When Is A New Testament Example Binding?
Many cases of action are recorded in the New Testament. Luke's latter treatise is accurately titled "Acts," for the book consists mainly of accounts of the "Acts" of the apostles in their obedience to the command of Christ to go into all the world and preach the gospel: baptizing those who believed and repented of their sins, and teaching those baptized to observe all things that Christ had commanded the apostles. The "Acts" of men in response to the preaching and the "Acts" of churches made up of those converted to Christ, are also recorded. Besides this, the other New Testament books give examples of actions taken by churches and individual Christians under the personal direction of the apostles.
The fact of the presence of these accounts of action, in the Scriptures, implies a purpose. Surely, none who believe that the New Testament is inspired of God, will contend that the examples recorded have no worthy and significant purpose. What is the purpose? What need do they supply?
Command, Example, Inference
Until recent years Bible students generally have believed that example was one of the ways by which the Scriptures teach. It was generally accepted that God expressed his will to man through the Scriptures by express commands or statements, necessary inference and approved examples. In recent years however, some deny that the Scriptures teach by example or inference. The latter group contend that express statement or command is the only way by which the Scriptures teach the will of God.
The Problem Stated
Efforts to debunk the pattern set by examples in the New Testament have been vigorous. A favorite tactic employed is to insinuate that the way whereby the distinction is drawn between incidental actions and essential actions, is subjective and arbitrary: the charge is sometimes bluntly expressed but more frequently implied. The teaching of example is weakened, and often destroyed, by the simple expedient of leading people to believe that only those examples are judged to be binding which fit the cause for which one is contending, and all others are arbitrarily classed as incidentals. From this point, the thoughtless reject the examples of the New Testament as a way whereby the Scriptures teach. The rejection of the pattern set by examples opens the floodgates for human organizations of every sort, for doing the work which God has assigned to the church.
Some have pointed out that there are three possible views toward the examples of the New Testament:
1 . All examples are binding.
2. No examples are binding.
3. Some are binding, others are incidental.
This writer knows of no one who holds the first view, i.e. that all the actions in the New Testament are binding. Some have openly come out for the second view; if men's views are to be judged by their conduct, this is even the view of many who do not openly avow it. It is a cherished hope that those who hold this second view may be shown their error and that those who hold the truth may be confirmed in the truth; to this end this is being written.
The third view, i.e. some of the examples of the New Testament were designed by he Holy Spirit to teach the will of God, while others are simply incidental actions is the view supported by the Scriptures; hence, it is the only view' which the person who "willeth to do the will of the Father" can hold toward the examples of the New Testament.
The task undertaken is to show from the Bible that command or statement, necessary inference and approved examples are ways by which the Bible teaches. Brief attention will he given to the proposition that the Scriptures teach by necessary inference; however, the teaching of example will be treated in greater detail. In this study of the teaching of example, both the FACT of such teaching, plus the scriptural rules by which the examples are to be judged to determine whether they are essential or incidental, will be considered. When it is shown that the Scriptures DO claim to teach by example, there still remains the need to show how the student can know when an action is a model to be imitated, an example to be avoided, or simply an incidental action which has no binding force.
In the New Testament we read that Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus; preached in an upper chamber; traveled by ship; reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath; and on one occasion, prolonged his speech until midnight. There are also examples of behaviour on the part of some of the apostles which we have been accustomed to consider as wrong, such as Peter's separating himself from the Gentile Christians. We have an example of the church in Jerusalem having all things common; of churches supporting preachers, and of churches sending help to other churches. Which, if any, of these actions are to be taken as models to be followed? Is there a divine pattern of action taught in any of the examples of the New Testament? It is the conviction of this writer that there is a divine pattern taught by example, but that not all the cases of action recorded in the New Testament are binding. Thus we see the necessity of learning the divine principles to be considered in determining the character of examples: whether they are binding or simply incidental actions called for by some purely local or period situation or custom.
The Scriptures Teach By Necessary Inference
While this is intended to be primarily a treatise on the teaching of example, yet due to the vital role of necessary inference in its own right, as a way by which the Scriptures teach; and the fact that this process of teaching also plays a significant part in determining when an example is binding, a brief discussion of necessary inference is included. A necessary inference is a conclusion drawn from expressed propositions.
Contrary to the notion that the Scriptures do not teach by necessary inference, there are cases recorded in the New Testament in which our Lord used this means of teaching.
Jesus used this means to answer the Sadducees and teach the fact of the resurrection of the dead. "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matt. 22:31,32).
Note the facts expressed:
(1) "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac...."
(2) "God is not the God of the dead but of the living."
In view of these facts which were accepted by the audience as true, the only conclusion or inference they could draw was that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living. Thus the Lord endorses the use of necessary inference, as a means of teaching, by his use of it.
The Scriptures Teach By Example
With the advent of the denial that the Scripture teach by example, the burden of dealing with the teaching of example was increased. No longer can we properly begin with the assumption that the audience grants the proposition that the Scriptures teach by example, and immediately attack the problem of when is an example binding. We now must restore example to its proper place in the minds of people. The student must be shown that the Scriptures do teach by example before he has any basis for concern as to rules for judging examples. If example is not a means of teaching, then it is not of sufficient significance to concern us.
But The Scriptures Claim To Teach By Example:
Heb. 13:7 — "Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate (follow) their faith." The apostles, who were the original proclaimers of the word of God to these, to whom the letter is written, are the only ones who measure up to the description of those whose manner of life is to be remembered in order that their faith as exhibited in their behaviour might be imitated.
Note that the reader was clearly commanded to "imitate their faith," or, according to the King James translation, "whose faith follow." The King James version uses the general English word, "follow," to translate this Greek word as well as some other Greek words. The word here and in succeeding passages is translated in the American Standard version by the word "imitate." This is more precise, bringing out more forcefully that the examples of inspired men were to be copied. The word means "to mimic, imitate" (Young's Analytical Concordance).
The teaching significance of examples is indicated in II Thess. 3:7 where the apostle wrote, "For yourselves know how ye ought to imitate us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you" — then within this same context he wrote in verse 9, "not because we have not the right, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you that ye should imitate us." Paul here calls up the example he set and required them to imitate his actions.
In this connection study the following references in which imitation is required: III John II;! Cor. 4:16; 11:1; I Thess. 1:6; Heb. 6:12; I Peter 3:13. These cases in which imitation is commanded require that example be accepted as a means by which the Scriptures teach.
The apostle also clearly sets forth the proposition that the Scriptures teach by example in Phil. 4:9, "The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do..." From this it is clear that the things which the brethren "saw" in Paul were to be done as well as the things "heard" from Paul.
I Cor. 10:6,11 — "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted .... Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." These verses claim teaching force for example. This example is teaching us that we should not lust after evil things. Here we have a case of example to be avoided.
Distinguishing Between Essential And Incidental
What rules and principles of Scripture enable the sincere student to distinguish between the actions recorded in the New Testament which are binding and which only incidental? These rules must be rules and principles which are set forth in the Scriptures.
Attitude Toward Scriptures
It is imperative that one's attitude toward the Scriptures be correct. Without the correct attitude toward the will of God being developed, the possibilities of understanding "What the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17) are non-existent. For a clear grasp of the will of the Lord as expressed to man in the Bible, through express statement, necessary inference and approved example, the conviction of its divine origin needs to exist. If through curiosity or some other motivation, an honest person examines the Bible, the internal evidences of its superhuman origin are ample to lead him in the direction of conviction; this development of conviction will continue, if uninterrupted, until the word of the message will be received as the word of God (I Thess. 2:13). This word will increasingly work in the ones who believe as conviction of its divine character grows.
The determination to subordinate personal preference, ideas, prejudices, and all presuppositions, etc., to the will of God is another subjective condition which must be cultivated before certainty exists as to whether a doctrine deduced is the will of the Father. "If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself' (John 7: I 7).
Jesus taught that so long as a heart continued "gross," understanding would be absent from that heart — "and unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing.ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand, and seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears and understand with their heart, and should turn again, and I should heal them" (Matt. 13:14,15).
With real conviction of the divine authority of the Scriptures there will exist confidence in the ability of the Word to completely furnish unto every good work. This conviction and confidence will prevail with reference to the pattern set by apostolic approved examples as strongly as with reference to teaching done by the Scriptures by statement or necessary inference.
Without the conviction of authority of examples and the lowliness and meekness which will enable one to give up any cherished doctrine or action which is not sanctioned by the Scriptures, understanding with the heart will never exist. The determination to submit to the will of the Lord plays an essential part in understanding. The condition of heart is a personal responsibility.
The Law Of Harmony
The law of harmony or unity requires that the actions of any example must be consistent with other undoubted Scripture teaching in order to be regarded as binding. Any time that an example is construed to teach a principle which conflicts with some other clear teaching, the interpretation of the example is false.
This Law Is A Law Required By The Scriptures:
John 17:20,21 — "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me." This petition of our Lord's, that those who believe on him through the words of the apostles (the New Testament) might be one, certainly implies the unity of the faith. If contradictory principles are expressed in the faith, if requirements are imposed that cancel out the possibility of conforming to some other principle revealed in the faith, then confusion and not peace, disagreement not agreement, division and not unity unbelief and not belief can be expected. One of the chief lines followed by atheists in their attacks on the Bible is that of attempting to build a case for contradictions in the Bible and exploiting these alleged contradictions to the fullest in their efforts to destroy belief in the divine origin of the Bible.
Unity of believers would be impossible if there were not unity in the revelation of God's will. Hence the rule of harmony or unity is required by the Scriptures.
The Scriptures by express statement assigns the responsibility of "contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), to every Christian. Carrying out this assignment is impossible if "the faith" is self-contradictory; this no one, who believes that the Scriptures are inspired of God, is willing to allow. This consideration establishes the validity of [sic]
The requirements to "preach the Word" (II Tim. 4:2), "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:26), etc., considered in connection with the requirement to "all speak the same thing" (I Cor. 1:10), to preach no other gospel (Gal. 1:6-10), etc.; demand acknowledgement of the law of harmony. An example should never be considered binding, when the action is in conflict with the teaching of express statement, necessary inference or other examples.
The law of harmony is the grand fundamental law underlying all the laws by which interpretations must be tried and established before they can lay claim to being the teaching of the Scriptures. A good comprehensive knowledge of the New Testament as a whole is indispensable in applying the law of harmony.
Application Of The Law Of Harmony To Current Problems
Attempts have been made to justify the "sponsoring church" type of congregational cooperation by the example of the disciples at Antioch sending relief to the elders for the needy "brethren that dwelt in Judea" (Acts 11:27-30). Those who have sought to activate the church universal in preaching the gospel, knowing that there is no general or universal functioning unit given by divine authority, and wishing to avoid frankly accepting the missionary society, have sought to give their projects a scriptural image by arranging them under local elderships. These congregations whose elders have assumed the oversight of a work greater than the resources of the congregation are designated "sponsoring churches." The sponsoring church is a perversion of the divinely authorized local church with its elders, into an organization for universal function, through which many churches do their work. The planning and executing of the work of a number of churches, the funds provided by the contributing churches and the preachers engaged in doing the preaching, are all under the oversight of the elders of a single church. This deadly centralized control has denominationalized a large, number of formerly free independent churches of Christ.
The interpretation of the Antioch example of Acts 11:27-30 to authorize the "sponsoring church" violates the law of harmony. If the example taught the sponsoring church type of congregational cooperation, the teaching of the Bible would not be harmonious. For the Scriptures clearly teach "elders in every church" (Acts 14:23), limited in their oversight to "the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you (them) bishops" (Acts 20:28); the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made them bishops, being "the flock of God which is among you,... (I Peter 5:2,3). The Holy Spirit has assigned the area of elders' oversight by example and precept, as being the local group of which they are members; and when men interpret an example as teaching actions contrary to this, the law of harmony is violated. Unity of thought, word, and action can never be realized between those who respect the scriptural law of harmony and those who disregard it. So-called "unity in diversity", when the diversity is in matters of faith, is no unity at all; it is compromise of principle.
The dangerous practice of first making plans and taking action and then going to the Bible to seek authority for the practice must be consciously avoided. A "brain-child" needs but little nourishment to bring it to a full grown idol. The attachment for the "child" becomes stronger as its advocates seek to defend and promote it. Determination to do one's own will results in closed eyes, stopped ears and gross hearts. This condition renders one incapable of understanding what the will of the Lord is.
(Our concluding article in the series will deal with (i) the law of uniformity (ii) the law of universal application, (iii) the law of legitimate extension, and (iv) the law of exclusion. Without an understanding of these simple rules there can be no proper answer to the question, "When Is A New Testament Example Binding?)
-4109 Avenue F. Austin, Texas