Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 20
October 24, 1968
NUMBER 25, PAGE 6b-7a

Is Any New Testament Example Binding?"

Robert H. Farish

In a former article three possible views toward the examples of the New Testament were listed as follows: (1) All examples are binding. (2) No example is binding. (3) Some examples are binding, others are incidental.

Brother Clifton Inman writes (see his article), "There is another position which many of us occupy; and incidentally, the one Brother Farish really sets forth in his article. That view is that no example is binding in and of itself."

Brother Inman's position is not "another position"; it is only the second view expressed differently. If "no example is binding in and of itself," then "no examples are binding." If an example is binding, it is binding "in and of itself." I believe that Acts 20:7 is a binding example of the day upon which the Christian is to eat the Lord's supper and that the Christian cannot eat the Lord's supper on any other day without violating the will of God. Does Brother Inman believe that the Lord's supper can be eaten only on the first day of the week? If so, why? What binds the first day of the week?

What is meant by the declaration, "We must determine from some source other than the example whether the thing exemplified is meant to be binding?" What about the precept, "Salute one another with a holy kiss" (Rom. 16:16)? Is this binding? If not, then are we to conclude that no precept "is binding in and of itself"?

Rights And Duties

That examples which are not "binding" give us the right to act according to the example is not the point at issue. The editor of Bible Herald has missed the point here as his quotation shows. He writes,

"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 Cor. 9:1-14)" Certainly, there are areas in which the Christian has the right to move but is not required to exercise the right, e.g. "Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ" (I Cor. 9:12). That some examples are not binding was pointed out in the former articles. But some examples are binding. Does one have the right to eat the Lord's supper on any day other than the first day of the week? Is first day of the week observance of the Lord's supper a right or a duty? Is the time bound? or is the day upon which we eat the Lord's supper merely a matter of right? If the time is bound then it is bound by example "in and of itself."

How Money Was Sent From One Congregation To Another

Another statement from article under review is, "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."

In answer to this, it should, be pointed out that the gospel is universal in scope; it is for all men for all time, hence, the means of communication, transportation, etc., of one period of history cannot be considered as binding. These things are not of universal application. The examples cited by Brother Inman are not binding, even though an apostle had the right to "administer" - "sending men or going himself" and churches are given the right to send men, even one who "volunteers himself" etc. This does not however bind these means upon the church today. In our time we certainly would not be "wise as serpents" if we failed to utilize the modern means of communication, transportation, etc. at our disposal to expedite the thing commanded by the Lord, so long as those things are true expedients and not additions or perversions of the divine will.

Brother Inman writes, "If it takes all of these (rules) to determine when the thing exemplified is binding, it follows that the example alone does not show a thing to be binding." If the example alone does not show that the first day of the week is the exclusive day to observe the Lord's supper, what does show it?

A Proposal

For a number of years this writer, along with a host of other faithful brethren, has studied and written in defense of the proposition that the scriptures teach by approved example as well as by command or precept and necessary inference. Many of those who have raised objections to our positions have held in common with us the position that the Lord's supper is to be observed on the first day of the week and only on the first day of the week. My proposal is this: Let Brother Inman undertake to show that the Lord's supper is to be eaten on the first day of the week and on no other day.

— 4109 Avenue F Austin, Texas