What Kind of a Book is the Bible? . . .

HOW DOES THE BIBLE TEACH US?
(Is it by direct command, approved example, and necessary inference?)

All of us who share a common faith in Jesus as Lord look to the Bible as authoritative. In our less charitable moments we accuse each other of “not believing in the scriptures” or “not accepting the authority of the Bible” when disagreements are not readily resolved. It is a mark of a sect to presume that it and it alone really accepts biblical authority. We should be able to see that people can come up with different views about the scriptures even when they all accept the authority of the scriptures. A large part of the problem is that we differ as to how the Bible teaches us. Men can agree on the source of the authority and yet differ as to how that authority speaks to them. Our own U.S. Constitution is an example of this, with the strict and loose constructionists interpreting it differently. That is why we have a Supreme Court. As to who is to serve as our “supreme court” in reference to biblical authority is one question we all have to get settled.

Since boyhood I have been taught that the scriptures teach us in three ways: by direct command, approved example, and necessary inference. Abundant illustrations can be given for each of these, albeit they have to be rather carefully selected. I am presently convinced that this approach is of no real value in applying biblical authority. This is because some commands in scripture are clearly not for us all; approved examples are not always distinguishable, and the question remains as to who is to decide which ones are approved; inferences can be tricky and confusing as to whether necessary or unnecessary, with the matter of proper application still unsolved.

Take the four commands that we have in the apostolic letter to Gentile congregations as recorded in Acts 15:28-29: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” These are clearly “direct” commands to Gentile believers, with all the authority of an apostolic letter. But the church has paid little attention to them since around 200 A.D.

These commands were given so as to make less difficult the sharing of the common life between believing Jews and Gentile saints, sometimes referred to as laws for “table fellowship” since they are mostly food regulations. The apostles probably had no objection to their Gentile brethren eating meats that had not been properly drained of blood, or meat that had been sacrificed to an idol; but such practice would be offensive to the Jews, whose responsibility it was to accept them as brothers. Even the rule against unchastity was probably injunction against their marrying their kin, as prohibited in Lev. 18, which was another sore spot with Jews who were being asked to accept Gentiles.

So here we have four commands in one paragraph of the Bible, directly from the apostles to Gentile churches, that are not for us —not as they were for them at least. They teach us to forbear and to make personal sacrifices for the sake of a happier fellowship. But hardly any of us would contend that it is a sin to eat blood pudding however unappetizing to most of us. And none of us drains meat of blood as would an orthodox Jewish butcher.

That passage teaches us something, as I have shown. but it is misleading to point to “direct commands,” for we see that these do not apply to us as they did to them. So how does the Bible teach us in this context? Hardly by example or inference. I would say it is the sense of scripture, which comes only through responsible interpretation.

Here is another direct command: “Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you” (Mt. 5:42). It is of no help simply to class this as a direct command, and to say the Bible teaches this way. It is the sense of scripture that must be ascertained. Most of us do not believe we have to lend money to all who would borrow or always give to him who begs. Such would simply make life impossible. It surely teaches that generosity is a Christian grace; perhaps it teaches us to be very generous with all that we have and are.

The holy kiss is commanded several times. Foot washing is referred to in John 13 as both a command and an example (apparently “approved” since it is Jesus who sets the example!). But the sense of scripture goes much deeper than the physical act. The “sense” is that Jesus is showing us how we are to love one another in lots of different ways. Perhaps Ouida and I are washing feet through this humble publication effort; a Peace Corps worker might be doing it by cleaning latrines.

There are examples on almost every page of holy writ. It is of little help to say that the Bible teaches us in this way, for each example has to be weighed to determine its meaning for us. It is better to say that the example of Jesus is what the Bible is all about. “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). We can all buy that! The whole of scripture, Old and New Covenant alike, is focused on Jesus, pointing up his example, so that we might be conformed to his image. I cannot see that any further reference to examples has any particular meaning to us. Surely the disciples and the various churches had experiences and did things that are informative. When they are faithful and heroic, we want to be like them; when they are not, we don’t. It is as they point us to Jesus that we are to take special notice.

Out of all that the scriptures say, examples and all, norms and forms emerge as to what a faithful disciple should be and do, and what a true Church of Christ should be like. But this does not mean that a hard and fast line can be drawn, delineating this or that example as “approved” or not, or listing precisely the commands that are “direct” and those that are not. As we saturate our minds and hearts with scripture, praying in the Spirit for guidance, God’s will for us begins to emerge. Acts 20:7 may not emerge as a clear-cut case for disciples breaking bread each Sunday and only then, but it is a vital piece of information that we are to give its proper place. We should allow it to mean no more or no less than what it says. There is no reason to put an “approved example” tag on it or any other tag. It stands in scripture as descriptive of a particular church on a particular occasion, and that’s where the faithful student of the word will leave it.

A “necessary inference” is really a logical term, referring to a conclusion drawn from a premise of premises. If I see a pink house, I can infer that it is painted. If a man owns all the gold at Ft. Knox, I can infer that he is rich. But some inferences are not so sure. If my neighbor sends his children to a parochial school, I can infer that he is a Roman Catholic. If a man is a Texan, I can infer that he has an oil well. Hardly!

Some inferences from scripture are reliable enough. “When Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water” infers that he went down into the water, for one does not come up from without first going down into. But I can’t see that this means that we should make a particular point of the Bible teaching by “necessary inference.” It is simply a characteristic of all literature that it contains inferential language. When inferences appear in scripture, we recognize them as such, just as we do all other literary forms.

But inferences can become presumptuous. That the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch does not necessarily infer that God so called them. The command to sing does not necessarily exclude another kind of music. That some churches had a plurality of elders does not necessarily infer that all congregations did. The command to sing does not necessarily infer that it was congregational. That “giving and receiving” went on among primitive churches does not infer that they had a treasury. That entire households were baptized does not infer that babies were. That the scriptures are “inspired” does not infer verbal inerrancy. That the congregations were referred to as Churches of God and Churches of Christ does not infer that these are names.

I suggest that we move this three-pronged device of “direct command, approved example, and necessary inference” out of our thinking entirely, for it is found wanting in terms of being of any real value. Besides, the Bible teaches abundantly in other ways. Is. 26:3 gives us that great truth: “Thou dost keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusts in thee.” This is neither command, example or inference, but what a powerful lesson. Much of the Bible is declarative and descriptive, falling under none of these three areas, such as Jn. 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That conveys the truth of all truths without being either command, example or inference.

How then does the Bible teach us? Just as any other literature teaches us. We don’t turn to books on science and history to the beat of “commands, examples and inferences.” True, the Bible is God’s word, and that makes all the difference. But there is only one possible way for it to teach us, and that is by our making the same sense of it that we would any other literature. We take the commands as we find them, seek out the “sense,” and apply them to ourselves as seems appropriate. So with examples. So with all of it.

The Quakers have a term, “the sense of the meeting,” that is appropriate to biblical interpretation. Once they get their heads together, with the Spirit moving them, the discussion may be prolonged. But finally, if they agree, the president will say, “I take it that the sense of the meeting is . . .”

We may study a passage for years before its “sense” strikes us. If we study more as a community, we may find the Spirit leading us to a deeper and deeper “sense” of scriptures long viewed only superficially. This simply means that the Bible teaches us through what it says, and what it says becomes a matter of responsible interpretation, which should go. on all through life.

As to some of the guiding principles that should be followed in responsible interpretation, we shall consider in our next and last installment. —the Editor