COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE

by Dave Brown

 

Conflict Resolution — Doctrinal Matters

 

Doctrinal conflict is not a subject foreign to the New Testament.  The first question that should be asked is: should we even be concerned about doctrinal matters?   Why not just live and let live?  Let us take a lesson from Paul as recorded in Acts 15:1-2: “And some men came down from Judea and {began} teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’  And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, {the brethren} determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.”

 

Paul and Barnabas could have said, “Well, this is just your opinion and we do not agree.  So you go your way and we will go ours, and we will pretend that there are no differences among us.”  But that is not what they did.  They immediately went about resolving the issue so that they could preserve the unity for which our Savior prayed (Jn. 17:23). 

 

It is often stated that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to find out the truth on this matter.  Not so.  Then already knew the truth, and they taught that truth on the way to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3).  Thus, their goal was more to determine if, in fact, these men had been sent from the apostles as they apparently claimed, and to notify the apostles in Jerusalem of what these troublemakers were all about. 

 

This issue had previously been raised in Jerusalem and it had been resolved there as recorded in Acts 11. 

 

When Paul and Barnabas arrived, they found that the source of the problem were some Pharisaic Christians who were teaching the keeping of Moses’ law (Acts 15:4).

 

The Issue Resolved

 

Acts 15 serves not only as a history of the early church, but also an example to us for following the pattern established by the apostles who were being guided by the Holy Spirit.  We might ask, “Why didn’t the Holy Spirit just given them the answer and let it go at that?”  Answer: He did — read Acts 10 and 11.  So, there was no reason to reveal it again.

 

The elders and apostles of the church who gathered together were facing the exact same problem that we face today: how to resolve doctrinal conflict from existing revelation.  There were three ways that this was accomplished:

 

1. Recognition of direct command (Acts 15:7-11).  Peter told them about the direct command that he had received (again, review Acts 10-11).

 

2. Approved apostolic example.  (Acts 15:12)  Paul and Barnabas related what God had done through them, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision.  This was confirmed by miracles. This was verified truth when they accomplished these things (Acts 13-14), so it was still God’s will.

 

3.  Necessary inference.  James then gave a quotation from the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12):  “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, ...”

 

Is there anything in this passage about circumcision?  Yet, James is applying it to that.  Why?  Because the necessary implication of the passage is that the Gentiles would be acceptable to God directly and not through becoming proselyted into the Jewish nation.  Thus, circumcision was absolutely not to be a requirement of their salvation.  To impose it was to bind where God had not bound and to impose an unnecessary and terrible barrier to the Gentiles becoming Christians.

 

So we have examples of the three methods that we are to apply today in resolving doctrinal matters: direct command, approved apostolic example and necessary inference.  When these were applied in the first century, the doctrinal issue was resolved! Does that mean that everyone went along with it?  No.  For we see this to be a continuing problem that many of the early Jewish Christians just would not let go of.  But that does not mean that we cannot apply the same principles today to resolve doctrinal issues.  Those who were faithful abided by the resolution that was made based on a total review of the truth.  So should we.

 

Please see the articles on Examples and Necessary Inferences, where we discuss these two methods of establishing biblical authority in more detail.