TOPIC: WHEN IS A NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLE BINDING? TEXT: PHIL.3:17

LESSON PRESENTED AT LECTURESHIP OF
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, CHALLENGE, IBADAN
ON 6TH MARCH, 2017

THEME: GROWING IN THE GRACE AND KNOWLEDGE OF OUR LORD
       AND SAVIOUR   2PET.3:18
TOPIC: WHEN IS A NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLE BINDING?
TEXT: PHIL.3:17

BY OYERINDE JOSEPH.
Introduction: Certainly, almost all people converted from denominations after few years will notice some pronounced works among denominations which the Lords church neither approve and nor venture into. Likewise, some who have been in Christ for some years, and even privilege to change membership from one place to another, will vividly notice some differences and disagreement on works church could not engage and support. Works such as building/running Bible College/University, mission hospital, pooling of fund together for TV/radio program, giving financial help to non-Christians etc. The basis for disapproval of such work-like strictly based on proper attitudes to binding nature (i.e. exclusive pattern) of examples of the New Testament.

Aim: The main objective of this study is how to determine the exclusive nature of the New Testament examples that authorize Gods people what and how of Gods will. This goal is what this study determines to achieve.

Key Words Explained
Example: About four Greek words (tupos, deigma, “hupogrammos”, “hupodeigma”) were translated “example” in the English Bible (KJV). It mainly means a model, a specimen, an underwriting, an exhibit, or pattern for imitation or warning (Strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, eSword).
Binding: It means imposing an obligation (Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
The focus of this study is thus how to rightly determine when early Christians or early churches practice becomes pattern that imposes imitating obligation on present-day Christians and churches (cf. Phil.3:17)

I. ATTITUDES TO NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES
1. There is one attitude out of three one is likely to have towards examples of the scriptures. It is either (1) all examples are binding (2) no example in and of itself is binding or (3) some examples are binding and some are not.
2. To have the first attitude is to deny impossible duplication of some first century situations and circumstances today around instruction or action (cf. 1Cor.7:26; ch.14). Besides, to espouse the second attitude is to flagrantly reject the essence and purpose of ever having inspired record of examples. It is only ideal and even divine to hold the third.
3. It is unfortunate to have some people who thought otherwise example considered binding by some laws and hermeneutical principles as mere products of our personal theological ingenuity”. While some just make invalid conclusion that example is no binding. Michael S. Thomas reported a brother with such reasoning who stated that to hold the third position necessities a judge to separate the binding examples from those not binding. His whole point is that each one of us will have to study the context, passage, setting, time, circumstances etc. to reach a conclusion. But this causes disagreement, division, and debates. Hence, examples are not binding(p.4). This is poor reasoning that deprives human of making use his reasoning faculty properly and diligent study (2Tim.2:15).

II. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH BY EXAMPLE
1. For clarity sake, it is neither redundant nor superfluous to simply attend to this question because it is several claims, beyond doubt, of the New Testament writers of teaching by examples.
2. Paul wrote Philippians saints saying Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern (3:17, NKJV). He equally disclosed that the church of Thessalonians were example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia (1Thess.1:6-8, 2:14). Hebrews writer told his epistle recipients to follow (to imitate) the faith of elders who had the rule over them (Heb.13:17 cf. 1Pet.5:2). Peter claimed that Jesus left us example to follow His steps (1Pet.2:21). Hence, Paul said imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ (1Cor.11:1)
3. From this claim in various pages of the scriptures, it is not only obvious that example should be followed (or should be pattern of faith), but also should be that divinely approved  as I also imitate Christ. By divinely approved example we mean an example that is recorded in the New Testament that is in no place condemned (Sunday Ayandare)

III. VARIOUS APPROACHES TO HOW EXAMPLE IS CONSIDERED BINDING TODAY
A diligent study of writings among brethren will unveil various approaches among brethren to how example is considered binding. A striking fact about them is that some are not sufficient and consistent for general application. Somehow such approaches have been just developed based on one doctrinal matter or the other. Such approaches will likely make one inconsistent in application or merely dogmatic rather than to practice simplicity in Christ (2Cor.11:3). Some these approaches are:
Example isolated of command is binding.
(i) This is the approach our brother Oji O. Oji expressed as clarified in one of his books, as he wrote:
Let it be categorically stated from the outset that an example is binding only when it stands on its own and does not derive from a known specific or generic command. That is to say, when a command is issued, any method used in carrying it out is not bind except if that method is specifically and explicitly commanded (p. 105)

An example is a source of authority when it is not based on or drawn from a command as a means of carrying out the injunction. If there is a command directing the action or method, such example is not binding (p. 111)

Let me repeat that where an example derives from a command, whether generic or specific and be it evangelism, edification or benevolence, such an example is not binding or should be seen as pattern of authority. But where an example stands on its own as earlier detailed and is not backed up by a command, such example can be considered as a source of authority and can be quoted for direction (p. 116).
(ii) This approach is not consistent principle for application because there are examples which were drawn from command and considered binding. Examples are execution of commands. One example (i.e. observation of Lords Supper on Sunday) used to verify and establish this approach is contrary to the premise of the approach in that example of Lords Supper on Sunday recorded was not isolated of command but rather derived from Lords command  do this in remembrance of Me (1Cor.11:24-26).
2. Only example backed with command is binding
(i) This approach is contrary to the first stated. Some rather espouse that example not backed with command could not be binding. This is the approach Roger E. Dickson illustrated in his work, saying:
An example without the backing of a command cannot be bound upon Christian or made a test of fellowship. Though there may be a direct command behind the example, the example itself may be only one way in which the command can be carried out in the lives of Christians. The context in which the example rests must be thoroughly studied in order to determine its application to us today. (p. 78-79)
(ii) Somehow this approach is one attempt to undermine the effect of establishing authority by approved example. The principle of this approach is equally not consistent because there are examples binding without the backing of command. P. J. Casebolt, among others, pointed one vivid example contrary to the approachs principle:
The only way we know that spiritual gifts could only be imparted by the laying on of the apostles hand is by the apostolic examples given concerning it (see Acts 8:14-18, 19:6, 2Tim.1:6). The only exception to this is the receiving of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-46). Still, this is an example not a command.
3. Contextual study and common sense of example will determine binding example  
(i) Some peoples approach to determine binding example is study of its context couple with common sense. One Gaylord Cook wrote:
A basic necessity in making such a determination is to discover if the action mentioned or instruction given was binding upon those involved in the action or given the instruction in the New Testament. To do this one must consider context  the immediate context, the near context and the remote contextand one factor that must not be left out in making such a determination is common sense (p.19-20),
(ii) This approach is applicable but not sufficient all alone.
4. Optional/permanent and/or obligatory/permanent nature of example will determine binding example
(i) In the Spiritual Sword quarterly publication, Roy Deavor demonstrated the principle involved in this approach thus:
Obviously, only the actions which are optional and permanent and/or obligatory and permanent have any relationship to present-day Christianity. When we find in the New Testament the account of an action (1) which was manifestly right within itself (2) which was either optional or obligatory, and (3) which related to a permanent element of Christianity  then we have authority for imitating that action (p. 21)
(ii) This is one good approach, but seems to deny the exclusive nature of binding example. Roy Deaver pointed that:
An example does not exclude. An example may authorize traveling by boat, but does not exclude traveling by car. An example authorizes that which it exemplifies-and this is all that can be claimed for it. The example recorded in Acts 20:7 authorizes the observance of the Lords Supper on the first day of the week. The point which makes it wrong to observe the Supper on Thursday night is the fact that there is no authority for it. This is the excluding factor the absence of Bible authority. (p. 23)
(iii) Conversely, a specific approved example rather excludes. Marshall E. Patton rightly noted that:
The specific excludes everything save that which is specified. For this reason we observe the Lords Supper on the first day of the week to the exclusion of all other days. This day is authorized by a specific approved example, and is, therefore, exclusive. For the same reason we oppose the use of instrumental music in worship. Sing is specific, and, therefore is exclusive (p. 32).
(iii) Okezie Pax Nwasuka rather propagated both these last two approaches in his speech delivered at Preachers/Teachers class held on February 14, 2009 at Ijaofa congregation, Abeokuta.

IV. SACRED HERMENEUTICAL RULES FOR BINDING EXAMPLES AND APPLICATIONS
The following rules are guiding principles that regulate how to determine when example is binding or not. These rules complement one another for proper application.
The Rule of Unity or Harmony
A binding example could not violate the teaching of expressed statement of the scriptures, rather it must be harmonious, and thus be interpreted in the light of all the scriptures teach on the same subject. An example that violates commands of the scriptures is sinful in itself and could not be binding.
Applications: (i) Various recorded actions, such as division (1:10-13), indiscipline (ch.5) etc, of the church at Corinth were not harmonious with expressed commands (John 17:11-23, 2Thess. 3:6) and therefore condemned. Such examples can only be for warning, not for pattern of imitation (ii) example of observing Lords Supper or worship in a particular place (like upper room  Acts 20:7) is not binding because Jesus had demonstrated that nature of place is irrelevant to true worship (John 4:21-24)   (iii) Besides, example cannot either be construed in such a way to violate the teaching of expressed statement of the scriptures. Hence, example of the Antioch church sending to the elders in Judea where there were churches can only be interpreted as elders of churches in need at Judea, and not to elders of Jerusalem church who later dispatch it to other churches in need at Judea (Acts 11:27-30, Gal.1:22)., since every church is to have her own elders with their oversight limited to their congregation (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23, 1Pet.5:2-3).
The Rule of Uniformity
When an action is maintained in every kind of similar situation without variation even when room of choice is available, such example will always be binding in such situations. Roy E. Cogdill puts it in this way: Uniformity does not require "multi-occurrence" instances in the record. Uniformity meant that the things recorded never happened and are not recorded in any other way no matter how many times they were done”. (p. 24)
Application: (i) In every case of church engaging in benevolence, it is always unto to the saints (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35, 6:1, 11:29, Rom.15:26, 31, 1Cor.16:1, 2Cor.8:4, 2Cor.9:1, 12, 1Tim. 5:16). This example excludes non-saints from subject of church benevolence. It is thus incorrect for Benjamin Yamah to reason that If we can use the collection for the Saints to print tracts and distribute to non-Christians free of charge because we want to win them for Christ, can't we use the same collection for the Saints to buy food, or pay for a child's school fees if that will make the recipients of such to come to Christ. (p.10) All attempts by some brethren (like in Christian Restoration Voice) to construe some commands and examples to fit in non-saints for church benevolent have been fruitless and deficient of sound exegesis of Gods word, and only a mere demonstration of human wisdom in Gods affair.
The Rule of Legitimate Extension
This is equally known as the law of limited application. An example (even with rule of uniformity) should be limited to its legitimate situation. Robert H. Farish rightly explain this rule thus:
No example is to be extended beyond its legitimate province. No New Testament action (of apostles, Christians or churches) is to be considered as binding beyond the proper province of that action. If the action be in emergency situations, it is not to be extended to include normal or regular action e.g. the community of property practiced by the Jerusalem church. There was an emergency situation in Jerusalem that called forth this action of selling their possessions and goods land parting them to all, according as any man had need (Acts 2:45)To contend that this action is binding in all cases is to be guilty of extending the example beyond its legitimate province  which province is emergency situations. This example is an approved example for this situation but not an approved example for all situations. This example reflects the will of God for emergency not general or normal situation (p.69)

Application: (i) Legitimate province of one church sending financial aid (benevolence) to another church was in time of emergence want beyond the ability of the destitute church. It excludes normal or regular sending of fund to promote a good work or created need. It is beyond legitimate extension of these examples to send fund to another church for work of evangelism and edification. This is why it is scriptural wrong for one church or churches to send (pool) fund to another church for TV/radio evangelism. Such Illegitimate extension of example beyond its province not only abuses the imitation of the example but also most cases violates expressed command of the Gods word. Sending fund to another church on any other situation and work makes the receiving church to take oversight beyond jurisdiction of her leaders (1Pet.5:2-4).
The Rule of Universal Application
An example that is binding will not be restricted by place or custom, but with universal possibility to practice.
Application: (i) Example of water baptism is in not limited by place (Acts 10:47), but practicable everywhere.
The Rule of Competence
Claims of an example that is binding will be competent to agree with teaching of the scriptures.
Applications: (i) Claims of infant baptism from examples of household conversion is not competent to agree with teaching of the Bible (Acts 16:31-32).

Conclusion: That God recorded examples in the New Testament for pattern of imitation, and sometimes warning, is no doubt. Until right attitudes are inculcated and sufficient sacred hermeneutics are applied hardly will main purpose of those inspired examples be appreciated and utilized. It is a command to utilize purpose of those examples, and therefore we cannot afford to fail in applying appropriate principles to determine when they are binding.

-By Oyerinde Joseph

Reference
Benjamin Yamah Is It Scriptural to Use Part Of the Collection for the Saints to Help Non-Christians? Christian Restoration Voice Vol.13 No.2 December, 2011
Gaylord Cook When Is An Example Binding? Gospel Advocate. Ed. F Furman Kearley Vol.132, No.6, 1990.
Marshall E. Patton How to Establish Scriptural Authority The Gospel Guardian. Ed. Fanning Yater Tant. May 3 &10, 1956
Michael S. Thomas  What Is the Truth About Example and Inference? Vanguard. Ed. Fanning Yater Tant. 1978
Oji O. Oji (2009) Autonomy Issues & Unity of the Church of Christ (CRV Publication Company)
Roy E. Cogdill (1979) Walking by Faith (Guardian of Truth Foundation)
Robert H. Farish When Is A New Testament Example Exclusive The Gospel Guardian. Ed. Fanning Yater Tant. May 3 & 10, 1956
Roger E. Dickson Biblical Interpretation Biblical Research Library (Book 2) (www.africainternational.org)
Roy Deaver How to Establish Bible Authority The Spiritual Sword. Ed. Thomas B. Warren Vol. 1 No.1, 1969
Roy Deaver The Effect of Approved Example The Spiritual Sword. Ed. Alan E. Highers Vol. 21 No.3, 1990
Sunday Ayandare (n.d) Holding Fast the Faithful Word Edited by Ezekiel A. Akinyemi and Sunday Ayandare

Oyerinde Joseph is a gospel preacher working with the Lords church meeting at Olomilagbala, PO Box 841, Ilesa, State of Osun, Nigeria. Contact him on phone: +2340703 857 1981, email: oyerindejoseph@yahoo.com