Express Command Or All Things Commanded, Which?
"'What constitutes Bible proof?" is the title of an article written by brother T. Luther Dabney and appearing in another journal. In this article, Brother Dabney writes, "I believe it can be laid down as a safe rule that everything God requires of us is by way of commandment." I have heard this idea from several sources and it seems to be gaining in popularity. Before too many rush in and commit themselves by endorsing and adopting this idea it will be a good idea to subject it to a careful scrutiny. The embarrassing aftermath which frequently follows precipitate adoption of a new idea is pointed up in the case of brother G.N.W. This brother who in view of his legal training, extensive debating experience and other considerations should have been equipped to avoid such pitfalls; nevertheless rushed in and endorsed the "total situation" argument and along with it introduced his "restoration of a divine institution" argument. He now sees that to list the component parts of the divine institution, the home, will expose the absurdity of his "restoration" idea. I imagine that such is a particularly galling experience for a leading man. This idea about example not teaching unless backed by a command appears as attractive to some, perhaps, as the "total situation" and "restoration of a divine institution" ideas appeared to brother G. N. W. Things are not always what they seem as the fly discovered when he alighted on the tangle-foot paper. This "Command back of the example" is tangle-foot, not sugar!
But back to brother Dabney's assertion, "that everything God requires of us is by way of commandment." What does this brother and others mean by "commandment?" Do they mean an express command? If so, then let them give book, chapter, and verse where the express command is found authorizing exclusive first day of the week observance of the Lord's supper. Do they use commandment in the general sense, embracing all of God's expressed will? If so, what is their point? I know of no one who thinks that exclusive first day observance of the Lord's supper is bound upon us by some authority not comprehended in the "all things whatsoever I commanded you" of Christ's. Certainly, it is among the "all things" that Christ commanded the apostles, but the apostles teach it to us through the scriptures by approved example. Now if there is anyone anywhere who actually believes that "no example is binding unless it is backed up by a commandment" then I beg them to have enough courage of their conviction to speak out clearly and honestly by defining the sense in which they are using "commandment" and if they mean express command, then let them produce the "Commandment that produced the example."
Brother Dabney further says, "it is not the example itself that is binding but the commandment that produced the example. To illustrate, we do not observe the Lord's supper because we find that Paul observed it at Troas. We observe it for the same reason Paul did. Christ commanded it. The example was not enough in Paul's case for the Lord revealed the same to him, commanding, "This do in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. 11:24)" Now why did not our brother state the case fully? Why did he not say, "we do not observe the Lord's supper on the first day of the week . . . because we find that Paul observed it at Troas?" Why not fully express the point — and echo answers why? "The first day of the week" is the significant phrase, defining the precise point at issue. Brother Dabney, the express command "This do in remembrance of me" does not give you authority for exclusive first day observance of the Lord's supper. Your authority for exclusive first day of the week observance is found in the approved example of Acts 20:7.
The scriptures teach by express command (statement), approved example and necessary inference. Some people honor this with their lips and straightway begin trying to prove that it is false. Denying that the will of God is bound upon us by approved examples is currently in fashion. This fad has been introduced by those who had some plans for benevolence and evangelism of such magnitude as to involve the church general (the brotherhood). The examples in the scriptures of church function stand squarely in the path of this church universal concept, hence, one or the other must go. We must sorrowfully admit that it appears that many are wedded to their idol and will hold to it regardless of the cost, even to giving up the teaching of example rather than their idol.
The thing that many apparently fail to realize is that express statement of scripture will also have to be discarded or ignored. There is no stopping point short of modernism. By express statement of scripture the bounds of elder oversight are fixed (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Respect for the will of God prevents elders of one flock meddling in the affairs of another flock. And equally true, respect for the will of God and for themselves as elders over the charge allotted to them by God will cause elders to resist efforts at meddling from elders or others not of "the flock of God among you." Willingness of one set of elders to surrender their responsibility to another set of elders does not change the will of God. It makes no difference what the circumstances are that are used as an excuse to project one set of elders into a position of meddling in the affairs of a flock over which the Holy Spirit has not made them bishops; both the elders who have gotten out of their scriptural province and the flock which submits to their unlawful encroachments are in the wrong. We establish that such is wrong by showing that it is contrary to the teaching of express statement and vet in some quarters brethren go right along violating this teaching. The same disregard for the will of God is observable in this area of teaching of express command as is observable in the attitude toward the teaching of approved example.