Command, Example or Necessary inference

All my life I have been led to believe that the Bible teaches by virtue of three means: command, example and necessary inference. For years I never questioned this "doctrine" of hermeneutic assuming that my Christian antecedents knew more and were far better educated in such matters as was I. However, as I grew older, and perhaps a bit bolder, I started questioning things, first internally and then in discussion with other believers. At no time did I ever receive a palatable answer to my queries, either from myself or others.


The doctrine goes like this: God teaches us what to do first by directly commanding us to do something, short of a command we can look at the examples of how things were done in the Bible and discern the truth and failing that we could read between the lines and deduce what God expected by what was inferred but never stated in the scripture.


Unexpectedly, the more I surveyed this method of interpretation, the more lacking it seemed to be. I have no problem with the command component. When God speaks there is little room for interpretation and thus no question need be resolved. However, the other two aspects of CENI (command, example, necessary inference) left quite a bit to be desired, at least in my mind.


For instance, we have decided that communion on the first day of the week is a doctrinal edict based on the writing of Luke in Acts 20 when he said "the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread." Now do not misunderstand me. I have no objection to communion on the first day of the week, but who decided that was the only element in that passage that we should view as a binding example? There were other things going on there too: preaching til midnight, meeting in an upper room, having the windows open, etc. Who decides which components are example and which are not? Another instance we find is in the eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. where the church was coming together to break bread but some were failing to wait on others and thus the communion devolved into a riot of sorts. They were actually getting drunk! Clearly the example calls for fermented wine, yet most churches choose to use other products in the communion. Who decided the inclusion of Welch's rather than wine was okay? Clearly the example specified wine. I have actually had brothers argue with me that the use of wine is forbidden. Why, then do we have an example of it here? Meeting house to house, selling possessions and testimony in worship are other examples that we deem as not binding. It seems that the whole example idea fails simply because of our inconsistent application.


Likewise, one can see the fallacy of necessary inference through careful study. I have been told that the fact of the first churches coming together for assemblies necessarily infers they had a place available to them for that purpose, therefore justifying buying and building sanctuaries. How does the fact that they assembled infer that they owned the meeting place? Or that there were pews, hymnals, song leaders, etc. all things we see no problem with having? I agree there is no problem with having these things but have you noticed that when we plant a new church that very high on the list of things that have to be done is get a building?

We use Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16 as necessary inference to teach congregational singing as the only singing acceptable to God, yet in 1 Cor. 14 when the church was assembled it was not mentioned. In fact the only reference to music there was a solo sang by one brother for the edification of the body.

Using necessary inference we can have whatever we want if we are skilled in the misuse of the scripture. Caring for orphans becomes orphans homes, but I know of no church that gives a stipend to widows which is juxtaposed with orphans in the same verse. Who decides which is necessary and which is not?

Again, as I have stated before, Jesus said in John 12:48 that judgment would be meted based on what He had said, not inferred. Also, 2 Peter 1:4 says we have been "given" everything we need to live righteous lives. I suggest we stick with the Word on this. Your and my interpretation of inference will not be the same and examples are sometimes contrary to other teachings (Acts chap 15). Command, what He said, is the only way to interpret what He said!