INTRODUCTION
In talking about establishing authority for our practices in service to God, we are talking about how to apply the scriptures in the appropriate way. It is a discussion of how to determine from the Bible things God would be pleased for us to do. Some wrongfully believe the idea that no hermeneutical principle is valid. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Bible (or any piece of literature). The word comes from a Greek word, "hermeneuo" which means to "interpret or to explain" (Holman Bible Dictionary). How shall we establish scriptural authority today?
Authority Found In Three Forms. Scripture authorizes by certain methods, the
same methods we use for understanding anything. In reality there are only a limited number
of proper ways to interpret anything. Scripture can be interpreted by Commands, Examples, and Necessary Inferences. All the
pertinent information on that topic creates the pattern to be followed today. For example,
in Acts 15, when Judaizing teachers commanded circumcision in Antioch, the faithful
brethren settled the issue with -- direct command (Ac 15:15-18), - - apostolic example
(vs.7-9),
-- inescapable conclusion (v.10).
Direct Commands
Direct command, or statement that has the force of a command, is a direct clear directive of what is to be done. For example, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel...." is a command. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved..." is a statement with the force of a command. (Mark 16:15,16). If first-century disciples of Christ followed commands, and I want to be a disciple of Christ also, shouldn't I, too, follow those same commands?
Approved Apostolic Examples
Apostolic Examples are accounts of things early Christians did under the direction and with the approval of the inspired Apostles. An example Is "...a pattern, in morals or manners, worthy of imitation; a copy or model; one who or that which is proposed or is proper to be imitated; a former instance, to be followed or avoided; one held out as a caution or warning to others; a particular case illustrating a general rule, position, or truth." (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary). The purposes of examples was to establish and confirm a particular teaching, to warn against bad actions or encourage what was proper. Paul, an apostle, wrote: "The things which you learned and received and heard and SAW IN ME, THESE DO..." (Phil. 4:9).
Are all examples binding? - Do we have to meet in upper room (Acts 20:8)? How does one decide examples that fit into the pattern of authority? The following rules of interpretation should prove useful and helpful in this regard:
Does it harmonize with all statements and commands applicable to the point at hand? Does it represent what was done in every known case and concur with all other evidence? We need to look for the command behind the example. Has the 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". Sometimes we see that an example (or even a command) was part of a temporary system.
Does the context help us determine if we the example is binding? 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). The main point wasn't washing feet, but the lesson of service and humility.
Does it seem to have a purpose in the context or is it only incidental? "Incidentals" are irrelevant to a pattern. We find an example of learning God's will while riding in a chariot (Acts 8). Do we have to ride in a chariot to learn the truth? It seems only incidental to the story. But, going down into the water seems to have a divine purpose. The upper room example mentioned earlier would not be binding in the light of other teachings: John 4:21 - During the New Testament there will exist no specific place where worship had to be performed. In addition, all the examples of Christians meeting do not take place in upper rooms (Acts 2:46; 5:12).This is usually determined by context and the nature of the story and the comparison to all other information on the subject.
Is it limited because of cultural considerations, or does it illustrate what seems from all other evidence to be universally expected? Footwashing was cultural custom regulated by divine law but not LEGISLATED regardless of culture. Kissing was a form of greeting.
Necessary Inferences.
Sometimes the Bible states something indirectly which still leads us to an inescapable conclusion. These unstated conclusions necessarily follow when one considers all that is stated on a subject. For instance, at the baptism of Jesus, the Bible does not say that Jesus went down into the water, but it is necessarily inferred by what is said: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water..." (Matt. 3:16 - KJV). If he went up out of the water, then he must have gone down into the water. The conclusion is inescapable. Realistically, without inferences, the Bible has no meaning to us at all, for not one command in the Bible is spoken literally to us. Jesus and His apostles often used necessary inference or necessary conclusions drawn from the Scriptures.
Jesus used necessary inferences. Matt. 22:23-33 shows that the scripture necessarily inferred that there is a resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees had denied the future resurrection of the physical body, because they assumed that man didn't have a soul, hence nothing exists to be reunited with the body (Acts 23:8). Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter, with one Scripture He proves that man does exist apart from the body. He quotes from Exodus 3:6 (Matthew 22:32), "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." When God said" this, all three men were long dead. And yet the necessary inference or logical conclusion from the use of the phrase 'I am', demands that all three men are still alive, though not physically. For God doesn't maintain relationships with non-existence persons. Jesus states the necessary inference He drew from that Scripture, "He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
The Apostles used necessary inferences. Acts 2:25-31: In Peter's first sermon, a very essential point in his argumentation was established by necessary inference. In Psalm 16:8-11, David had spoken of one whose flesh did not undergo decay and neither was his soul left in Hades. Now obviously (here is the necessary inference), David was speaking of someone other than himself, for his tomb wasn't empty (Acts 2:29). Carefully consider that the necessary inferences in this sermon didn't stop at this point: A. He must have been speaking of the resurrection of the Messiah (2:31), for who else could it be? B. But this resurrection also included an ascension to David's (God's) throne (2:30). For after all, the logical consequence of a raised and victorious Messiah, is a ruling Messiah (2:34).
Also in Acts 10:28 Peter said, "God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean": How had God "shown " Peter this truth? Carefully read the previous context and you won't find God specifically telling Peter the above words. Acts 10:28 is a necessary inference that Peter has made from the previous events. The vision Peter had (10:10-16), didn't specifically address "men". Even after the vision, Peter was still perplexed as to it's meaning (10:17). Immediately the messengers from Cornelius arrive (10:17), then we find God telling Peter to go, without any misgivings (10:20), for God has sent them. Be impressed, that God expects Peter to put it altogether, to draw the right conclusions. Nowhere, does God specifically tell Peter, 'I have accepted the Gentiles'.
CONCLUSION:
When we consider how the Bible authorizes, it enables us to approach the Bible without prejudice and preconceived ideas. What is more open-minded and free than saying, 'I am going to look for specific statements given by God, divinely approved examples, and then draw the necessary conclusions to find out what God wants me to do.
[ Introduction -
The Pattern Concept] [Lesson 1 - Defining The Church]
[Lesson 2 - Authority Over The Church]
[Lesson 4- How Scripture Authorizes(Pt. 2)]
[Lesson 5 - The Universal - The Local
Church] [Lesson 6 -
The Church - Not a Denomination] [Lesson 7 - Timeline - Church's Establishment]
[Lesson 8 - Worship Designed for the
Church] [Lesson 9 - The Lord's Supper]
[Lesson 10 - Worshipping in Song]
[Lesson 11 - Worshipping in Prayer]
[Lesson 12 - The All-Sufficient Church]
[Lesson 13 - Elders]
[14 - Deacons ] [Lesson 15 - Evangelists ] [Lesson 16 - The Social Gospel]
[Lesson 17
-Benevolence-According to the Pattern]
