"When Is A New Testament Example Binding?"
The article in the July I8 issue of the Guardian under this title is a challenging one. It gets to the very basis of all the discussion which has divided brethren the last several years.
When we determine how things are authorized, we will have gone a long way toward settling the problems before us. And when we see the difference between a thing's being authorized and a thing's being bound we will have gone another great step forward.
Let us state at the beginning that examples do show authority. But authority show freedom to act as well as obligation to act. We have authority to do many things which we are not obligated to do. Paul had authority to lead about a wife, but he was not obligated so to do. (See I Corinthians 9:1-4)
Let it be understood that when one says that examples do not bind, he is not saying that things are not authorized by example.
Are There Three Or Four?
Brother Farish states that there are three views concerning binding examples and lists them thus:
(1) All examples are binding;
(2) No examples are binding;
(3) Some are binding and others are incidental. He says that he holds to position number three.
There is another position which many of us occupy; and, incidentally, the one which Brother Farish really sets forth in his article. That view is that no example is binding in and of itself.
This is not to declare that all things of which we have examples are incidental. It is to declare that we must determine from some source other than the example whether the thing exemplified is meant to be binding.
Rules Cited By Brother Farish
Brother Farish set forth the following rules by which to determine whether a thing exemplified is binding or only incidental:
(1) Necessary inference,
(2) The law of harmony.
He promises that in his next article he will examine more rules:
(1) The law of uniformity,
(2) The law of legitimate extension
(3) The law of universal application
(4) The law of exclusion.
If it takes all of these to determine when the thing exemplified is binding, it follows that the example alone does not show a thing to be binding. We conclude then that example alone never binds.
If one argues that example alone binds, it would be well for him to examine the New Testament example of how money was sent from one congregation to another:
(1) One man administered, sending men or going himself at his own pleasure; (I Cor. 16:3,4)
(2) Representatives were sent from all sending churches; (I Cor. 16:3; II Cor. 8:23)
(3) One volunteer went; (II Cor. 8:16,17)
(4) One mutual representative was chosen by churches. (II Cor. 8:18,19)
Someone should tell us whether this example is binding and the means by which they determine this.
We will be willing to publish Brother Farish's articles and mine in Bible Herald, provided that the articles are kept upon the same plane as begun. Box 1093 — 330 7th Street, Parkersburg, West Virginia