Last week we examined various erroneous methods that people use in the attempt to understand the Scriptures. Since the Bible was written on the mental level of the man and woman that God created (Romans 10:17; Ephesians 5:17). And it was written in man's language and grammatical forms. The following conclusion must be true: 'that the Bible is to be interpreted in the same manner, that is, by the same principles, as all other books.' (Hermeneutics. Dugan p. 51) Previously, Dugan had said, 'In the mind of Milton, there is no reason to suppose that God intended any other rules to be employed in the investigation of His book, than those which are needed in the examination of all other books.' (p. 51) Prof. Moses Stuart pointed out the fairness of such a system, 'Ever since man was created and endowed with the powers of speech..he has had occasion to practice upon the principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the first moment that one human being addressed another by the use of language, down to the present hour, the essential laws of interpretation become, and have continued to be, a PRACTICAL MATTER...All the human race, therefore, are, and ever have been, interpreters.' (Dugan pp. 51-52) Another writer pointed out, 'When push comes to shove, there are only a limited number of ways to interpret anything! In fact, whenever we want to understand someone, we generally look to two things: What a person says and what a person does. What could correspond more to our everyday, automatic, built-in hermeneutic than "commands" (sayings) and "examples" (doings)? When we instinctively look to precept and precedent, we're simply doing what comes naturally.' (The Cultural Church. F. Lagard Smith p. 44)

If you have been a member of the Church of Christ for any amount of time, you have probably heard the expression "command, example and necessary inference". This is the method that we have used to understand what God is telling us in His word. We look for direct commands and examples that either demand, permit or forbid a belief or activity. And then we look for logical conclusions that are demanded from such commands and examples, i.e. necessary inferences. The above quotes remind us that this isn't a method we have invented, rather it is the way that human beings properly interpret anything. Thus, in this lesson let us see the wisdom and simplicity of such a method. Specifically commands and examples.

1. Command/Direct Statement:

We could make many applications at this point, but I want to focus in on one. Many of the direct commands or statements in the Bible greatly assist our proper interpretation of it, that is, many pitfalls in interpretation can be avoided by listening to what the Bible says about itself

itself. (a) The books of the Bible, including those the Apostles wrote, are Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). They were not merely "personal love letters" devoid of any real authority (2 Thess. 3:6-14). (b) The commands in these letters also applied to more than just the initial Christians who received them (1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 14:33). (c) What is forbidden in these letters wasn't limited by time or culture (1 Cor. 6:9; Galatians 5:21; Eph. 5:5-6; Revelation 21:8) (d) The writers realized that they were writing down truths for Christians of future generations (John 20:30-31; 1 John 1:1-3). (e) Jesus appealed to direct statements of Scripture when it came to answering questions (Matthew 22:36-39); dealing with objections (22:32) and combating evil (Matthew 4:3-10). Unfortunately, even for some religious people a direct statement by God isn't "good enough" any more to settle to the matter (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Matthew 25:46).

1. Examples:

In 1958, J.D. Thomas wrote the book entitled "We Be Brethren", on page 93 he wrote the following, 'Traditionally, we in the restoration movement have accepted the teaching of the examples of the Christians at Troas in the Acts 20:7 context as establishing definitely and unmistakably a pattern-authority to the effect that the Lord's Supper was to be partaken on every first day of the week, and on that day exclusively...When brethren, however, began to question the practices that we had been following with reference to cooperation and orphan homes, and to claim there was a Biblical pattern limiting how cooperation could scripturally be accomplished, this caused the question of the teaching on examples to be placed under the "microscope" for careful investigation and as we indicated earlier, some of our very good brethren came to the conclusion that examples do not teach binding matters at all.' ' In 1974, the Firm Foundation published a book by Milo Richard Hadwin, entitled "The Role Of New Testament Examples As Related To Biblical Authority". His conclusion was: "This study has concluded that examples have no inherent authority to require imitation."' ('The Subjective Loosing Of New Testament Examples'. Warren E. Berkley. Gospel Anchor. July 1986 p. (339) 19)

Now biblical examples can be tricky things, for example are we to inflict physical punishment on the opponents to the truth, like Paul struck Elymas blind? (Acts 13:8-11) So allow me to present some observations concerning the proper use of biblical examples.

A. Examples Do Pack Authority:

The example of the swift deaths of Ananias and Sapphira by the hand of God (Acts 5:1-10) makes a very authoritative statement about how God feels about Christians who practice hypocrisy or deception. It also informs us that a good "end" (money given to the church) doesn't justify an evil means (giving the impression that you gave the total purchase price, to gain the respect of your peers). The examples that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 are "authoritative", i.e. they express the will of God, they are still valid "precedents" concerning how God feels about such things as "lust" (10:6); "idolatry" (10:7); "fornication" (10:8); "testing God's patience" (10:9); and "ingratitude" (10:10). They do teach us the lesson that God's own people can still live the type of lives that He isn't pleased with (10:5). Or, that even Christians can fall away (10:12). The New Testament is filled with examples that demand our attention (Hebrews 3:12-4:11; 11:1-12:3; James 2:14-26; 4:13-15; 5:10-11; 1 Peter 2:21-23; 2 Peter 2:4-9).

1. Look For the Command Behind the Example:

I have found that most examples simply reflect a direct statement already given in the Scriptures. For example: We find people in the Book of Acts manifesting faith, repenting, confessing Christ and being baptized. And yet, direct commands are behind all those examples (Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:6; Acts 17:30; Romans 10:9-10; Mark 16:16). Thus, even though repentance and confession are not mentioned in every conversion in the Book of Acts, we know such things were required in every case of conversion, because of the direct commands given elsewhere. Looking for the command behind the example enables you to tell if an example is the only way something can be done or if the example is simply one option or application of a generic command. For example: (1) Since the disciples in Acts 20:8 met in an upper room, must we meet in upper rooms today? The answer is no. For the command relating to a place of worship, has already told us that no exclusive "holy" place of worship exists under the New Covenant (John 4:20-24). In addition, all examples of Christians worshipping do not occur in upper rooms (Acts 2:46; 5:12). (2) Another asks, 'Since Paul preached to midnight, must we?' (Acts 20:7) The answer is no. For the command relating to "teaching/preaching" is generic (Matthew 28:19-20). In addition, all examples of the apostles preaching don't have them preaching until midnight. Maurice Barnett put it well, when he said, 'In looking at a description of activity we must determine which details reflect specific instructions and which details show options of generic authority being chosen and implemented...We determine they are just options of generic authority by LOOKING AT the statements dealing with the subject.' (The Authority of Examples. Gospel Anchor. February 1985, p. (175) 15)

1. Consider All Other Information On the Subject:

Maurice further stated, 'the best place to start is with all the pertinent statements of instruction and then fit the examples into the pattern..we must understand examples correctly, noting their details in relation to the context and other passages.' (p. 18) For example: (1) CONSIDER THE CONTEXT: Often the very context will tell you if an example is "binding" or not. Some have thought that when Jesus washed the disciples feet that He was instituting a "foot-washing ordinance" for the Church. But the context reveals otherwise (John 13:7,12), i.e. the main point wasn't washing feet, but the lesson of service and humility. (2) CONSIDER THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Some have tried to argue that the kiss as a method of greeting is the only way that Christians can greet each other (Romans 16:16). The same is true with the head covering or veil mentioned in 1Corinthians 11:3-16. Both of these arguments overlook the fact that the Apostles didn't invent either practice. Both practices had existed as customs in Eastern society long before the Church was founded. In each instance the Apostles were simply regulating these customs, i.e. the traditional method of greeting must be sincere. In addition Luke 7:44-46 places the kiss in the category of things which were clearly part of the customs of the time. In 1 Cor. 11:3-16, Paul makes arguments based on what the present "culture" thought of an unveiled woman (11:14-15). But it is clear that the practice of baptism wasn't a cultural regulation that would cease, when that particular culture ceased. Ritual purification by immersion was part of the Jewish culture, but baptism is far different. It is in the name of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19), it is done once, not often. It is universal, binding upon all (Mark 16:16). It stands between one and actual purification of sins (not ritual or outward purification) (Acts 2:38; 22:16). It is listed with items that transcend all cultures (Ephesians 4:4-6). It is something you do, not to remain right with God, but to get right with God (1 Peter 3:21). It is the last step prior to entrance into the body of Christ (Acts 2:41,47; 1 Cor. 12:13; John 3:5). (3) CONSIDER OTHER PASSAGES: Certain people claim that we can only use "one cup" during communion. And yet the language of Luke 22:18-20 indicates that Jesus isn't stressing the container, but the contents. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul uses the statement "one bread" and says "we" all partake of the "one bread". And yet when Paul wrote this he wasn't worshipping with the Church in Corinth, but with the Church in Ephesus, a Church located on a completely different continent. Hence, "one bread" never meant "one piece of bread". In like manner, the "cup of blessing" (10:16) never demanded "one cup". (4) HAS AN EXAMPLE BEEN "FENCED OFF" BY OTHER PASSAGES? The Mormons claim that we must have modern day apostles, since the First Century Church had them. But other passages reveal that the qualifications to be selected for such an office, required that one see the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21-26). Paul then said that Jesus had appeared "last of all" to him (1 Corinthians 15:8). Thus the Apostles can have no successors. This example has been "fenced off". The same is true of the spiritual gifts that existed in the early Church (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). Other passages tell us that the purpose of such gifts was to reveal truth (1 Cor. 14:26), and to confirm the truthfulness of the message being revealed (Hebrews 2:3-4). We are told that such gifts would cease when the "perfect" comes (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). And in the context, "the perfect" refers to knowledge. Thus when all truth had been revealed, the purpose of such gifts ceased. In addition, Acts 8:14-19 teaches us that the spiritual gifts could only be passed on to other Christians by an apostle. Thus when the last apostle died, the ability to impart these gifts ceased. (5) WHAT IS THE CONSISTENT PATTERN? When it comes to benevolence given out of the church treasury (i.e. what is collected on the First Day of the Week): (a) The examples are consistent-needy Christians only (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 6:1-3; 11:27-30; 2 Cor. 8-9; 1 Tim. 5:16). (b) In addition, the "command" or direct statement is specific (1 Corinthians 16:1-2 'the collection for the saints'). Maurice notes, 'Just passages dealing directly with benevolence...are not all that must be considered. We must also consider teaching concerning congregational independence, the limits to the oversight of elders, Acts 20:17-28; 1 Peter 5:1-4.' (p. 15) What this means, is that the direct statement in 1 Peter 5:2 'shepherd the flock of God among you', already informs us that the "elders" mentioned in Acts 11:30 were not RECEIVING AND overseeing the dispersing of funds to other congregations besides their own. The other example is consistent with this pattern, i.e. money was sent directly to the specific church in need (Romans 15:26) Mark Dunagan/5-30-95/ Beaverton Church of Christ/ 644-9017.