The Command Itself?
In general, no. This notion derives from a supposed distinction between "the spirit" and "the letter" of the law. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, says "He has made us competent as ministers of a New Covenant - not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." The whole notion of a distinction between the rule and the rule itself is a complete fiction. Contextually in 2 Corinthians 3 the "letter that kills" is the ministration of death written on "tablets of stone" (vs 3:3, 7), in other words the ten commandments, or the Old Testament Law! That "which gives life" is Grace, or the Law of Christ, or the New Testament Law. One cannot obey the meaning or sentiment behind the commands without obeying the command itself!
This arrangement was legislated in order to avoid having to have an emergency collection. If an emergency should arise, an individual, or a group of individuals, each acting on their own initiative could do whatever is consummate with the rest of the New Testament. The collective "body" of Christ is to participate in the collection only on the first day of the week.
Two passages in particular were suggested as relevant to this inquiry: 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was one of them. The question is whether or not the contribution was a universal command, and consequently binding today, or a situational command to meet a temporary need, and therefore temporary in nature and not mandatory today. The objectors to this passage being construed as universal point out that this collection was for a specific need, the poor saints in Judea. When the need was satisfied the order ended, they reason.
1 Corinthians 16:1, 4 is binding today, but it is binding as an EXAMPLE, not as a command. It illustrates how and when the church collects the money to obey a variety of commands having to do with the financial support of: preachers, elders, "widows indeed", needy saints, or any other prescribed by the New Testament scriptures that mandate a need of money for the collective "body of Christ" (the local congregation) to obey (there are specific area of private giving commanded in the New testament). This takes away the whole concernation about whether this is temporary or not. The passage is to be understood in the same way as Acts 20:7. The example illustrates BACKGROUND RULES.
John 13:14-15, concerning washing feet. Whether or not we are commanded to wash feet today. As a matter of ritual ceremony, no. Jesus plainly said their feet were dirty and needed to be washed. Jesus did this as a graphic illustration of the same lesson He had taught the Apostles on many other occasions. Like here, they were arguing about who should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
The key verse that removes this from a ceremonial cleansing is John 13:10. It never was a ceremonial or ritual cleansing. Are we commanded to wash feet today? Yes! If a fellow Christian needs that service performed for them, yes. Are we commanded to do it ceremonially, as a part of the Lord's Supper? Of coarse not. It never was done ceremonially in this way, or any other. Is this example more for than just washing feet? Yes. What did Jesus do? He humbled Himself for the sake of another
His explanation of this paradox is found in Romans 8:18, "For I consider that the suffering of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us." Jesus explained in Philippians 4:6, "Be anxious for nothing" on His sermon on the mount in Matthew 6:24-34. Paul provides the interactive to "anxious worry over things that we cannot control" in the same verse under question, when he says, "But in every thing by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God".
The New Testament commands emotions all the time: LOVE, FEAR, JOY, PEACE, HATE, etc. It commands the actions that bring about these emotions. James 5:13-14, "If any afflicted let him pray; if any happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any of you sick? Let him call the elders ..." The question is, if we are happy and do not sing songs of praise; are afflicted and do not pray; are sick and do not call for the elders, do we violate these commands?
As the precept concerning singing songs when cheerful does not imply that we are not to pray when we are happy ( 1 Thessalonians 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:8; James 5:16). So, the precepts concerning prayer and affliction do not imply that we are not to express our joy in suffering according to the will of God (singing songs as did Paul and Silas in the jail, Philippians 16:25).
The question here in James 5, "Let him pray", as opposed to what? If you look at the context, it describes rich men who are oppressing mercilessly, even killing people, refusing to pay their wages, etc. In verse 12 Paul says they are "to pray" as opposed to “swearing"; verse 8, "brethren be patient"; verse 9, "establish your hearts"; verse 10-11, "grudge not one against another"; verse 12, ""above all do not swear and curse"; verse 13ยช14, "instead, when you are afflicted pray, when you are happy sing, when you are sick call for the elders ...".
1) What Is An Example?Webster's Dictionary defines an example as: "An instance serving for illustration for a principle or method"; "A particular case or problem illustrating a general rule, or truth". In other words, an example is an illustration, clarification, explanation, or application of a background rule, or rules.
An example differs from an instance, happenstance, or occurrence, in that all of those simply report action and they do not carry binding authority. An example by it's very nature is binding because of it's relationship to the rule, or rules, it illustrates. If an incident can be demonstrated to be an example, the it is binding.
2) Why Are Examples Considered In Interpreting Scripture?
They are considered because they are normative (the standard of conduct to be imitated), and because the New Testament teaches us by examples. Acts 20:7 illustrates the principle of 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the lord's death until He comes." How often did they eat that bread and drink that cup? Acts 20:7, gives the example of when, “... Upon the first day of the week."
Therefore it is incumbent for all congregations to observe the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. 1 Corinthians 16:12 constitutes an example illustrating how churches are to collect money to obey the commands regulating the churches financial obligations. The fact that the disciples were in the upper room when the Lord's Supper was instituted is not binding because it does not illustrate a rule, therefore it is not an example. It is simply an incident reported about the occasion. All examples are binding. The question is whether or not an example can be deduced from a particular incident. If it is an example, it is binding!
First let's understand what a necessary implication is. It is the conclusion gained from evidence, without actually being stated directly. When I am speaking to you, I imply something. When you are listening, you infer what you hear. If you say, "I'm going to get a cup of coffee", you imply that you are going to stop what you're doing, at least momentarily, to get some coffee, although you haven't specifically said that. But, we must be very sure first, that the point under consideration is one that is fairly implied by the statements of scripture, and not merely read into scripture for our-selves. That is, inferred with warrant from the text.
2) What Is Fairly Implied In Scripture Must Be Necessarily Implied.
In other words, is it essential to understanding, or necessary that the implication be recognized? If so, the necessary implication is binding upon us today. Jesus and the apostles taught by necessary inference. In Matthew 22:22-32 Jesus necessarily implied that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive - somewhere.
In Matthew 22:41, from the fact that Jesus was David's son and that David called Him Lord, we are to infer that both the humanity and deity of Jesus. In Matthew 11:3-5, Jesus answers John's question as to whether or not He was the Messiah. He did it by necessary implication. He didn't say "Yes, I'm the Messiah." He said, "Go back and tell John you have seen the lame walk, the deaf hear, and the blind see ... and the Gospel preached to the poor."
In Matthew 8:21, the passage can only be understood by inferring that the "dead" who are to bury the "dead" are spiritually dead and not physically dead.
In Matthew 4:7, when Jesus replied to Satan's temptation (when Satan quoted another verse of scripture about casting himself off the temple) was, "It is also written, 'do not put God to the test'". The reader is to infer necessarily that one scripture cannot be arrayed against another, but rather must be reconciled one with another.
In Hebrews 7:14, Paul necessarily implies that Christ could not be a priest on earth because He came from Judah, "About which Moses spoke nothing as concerning the priesthood". The New Testament authoritatively instructs us today on the use of necessary inference. It is necessarily implied in Acts 8:37 that the preaching Jesus requires is the preaching of baptism as a condition of salvation. Paul's statement that he had "determined not to know anything while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified", in 1 Corinthians 2:2. This necessarily implies that at least all the material covered in 1 Corinthians is preaching nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified; and probably it covers all that Paul wrote.
Weekly observance of the Lord's supper is necessarily implied in Acts 20:7. That one unleavened loaf of bread is to be used in the observance of the Lord's supper is necessarily implied in Matthew 26:17 & 26 and the by commands for conducting the Passover during which it was instituted. The mandatory use of one cup in the Lord's table is necessarily implied by 1 Corinthians 11:26, and by a careful study of the Passover and the other related verses.
3) How Do We Determine Which Passages Fall Into The Category Of Necessary Inferences?
By the careful study of every passage of the subject under consideration; by maintaining proper observance of the authors intended purpose; by careful attention to the context; by the correct application of all the rules of Hermeneutics; and by examining each case in it's own right.
Example: A parent tells their child to put on some "clothes". They then have the option of putting on “any” shirt, pants, dress, shoes, socks, etc. they want.
2. SPECIFIC: God has given a requirement which is distinguished as being different from others in the same class or group of items.
Example: The parent tells a child to put on a particular shirt, pants, dress, shoes, socks, etc. This ”specific ”order eliminates all other articles of the category or class (clothes).
Illustrations Of The "”Two Kinds Of Authority":
GENERAL SPECIFIC
Automobile:
Automobile:Chevy, Ford, Olds, Any other Ford
An order for an "automobile" A specific order for a "Ford"
would include any kind. excludes any other kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go" (Apostles) "Go" (Apostles) by Boat
Walk, Donkey, Boat, any other
Includes any method. A specific order, "boat",
excludes all other methods.
GENERAL SPECIFIC
"Eat" "Eat Bread”
Beef, Peanut , Jelly, Bread & A specific order for "bread"
Butter excludes all other foods.
Includes all kinds of foods
Expedients:
When we have a general requirement like "Go" how we "go" is an “expedient”, is just a means of achieving the "Go". How we go doesn't matter, as long as it isn't going against scripture somewhere else, example: to steal a boat would be against God's will, because stealing is set forth as a sin in the Bible.
Definition of an expedient: a means of achieving something; suitable for a particular purpose (in this context: suitable for God's purpose; within God's authority). NOT “RIGHT OR WRONG”, because God has no preference; therefore man has the right to choose for himself!
Problems of expedients:
1. Some things are black & white
command - Romans 13:9
2. Some things are not black or white.
Examples of expedients:
Circumcision - 1 Cor. 7:19 = God doesn't care
Eating of meats sacrificed, 1 Cor. 8:7-8 =God doesn't care.
COMMAND TO EAT “bread” (Lord's Supper) = a specific requirement
bread; meat; bread & jelly = same class (food)
This means that none other of this type (food) may be substituted, no tacos, steak, etc. In this case the example was UNLEAVENED, UNBROKEN BREAD (because of the Passover feast and all that it represented about Christ).
COMMAND TO “drink” ("fruit of the vine" = grapes) = specific requirement
"grape juice"; wine; milk; coke = same class (“drink”)
This means that no other “drink” may be substituted in place of the “fruit of the vine” (grapes). The fact that this was done during the Passover again limits this to grape-juice because there was no “leavening” allowed during that period.
COMMAND “do this” (“He took the cup” - singular) = specific requirement
"one cup"; as the example eliminates any other options.
This means that no more than one cup can be used when the congregation partakes of the Lord’s Supper because of the command couples with the example given to us by Jesus. Jesus then explained why, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood”. In other words it represents the New Covenant we have with God, verses the one the Jews has through Moses.
Ephesians 4:5 says there is “One baptism”; which one is for today?
WATER BAPTISM - Command: Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Example: Acts 8:26-39; 9:18; 16:15, 33; Necessary Inference: Acts 10:47-48; Purpose: Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 12:15; Galatians 3:27-28; Colossians 2:12-13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3;21
HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM - (Command:Acts 1:5; Example: Acts 2:4, Acts 2:38; Necessary Inference:Acts 8:9-19);
BAPTISM BY FIRE - Testing: 1 Corinthians 3:13; Judgement: Matthew 3:11-12; Luke 3:16-17; Revelation 20:15 ;
= Bible definition = “immersion” ,= same class
running water; Lake; Baptistery = CONTAINER = expedient > different class
As you strive to understand the will of God, remember these fundamental truths: The Bible is the Word of God Almighty; In The Word Of God Is The Truth; The Truth, God's Word, Constitutes The Will Of God For Man; God's Will Is Written Down In Human Language So That Men Can Know The Truth And Be Able To Understand What God's Will For Man Requires. The process of understanding what the will of the Lord is, is called the interpretation of Scripture, or Hermeneutics. God expects us to practice such interpretation. God expects man to discern and obey His will.
References
1. Jim Putterbaugh, Camino, CA, 1993
2. Don Pruit, Manteca, CA, New Years Meeting 1997
3. Glen Osburn, Placerville, CA, 1995
4. Greg DeGolf, Labor Day Meeting 1997
5. Alfred L. Newberry, “The Divine Pattern Advocate,” 2nd Ed., 1994
6. Smith Bibens, Introduction to Hermeneutics, Preacher Study Notes, 1996
7. Johnny Elmore, History of Biblical Interpretation, Preacher Study Notes, 1996
8. George Battey, When is an Example Binding? Christitan's Expositor Journal Spring 2007
9. Alan Bonifay, How Implication Binds, and Silence Forbids, CEJ Spring, 2007
10. Alan Bonifay, Applying Our Traditional Hermeneutic (Command, Example, and Necessary Inference), PSN 1996
11. George Battey, Where the Bible Is Silent, We Are Silent, CEJ Winter 2009
Please contact me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com, or 253-396-0290 (cell) for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.
