Sunday Sermons
Examples and Inferences
In the May 1st, 2004 edition of the email bulletin Reflections, the author Al Maxey wrote an article entitled The Legalistic Leap of CENI. He began the article by saying, “For those unfamiliar with the term in the title of this article, CENI merely refers to a specific hermeneutical theory, largely embraced by those who have a tendency toward legalism and patternism, the major tenets of which are: Command, Example, Necessary Inference. The primary problem with this one particular interpretative theory is the inherent tendency toward inconsistency with regard to application, especially with respect to the establishment of religious authority. Few disciples have any real argument with the use of divine commands contained in Scripture to ascertain the will of God. The problem arises with how, and to what extent, one employs biblical examples and human inferences to determine and establish binding decrees” (p. 2).
The oft-forgotten importance of necessary inference
One major problem with the above article is how the writer separates commands from examples and necessary inferences. The truth of the matter is that commands do not simply stand as isolated passages. Actually, we need to use necessary inference before we can apply any command in Scripture because “Without inferences, the Bible itself has no meaning to us at all. Consider for a moment that not one command in the Bible is aimed directly at any of us. No command or example has our name specifically written on it” (The Cultural Church, Smith p. 169). But by using necessary inference we have rightly concluded that the New Testament applies to us as well, even though we were not the original recipients of the various letters or books, which compose it. Since the Apostles were commanded to preach to all nations (Matthew 28:19), we are obligated to obey the gospel message as well. Seeing that the moral standards of the Bible will still be intact at the Judgment Day(Revelation 21:8; Galatians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9), such standards are not limited by culture or time, and therefore equally apply to our generation. We are obligated to obey the writings of the Apostles because their own writings infer that they were writing truth not only for their own generation, but for future generations, for people who would not have seen Jesus or been eyewitnesses to these events (John 20:30-31; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:3-5; 5:2).
The problem of ridiculing examples is readily seen in the fact that the teaching method that God often uses in Scripture is teaching by citing past examples or precedents (1 Corinthians 10:11 “Now these things happened to them as an example”; James 5:10 “As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord”). In addition, commands become examples. The commands in the Corinthian letter to observe the Lord’s Supper or give as one is prospered (1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 16:1-3) are actually our examples.
Legalism?
Notice that the accusation is made that people who study the Bible and pay attention to commands, notice divinely approved examples, and draw the necessary conclusions have a tendency towards legalism and patternism. Yet this is exactly the method of interpretation that Jesus and the apostles used. “If we must have a hermeneutic, then we should strive to make it the best that it can possibly be. It should be as close as possible to the hermeneutics used by prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself” (Smith p. 150). Jesus and His apostles often used necessary inference or necessary conclusions drawn from the Scriptures to establish an important truth, to refute error or solve a thorny issue. Matthew 22:23-33: Consider very carefully how Jesus argues in this section of Scripture. The Sadducees had denied the future resurrection of the physical body, because they assumed that man did not have a soul, hence nothing exists to be reunited with the body (Acts 23:8). Josephus said, concerning the Sadducees, that they “take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul. That the souls die with the bodies” (Wars, II. 8.14.; Antiquities, XVIII, 1.4.). Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter and 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, yet the necessary inference or logical conclusion from the use of the phrase “I am”, demands that all three men were and are still alive, though not physically, because God does not 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”. Jesus was comfortable in using necessary inference to establish essential biblical doctrines and Jesus had rebuked the Sadducees for “not understanding the Scriptures” (22:29). This means that God had expected men to use their minds to draw these necessary inferences from His word, and failing to do such will result in not understanding the Scriptures. Matthew 16:5-12: “Though the disciples reasoned among themselves, it was faulty reasoning, because they left out important elements. The rebuke of Jesus shows that He expected them to have figured it out properly by themselves” (Understanding Bible Authority. p. 34). Acts 15: Consider how the apostles reason in this chapter as they counter the claims of the Judaizing teachers. They cite the example of what had happened at the household of Cornelius (15:8-12), and the examples of miracles that God wrought through Paul and Barnabas as they baptized uncircumcised Gentiles (15:12). They also cite direct commands (15:15-18). Then the necessary inferences are drawn, if God approved of the baptism of uncircumcised Gentiles, and worked miracles through Paul and Barnabas who baptized many uncircumcised Gentiles, then obviously they do not have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses (15:9,11). 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 was not empty (Acts 2:29). Galatians 3:16: Paul argues that the singular use of the word "seed", which was connected to the promises given to Abraham, necessarily infers that the promises would only be available through "one" descendant, that being Jesus Christ. This proves that even the Old Testament taught by inference that the promised blessing was not unconditional to all Jews, but only those who would come to Jesus (Galatians 3:26-29).
Commands without inferences?
One does not have to study the Bible for long to realize that examples and necessary inferences are often needed to simply comply with a command. We need an example (Acts 20:7) to tell us when to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and necessary inference is needed to resolve the question of frequency. The same is true with other basic Bible subjects such as baptism. The fact that God places the condition of faith prior to baptism necessary infers that infants are not to be baptized, and the fact that forgiveness of sins only comes through faith and baptism necessarily infers that infants are not sinners.
Inferences and modern issues
The following moral issues are not specifically addressed in the New Testament: abortion, pornography, gambling, and drug abuse, yet the necessary inference from Galatians 5:21 “and things like these”, is that God is condemning certain categories of sin. God does not have to call it by its modern name, for it to be wrong. Drug abuse is a sin, because it "fits" into the category of drunkenness (5:21). Pornography fits into the category of "impurity" (5:19). Gambling is nothing more than a form ofcovetousness (Eph. 5:5), and abortion is an obvious lack of natural affection (Romans 1:31 “unloving”). Carefully remember that in order to reach the conclusion that the unborn baby is actually a human being, and thus abortion is murder, one must draw some necessary inferences from Scripture (Psalm 139:13-16; James 2:26). Necessary inference is actually needed to apply the Scriptures to modern issues or questions. In fact, necessary inference is needed to answer the question, “Can we have a church building?” (Hebrews 10:25). Or, “Can the fruit of the vine be served in multiple containers and can we use more than one piece of bread?” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
What is the alternative?
Often when people ridicule command, example, and necessary inference they do not offer a workable alternative. If we do not look at precept and precedent and then drawn the logical conclusions, how do we study the Bible? The alternative that the author of Reflections offers is the following: “Let’s get down to the real issue here. There is nothing wrong with varying traditional perceptions, preferences, and practices”. Then he gives an illustration of what he means by this: “If visiting a congregation where the disciples are convicted that one cup should be used, I will observe that ‘feast divine’ in accord with their conviction without negative comment. No such comment is required, for such differences are not relevant to our spiritual unity. Our unity is in a person, not in a practice” (p. 3). In this section he also claims that such an attitude is the spirit of Christ. Yet there are a number of Biblical problems with his solution:
· If we are binding a human “tradition” in our worship then according to the spirit of Christ, our worship is vain (Matthew 15:8-9). Jesus does not agree that here is nothing wrong with varying “traditional” perceptions, preferences and practices.
· Saying absolutely nothing when attending a congregation that believes using more than one container is sin, certainly is not the spirit of Christ either. Jesus did not allow people to remain in ignorance, neither did He remain silent when people were seeking to bind a human tradition or rule upon others. The true spirit of Christ in such a situation will take someone aside and teach them the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
· Such differences do affect spiritual unity because if we are binding something that God has not bound then we have gone beyond the teaching of Christ, and our unity with God has been affected (2 John 9; Proverbs 30:5-6).
· “Our unity is in a person, not a practice”: Where does the Bible say that? And is not such a comment nothing more than the old error of “teach the man not the plan?” Jesus plainly taught that our unity with Him is dependent upon keeping His commands (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15). And commands involve “practices” and “doctrines”. The Holy Spirit lists a number of “practices” that will exclude the Christian from heaven (Galatians 5:21 “that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God”). In Ephesians 4:4-6, Paul writes about unity and yet nowhere does he simply say that our unity is in a person and nothing else matters. This section of Scripture mentions the attitudes that are necessary for unity (4:1-3), the doctrines that are necessary (4:4-6), and these doctrines include “practices” such as “one baptism”. The Bible is also filled with examples where people found themselves cut off from God because they engaged in the wrong “practice” (Genesis 4:4-5; Leviticus 10:1; 2 Samuel 6:6-7; 2 Chronicles 26:16).
