COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE

by Stafford North

The expression "command, example, and necessary inference" is one heard often these days. Some are saying it is a "flawed hermeneutic" which has characterized the Restoration Movement while others are saying it involves the use of human reasoning to understand scripture and, therefore, cannot be trusted.

So is "command, example, and necessary inference" a valid approach to interpreting scripture? Is it an invention of our Restoration Movement? Has it led us into doctrinal or moral error? These are important questions for us to answer.

Introduction

First, let us lay a foundation for examining this question. The study of this topic necessarily involves the subject of hermeneutics, the science of interpretation of scripture. Writers employ the term hermeneutics in three different ways. Some use it to describe the principles of exploring what a passage meant to those who first received it. Others use it to describe the process of applying a passage, once understood, to our present circumstances. Others use the term to include both of these. The last of these, considering hermeneutics to cover both understanding and application, is the most common. Recognizing this distinction is important because some have accused our brotherhood of using "command, example, and necessary inference" as our entire hermeneutic and have suggested that we need to broaden it to include other principles such as context, word study, greater use of the Old Testament, and looking at the "big picture" of the Bible.

Actually, of course, we have never used the method of "command, example, and necessary inference" as our complete set of hermeneutic principles. While Thomas Campbell, in his Declaration and Address, says we should use command and example to understand what God would have us do, Alexander Campbell, in his Christianity Restored, spends a hundred pages on hermeneutical principles and never mentions "command, example, and necessary inference."

The truth is, then, that "command, example, and necessary inference" has never been the complete hermeneutic among our fellowship. We have always used many other principles in seeking to understand a passage. Alexander Campbell, in his discussion, for example, speaks about determining word meanings, interpreting figures, using context, determining the dispensation, understanding the conditions which prevailed when the book was written, noting who speaks and to whom, and coming within an "understanding distance" of things written long ago.

Some have proposed that we should use the term "statement" rather than "command." They suggest that there are statements in scripture from which we learn what God wants us to do that are not actually commands. There is, no doubt, some validity to this point. If, however, we understand "command" to mean whatever is directly commanded or any other statement from which we learn want God would have us to do, then we may continue to use the common expression of "command, example, and necessary inference."

Another recent proposal comes from F. LaGard Smith in his book, The Cultural Church. He proposes three different terms: purpose, principle, and precedent. First, he says, we must understand the purpose the original author had in mind. The we must determine whether there is principle which should apply to us. Finally, we ask whether there is a precedent. This latter term he uses to suggest something a bit more restrictive than example since many examples are not binding. There is merit to Smith’s proposal, but if "command, example, and necessary inference" are properly understood and utilized, the outcome would be the same as his purpose, principle, and purpose.

But more important than what the Campbells and others have written is the question of whether the concept of "command, example, and necessary inference" should be a part of our hermeneutic today. Are these valid methods of finding God’s will for our lives? This paper will propose that such an approach is valid, when properly used, and will approach this question through three propositions: (1) the use of "command, example, and necessary inference" are inherent functions in our mental processes and have been since human beginnings, (2) the scriptures themselves expect us to use such approaches for understanding their meaning, and (3) the use of "command, example, and necessary inference" in discovering God’s will for us are valid if we have first used other basic principles to understand a passage.

Discussion

1. "Command, example, and necessary inference" are inherent functions of our mental processes and have been since human beginnings . Although not always under these particular terms, the concepts of "command, example, and necessary inference" are used in many fields today and have been so used for centuries. In law, for example, a lawyer or judge first asks whether there is a statement of law on the books that should be applied to a given case (command). Then he will ask, "Are there precedents from other cases that have been determined which should apply" (example)? Then he will ask, "Are there conclusions that may logically be drawn from the evidence that will apply to this case" (necessary inference)?

A doctor, likewise, will follow similar procedures. "Is there a general principle that governs a case such as I am now treating?" "Are there other instances of patients with similar circumstances which will bear on this case?" "Are there logical conclusions I can draw from my experience that would help me in treating this case?"

An architect will ask, "Are there principles or rules of construction that should guide me in the design of this building?" "Are there other buildings from which provide precedents that will help me design of this one?" "Are there conclusions I can reasonably draw to help in my design?"

And such thinking processes are not new at all. God gave a command to Adam and Eve they were expected to keep and, when they disobeyed, He asked, "Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Genesis 3:12) The process of drawing conclusions by reasoning also stems from very early times. Cain, for example, used such an inference when God told him he would be a wanderer. He said, "Whoever finds me will kill me." He was reasoning like this. Anyone whom God condemns to be a wanderer will be rejected and killed. I shall be such a wanderer. Therefore I will be rejected and killed (Genesis 4:13-14). And Abraham and Sarah concluded from examples they had seen that no one at their age bore children.

Many more cases like these could be given from ancient times. Commands from those in authority were expected to be obeyed. Asking if there were examples or precedents has always been a way to learn. And the process of drawing conclusions through the process of reasoning has been part of man’s mental equipment since the beginning of time. While our use of these in regard to understanding God’s revelation to us needs to be approached carefully, the concepts of obeying commands, learning through example, and drawing conclusions from inference are as old as mankind.

2. The scriptures expect us to use "command, example, and necessary inference" in determining God’s will for us . Even a brief look at scripture will reveal that "command, example, and necessary inference" are deeply imbedded in God’s will.

A. First, that God gives commands and expects them to be obeyed is evident to all students of scriptur e. In Matthew 15:4, for example, Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of transgressing the commandment by their tradition of "corban." In John 14:15, Jesus says "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." And the great commission, according to Matthew, says "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matthew 28:20). In I Thessalonians 4:2, Paul speaks of the "commandments we gave you by the authority of Jesus Christ." Surely no one can doubt that we are obliged to keep the commandments God has given us.

As we shall discuss later, we do have to interpret properly these commands. Did God intend for a given command to apply to us? What is the exact meaning of the commandment? What is included or excluded by the command? But that God has given commands in scripture He expects us to keep surely can be doubted by no Bible believer.

B. The Bible is also replete with cases of using examples as a means of determining God’s will . In Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus demonstrates to the Jewish leaders that an exception to the Sabbath command is allowed when a higher command is to be obeyed. To do this He use two examples as precedent. David, He said was allowed to eat the showbread and priests "profaned the Sabbath and are guiltless." Thus, he says, the Sabbath command should be interpreted in light of approved examples of certain flexibility in keeping the ordinances. In I Corinthians 10:6 and 11, Paul states that we are to learn from the examples of the Old Testament as he says that their punishment for disobedience "happened to them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come."

Several times, Paul calls on the example of "approved practice" in other churches to demonstrate how a congregation should conduct its activities. In I Corinthians 4:17, for instance, Paul tells Timothy he was sent to tell the Corinthians what Paul taught "in every church." Again, Paul sought to have a common practice on essential matters as indicated by I Corinthians 14:33b where he says, "as in all the churches, let the women keep silent." This, he says, is the practice of other churches, and he uses this as a basis of arguing that the Corinthian church should do the same. Again, in I Corinthians 16:1, Paul says he wants the Corinthians to follow the instruction he gave to the Galatians about contributing on the first day of the week. Paul, then, used approved practice of one congregation a precedent for others to follow.

Some of what God wants us to know, then, He has put into example form rather than a command. As we shall discuss in more detail later, we have to use care, of course, in interpreting examples. Does this example present an abiding and eternal principle or one restricted to a particular dispensation? Is the practice incidental or intended to present an lasting principle to follow? What were the circumstances which prevailed that affect our following the example?

Yet, that God has used the example method of revealing what He wants us to do is clearly established. Just as He used commands to instruct us of His will, He also uses "approved practice" as a means of delivering His will to us.

C. The scriptures also clearly suggest the use of inference or "drawing conclusions from a premise" as a means of interpreting what they mean . First a word about the nature of inference. Inference means drawing a conclusion from what has been implied in a statement. The validity of the conclusion, of course, depends both on the strength of premises in the statement and the method by which the conclusion is drawn. These are called "material" and "formal" validity. Both the information (material) and the "form" of the argument must be correct.

Thus we look at a premise: "All men are mortal." Since we accept that as universal, when we recognize that "Socrates is a man," we conclude that "Socrates is mortal." Such a conclusion is clearly implied in the two premises and is, therefore, a valid conclusion. Had the original statement been "Some men are tall," "Socrates is a man," we could only conclude that Socrates might be tall but could not be sure. Since this premise implies less, the conclusion, therefore, is not as certain.

We use inference many times a day. If, for example, I know the length of one side of an equilateral triangle, I can reason to the length of the other two. Again, one might think, "If this product is sold at Wal-mart, it will be good and be inexpensive." This product is sold there. Therefore it will be good and inexpensive. Or one might say "Whatever ____ says cannot be trusted. This is what ____ said. Therefore it cannot be trusted. (You fill in the blank.) Doctors use inference to diagnose patients, baseball managers use inference to plan their strategy, engineers use inference to design a bridge. Even the gift of flowers from a boy to a girl has an built in implication from which the giver hopes the receiver will draw an inference.

A "necessary" inference is one where the implication in the premises is so strong that the conclusion is considered sure. For example, "Only American-born persons may become president of the United States." Tony Blair is not American-born. Therefore, Tony Blair may not become president of the United States. Since the premises are certain, this conclusion is also certain. Again, someone might propose that "Only those who have held previous political office can be elected president." John has not held previous political office. Therefore, John cannot become president. While there is strong evidence to suggest that a previous political office is certainly the common way of rising to the presidency, this statement does not have the same certainty as the first.

Having explored something about the meaning of inference, let’s look at the Bible’s use of it . Jesus, in Matthew 22:29-31, provides a clear use of inference in interpreting scripture. He tells the Sadducees that in the passage recorded in Exodus 3:6 God said, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." From this, Jesus concludes that there is life after death. But how did He come to that conclusion? God used the present tense, "I am" the God of these men long after they had died. If, Jesus suggests, He was still their God after their deaths, then they must, in some sense, still be alive. His reasoning went like this. If God can say I "am" someone’s God long after they are dead, then they must, in some sense, still be alive. God did so speak. Therefore, they must, in some sense, be alive after death. Jesus recognized what was implied in the language and drew an inference from it which He considered to be certain.

To give another case, in Romans 10:13-14, Paul gives a long series of inferences. Starting with Joel 2:32, which says "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," Paul says we infer that before one could "call," he would first "believe;" and before such belief we infer that there must have been "preaching," and from the fact that one has preached, we infer that there must have been "sending." Thus, what is implied, we may infer.

Again Paul uses inference when he interprets scripture in I Corinthians 15:27. Here he quotes Psalm 8:6: "He put all things in subjection under his feet." He comments, however, that "it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him." The word "evident" indicates an implication from which we are to infer. So, he says, we infer that God, the one doing the subjecting, is excluded when He subjected everything else to Christ.

In Ephesians 4:8-10, Paul again uses inference. Psalm 68:18 says "He ascended." But, says Paul, one may infer that if one has ascended, he must first have been lower. There was first, then, he says, a descending. His reasoning is like this: All who ascend are included in those who have first been lower. Christ ascended. Therefore Christ must first have been lower.

But not only do Bible writers use inference in interpreting other scriptures, they also often use inference in their discussion and expect us to follow it . In Matthew 7:11, Jesus uses the common logical device of "from lesser to greater." This approach says that if something of lesser significance is true, then that which is greater than it certainly will be true. So, says Jesus, "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?" He never finishes out the steps in the argument because he expects us to be able to do that.

Jesus uses that same type of reasoning in Luke 13:15 and 14:6 when he says if it is proper to care for animals (the lesser) when they need assistance on the Sabbath day, then surely it is proper to care for humans (the greater) on the Sabbath day.

Paul uses the form of a hypothetical syllogism in I Corinthians 15:17 when he says "If [and only if] Christ be not raised, then you faith is vain." He expects the reader mentally to add, "My faith is not vain, and, therefore, Christ is raised."

Hebrews 7:7 gives another instance of a Bible writer’s using inference and expecting us to follow it. "But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better." Based on that, the writer expects us to accept that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. In verse 12, he adds another: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." In paraphrase, he says, if the priesthood is changed, it is a necessary inference that the law with which it is associated is changed. In a more precise statement, his argument is this: All laws whose priesthood is changed must be changed in other respects too. The priesthood of the Law of Moses was changed. Therefore, the Law of Moses must be changed in other respects too.

But not only do Bible writers use inference in interpreting other Bible writers, and not only do they make inferences which they expect us to follow, Bible writers expect their readers to use inference to draw conclusions of their own . In John 20:30-31, for example, the writer says he recorded the signs Jesus did so those who read them would believe (by necessary inference) that Jesus is the Christ. In fact, the whole premise, which lies behind the miracles of the New Testament, is that God expected the people who saw them to draw an inference. Nicodemus, for example, says to Jesus "We know that you are teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs you do, except God is with him" (John 3:2). Nicodemus has done exactly as God intended: he has inferred from Jesus’ miracles what is implied in them: that Jesus is sent from God. The former blind man makes a similar statement in John 9:33: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."

Paul certainly the Corinthians to use some "common sense" logic in understanding his statement "not to have company with fornicators." In I Corinthians 5:9-11, he told them they should have known that he was referring to fornicators in the church and not outside. But how could they have come to such a conclusion? He had intended for them reason like this: If I am to avoid all contact with fornicators outside the church, I must isolate myself from society. I cannot isolate myself from society (because I must seek to convert them to Christ). So I cannot avoid all fornicators outside the church.

God clearly, then, expects us to draw an inference from the miracles Jesus and the apostles were empowered to do. And Paul expected his readers to use common reasoning to understand his message. God knows there is an innate sense of reasoning in the human mind. Aristotle did not invent it, although he helped to codify it, nor is induction something invented by theologians or John Locke. Long before these, God knew how the human mind worked and he took advantage of that to present certain information from which He expected us to draw conclusions.

Finally, there is a case where God, Himself, is said to expect us to use inference. In Romans 1:19-20, Paul writes that God made His qualities “plain” by “what has been made.” Thus, he says, we are “without excuse” if we do not infer His existence from what we see around us. The chain of inference suggested in this passage works like this. If “what has been made” such as people, the world, and the universe demonstrates design, then there must have been a designer who created it. “What has been made” does show such design. Therefore, there must have been a designer who created “what has been made.” Paul says “God made it plain” that we are to make this inference and if we do not, we are “without excuse.” Thus, if God says I am without excuse if I do not draw an inference when premises are “plain,” then I should draw an inference when premises are plain. God does say I should be drawing an inference when the premises are “plain.” Therefore I am without excuse if I do not draw inferences when the premises are plain.

Inference is drawing conclusions from premises. It is only as strong as are the premises, but if they are certain, as suggested in Romans 1:19-20, then the conclusion is certain. Paul says that as we see the world, its people, and the universe, “what has been made,” God intended for us to infer that an intelligent force was behind it. So God endorses the use of inference.

The scriptures themselves, then, are clear that God wants us to follow the commands God gives for us, that He wants us to learn from examples, and that He expects us to follow inferences made in scripture and to draw some of our own.

3. The use of "command, example, and necessary inference" are a valid method of applying a passage after we have used other principles of hermeneutics to understand its meaning . Writers in the Restoration Movement who have spoken of "command, example, and necessary inference" have never intended these to be our total hermeneutic. There are two basic steps in hermeneutics: (1) determining what the passage meant to those who first received it and (2) determining what God wanted me to do as result of what that passage meant to those who first received it.

To understand what a passage meant to those who first received it we must use such principles as the following: (1) learning from history, archaeology, culture, and geography about the conditions under which these words were spoken, (2) defining words that need to be explored, (3) studying the syntax of the passage, (4) recognizing the type of literature are we dealing with, (5) discovering who said these words to whom, (6) learning from the context around the passage, (7) interpreting the figures of speech in this passage, (8) learning from other passages about the passage we are studying, and (9) finding out what the "big picture" about dispensations and theology presented in the Bible tell us as we fit this passage into it.

Only after we have explored the original meaning of a passage through such means as this are we ready to ask the question, "Now what does God want me to do as result of what this passage meant to those who first received it?" To answer that question, we use "command, example, and necessary inference."

A. If we have understood a passage correctly and that passage has in it a commandment, which God intended the people of our dispensation to obey, then we must obey that command . God’s command to Noah to build an ark, obviously, was limited to a particular time and circumstance. The commands of the Law of Moses were not given to Gentiles or to those living under the Christian dispensation. We do, however, live under the law of Christ (Romans 7:1-7), and Jesus left commandments for us to follow (John 14:15). So we find commands that apply in our dispensation: believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31) and repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). We have commands to worship, to put away sinful deeds, and to care for the needy.

We must, of course, ask certain questions about a command before knowing just how we are to follow it. Is there, for instance, some other command that might limit or clarify it? Romans 13:1-7, commands us to obey the government, but Acts 4:19 teaches us, by the example of Peter and John, that if man’s law contradicts God’s command, "we must obey God rather than men."

Also we must understand that inherent within any command is a level of specificity which determines what is allowed and what is prohibited. When God specified, for instance, how priests were to obtain the fire they were to use at the altar of incense, getting fire in any other way was excluded. So in Leviticus 10:1, when Nadab and Abihu got their fire from some other source, they used a method God "had not commanded." When He commanded one way to get fire, all other ways were "not commanded" and thus excluded. The NIV says they used "unauthorized fire." When God commands one out of several possibilities in a category, then, the other possibilities in that category are in the "not commanded" category and, thus, are unauthorized.

The same lesson is seen in other passages. I Chronicles 15:13-14 reports that when David moved the ark after the time when Uzza died, he said, "we sought him not according to the ordinance." This second time, the Levites carried the ark "as Moses commanded." When God selected one out of many possibilities for moving the ark, other means of moving it were excluded.

When Saul was impatient because Samuel was late, he ignored the fact that when God specified that priests were to offer a sacrifice, any one else was excluded from offering them. In I Samuel 13:14, Samuel told Saul "you have not kept what the Lord commanded you." But God did not command those of the tribe of Benjamin not to offer sacrifices. He only commanded that those of Levi could. Yet, when Saul, of Benjamin, offered a sacrifice, he violated the commandment. So, to do what is excluded is just as much a violation of the commandment as to fail to do what is commanded.

Paul makes the same point in I Corinthians 11:20-34. Here Paul condemns the Corinthians church for not observing the Lord’s supper just as he had commanded them to do. He says, "I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." Thus, Paul says, I told you how to take the Lord’s supper and you are doing it some other way and, in the process, you are "eating and drinking damnation" and are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." When Paul told them how to take the Lord’s supper, other ways were excluded.

We understand this principle of exclusion in everyday life. When a song leader says turn to number 412, he does not have to name all the songs to which we are not to turn. When a doctor prescribes a particular medicine, the pharmacist does not fill it with another medicine and say, "The doctor didn’t say not to use this one." When the architect specifies a particular type of window, the builder does not say, "He didn’t say not to use another type so I’m sure it will be OK." When the teacher specifies a due date for a paper, the student shouldn’t say, "He didn’t say I couldn’t bring it on another date." When one of a set of possibilities is specified, other equivalent possibilities are excluded.

Some have used the terms "generic" and "specific" in describing various commands. They often illustrate by saying that if God had told Noah to build an ark of wood, this generic command would have allowed Noah to choose any wood he wished. But when God used a specific command for gopher wood, this limited Noah from using any other type. Thus, naming one possible wood out of many, excluded other types of wood.

We apply this principle of exclusion in many ways. Unleavened bread and fruit of the vine are commanded for the Lord’s table, and we understand that Christ did not have to specify all that we should not use on the table. Other foods are clearly excluded. Voluntary contributions are commanded and so we do not practice other ways of raising money for the work of the Lord. Baptism is commanded as the means for getting "into Christ" which excludes getting into Christ by signing a card, prayer, or some other means. We are told to pray in the name of Jesus and surely do not need a list of those in whose names we are not to pray.

In the same way, we are told to sing as an offering of music in our worship to God (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19; I Corinthians 14:15). If we were commanded to offer "music" to God, we could follow this command and use any type of music we wished. Since, however, the command is more specific in naming vocal music, the principle of exclusion applies. God does not have to tell us all the types of music not to use. By specifying singing, other types of music are excluded just as other types of food on the Lord’s table are excluded by the naming of fruit of the vine and unleavened bread.

It is true, of course, that while a command is exclusive, it is also inclusive. That is, while a command eliminates doing other equal actions, it also allows doing those actions which are incidental to carrying out the command. Thus, while the command to use unleavened bread excludes other types of bread for communion, its silence about the manner of distributing the bread leaves that open. Similarly, while the command to use vocal music in worship excludes the use of instrumental music, its silence about how to make the words known leaves open the use of printed words, projected words or memorization.

So we seek to interpret commands carefully and if they apply to us, must understand them and follow them, recognizing that each command both excludes and includes.

B. If we have understood a passage correctly, we must also ask whether the passage contains an example from which God wants us to learn . Not everything any New Testament Christian did becomes a precedent which we must follow. About examples we must ask such questions as these: (1) is this practice incidental or was it intended to establish a precedent? (2) is this practice one that was consistently followed by early Christians? (3) is the practice one which has apostolic approval? (4) is this practice the result of what appears to be an underlying command or principle? (5) are there exceptions to this practice which had the approval of the apostles?

We know the common practice of early Christians was to walk wearing sandals but there is no underlying principle or command that is evident in their footwear. Early Christians sometimes met in upper rooms, but since they also met in other places as well, there no precedent is established by these times they met in upper rooms. The Christians in Jerusalem "had all things in common." But this was to meet a particular emergency there and is never mentioned as being practiced by Christians anywhere else. These, then, are cases of examples that are not binding.

On the other hand, there are some practices that clearly do meet the above criteria. In all of the recorded cases of conversion in the book of Acts, people were baptized. This clearly, then, was a regular, consistent practice and also corresponds with commands that are given. Thus, both command and example show that baptism for forgiveness of sins is God’s teaching to us.

We have no command, however, about the particular day in which Christians are to meet to take the Lord’s supper. Yet we seek to know God’s will about when to take it. We know, both from scripture and from history, that the practice of the early church, under apostolic guidance, was to meet on the first day of each week and, at that time, to take of the Lord’s supper. Thus, we have a clear precedent as to the day for Christians to meet and observe the communion. We can observe the supper on that day and know we are within what will please God. To observe it on some other day is to venture into the territory of not being assured it will please God.

There is, likewise, no command for churches to have elders as their shepherds, but such was clearly the approved, common practice of the early church. And since all of these cases indicate that there was a group of elders and not just one, we practice having more than one elder in each congregation.

By example we know what the early Christians did when they came together: they prayed, one or more than one spoke to the assembly, they contributed their means, they took the Lord’s supper, and they sang. These things we can do knowing we are following the approved example of the early church. Other forms of worship which are not commanded and for which there is no example, would clearly be excluded. The use of instruments in Christian worship, for instance, is neither commanded nor is there an example. To use instruments for worship, then, is both to do what is not commanded and to do that for which there is no apostolic precedent. For those who are committed to the apostolic plan, then, the use of such instruments would be excluded.

C. If we have understood a passage properly, we also ask whether there is an implication in the passage from which we are to make a necessary inference . Some say we should not use this method because it is based on human logic. But following commands requires the use of the mind to understand language and the use of examples is based on the mental ability of establishing a precedent from cases (a form of reasoning by generalization). So to eliminate basic functions of the mind for reasoning and for language would leave us with no ability to use scripture. As shown earlier, reasoning is part of the mental capability God gave us and, as seen in scripture, He clearly intends that we use it in understanding His Word.

There are many examples of the use of inference in our study of scripture. The strength of the inference, of course, depends on the certainty of the premises. When Matthew 3:16, for example, says that after Jesus’ baptism he came "up out of the water," we may correctly infer that He went down into the water. Thus, His baptism was by immersion. We reason the same way about the nature of baptism in the case of the Ethiopian in Acts 8:38-9: "and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." If they both went down into the water and both came up out of the water, then the baptism was by immersion for in no other method of baptism do people enter the water. We draw this conclusion through inference. Concluding that baptism is by immersion because it was a burial (Romans 6:4) is also making a necessary inference.

Nowhere in scripture are we told specifically that the Sabbath provision has been taken away. When we read, however, that Christ has "blotted out the bond written in ordinances" (Colossians 2:14), we understand that the Sabbath provision would be included in what is blotted out. In another case, the Bible teaches that elders are to be the husband of one wife. From this we infer that only men can be elders because only men can be husbands.

The interpretation of figures of speech almost always involves inference. We first know that figurative language is being used because we reason that a more literal interpretation would be impossible or unlikely. Since, for example, the Bible teaches us to respect our bodies and care for them, we believe Jesus is using hyperbole when he says to "pluck out your eye." The reasoning goes like this: if what Jesus asks us to do contradicts other Bible teaching, He must be making His point through a figure of speech. "Pluck out your eye" does contradict other teaching. Therefore, He must be using a figure.

To give another case, when John speaks of "antichrists" in I John 2:18-22, he says that there will be many, that they had already started coming in his day, and that their identifying characteristic would be to deny that Jesus is the Christ. From these statements we infer that John’s use of "antichrist" is not a prediction of a great political ruler who comes shortly before the end of time.

Again, if there are no contradictions in the Bible, then Paul and James must have used the word "works" in a different sense when they said different things about works. Our inference is that since the Bible does not contradict itself, then Paul and James are in harmony and therefore they use the word works in a different sense.

If we were denied the use of inference, we would have great difficulty in applying the message of scripture to our lives today. An inference is only as good as the premises on which it is based and one must take other cautions in making the inference to be accurate, but to say that we cannot reason to conclusions based on scripture would be to take away the intelligence with which God expects us to come to scripture.

Conclusion

So what is our conclusion? Many important principles must be used in interpreting the meaning of scriptures. The use of "command, example, and necessary inference," however, is an important tool for making application of scripture to our own lives once we have determined what the passage meant to those who first received it. The use of "command, example, and necessary inference" were not invented by the Restoration Movement or by any theologian. They are processes of thought common to man and which God expects us to use as we come to scripture. Like all processes of interpretation, they must be used carefully and one can use them to come to right conclusions or misuse them and come to wrong ones. Because they can be abused, however, we must not cast them aside. We must use them correctly for should we fail to do so, we would not understand God’s will for us today.