|
(continued
from previous page)
 Our
first observation about an approved example is that it does show
the thing done is acceptable. We can do it this way without fear
of violating God's will. This is no small matter, and for those
who sincerely try to serve God, it is most satisfying. We may
ride a mule to town, and meet in an upper room. But must we? In
order to exclude anything else, even a command must have
"only" or some other indication of completeness in its
wording or context. When some say an example
"excludes" all else, they use accommodative language
on the basis that there is no other information on this matter.
Even then, significance must be considered — as we do later.
We may do better to say, "This is acceptable, and if you
would do otherwise you must produce divine sanction or authority
for it." The lack of uniformity in modes of travel (Acts
20: 13), and Jesus' teaching about the "place" of
worship (Jn. 4:21-f), forbids our thinking the mule or the upper
room are bound upon us.
In
our commendable zeal to "DO Bible Things in Bible
Ways" we may attach _significance where God placed none.
What is the contextual point of a statement or example? Was
Jesus teaching the act, per se, of washing feet; or humble
service, exemplified by that act? (Note Jn. 13:7, 11-f.) If
someone should prove that Jesus used only one container in
instituting the Lord's Supper — so what? The container is
given no religious significance; hence we are not at liberty to
so regard it. On the other hand, significance is given the
action of baptism (Rom. 6:3-5, 17), hence immersion can not be
ignored with impunity.
| |
Sometimes
the difference in divine principle and its application under
1st. century circumstances is indicated by the type of argument
made. A universal truth re. the relation of man over woman is
stated in 1 Cor. 11: 3; but the manifestation of this subjection
in Paul's time (the covered head) was argued on the basis of
their sense of shame, v.6; their judgment as to what was fitting
or comely, v.13; what nature (the course or common practice of
their world — Eph. 2: 3) taught them, v. 14; and uniformity of
practice among the churches, v.16. We might use the same
criteria today to establish "modesty" or
"propriety," but neither we, nor Paul, would use such
to prove divine injunction.
We
could list various "ales" for Bible interpretation: as
Rule of Harmony — rejecting an interpretation that violates
other plain teaching; Uniformity-- in differing situations,
seeking those elements common to all; Limited Extension — that
done under special circumstances, would not apply where these
circumstances did not prevail. These and other like rules have
their place in Bible study. But we must not expect precision
instruments for dissecting scriptures, and cataloging
"bound" and "not bound." A far better
definition for Pattern is: the whole of God's teaching upon any
given subject.
All
of the Bible is important to those who recognize its divine
source and purpose. Rejection of its patterns and approved
examples is an initial step in the rejection of any specific
will of God, and of inspiration in the Bible sense.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
