# Exposition: Inferences versus Imperatives



## 118min (Mar 15, 2014)

1st, I admit inferences are unavoidable and at times are required. Inferences shape our unstated and underlying presuppositions. However as coming from a Baptist background, though now Presbyterian, I had and still have a strong bias for imperatives and a strong skepticism of inferences.

a. You all must sit. --- (I prefer exposition to be from such texts, if in context.)
b. You all can sit.
c. You all did sit. --- (I am nervous to infer here that readers must sit from this indicative, etc.)

So, recently I have accepted the warrant for covenant baptism of offspring; But Now, I am finding difficult understanding the "Creation Ordinance of the Sabbath".

How many things can one infer from Creation or ANY text(s). and have it "Binding" upon men. I still want to see imperatives, and hesitate to make inferences as binding. I want to throw out intentionally bizarre and hypothetical inferences, that may APPEAR to be audacious, but it is just that point that for the Baptist background that we are ultra nervous in finding legitimate inferences. 

(I know these are wrong, but why?) One infers that if a person: 

1. remains single, even Jesus, then they are breaking the marriage ordinance of creation. 
2. fasts, not eating of the Garden, then they are breaking the Creation design and call to eat.
3. takes on last and middle names, then they are breaking a naming ordinance, if Adam and Eve had no last name.
4. does not have Adam's occupation they are breaking an occupation ordinance.
5. stays up 30 hours they are breaking a sleeping ordinance as creation's design.
6. eats meat, they are breaking a vegetarian ordinance as pre-fall design.
7. watches ballet, they are breaking an intelligence ordinance as pre-fall Adam would do no such thing.

Okay, I suspect our answer is: We look to OTHER texts like Exodus, or the Gospels, or the Epistles and create a systematic approach which quickly rules out at least the first 6 of my conclusions. I think the Westminster Assembly advocated number 7.

I am going to avoid in this thread (for now) addressing Lord's Day Observance issues, that is too long of a divergence at this stage; However in short, I profess, I have difficulty importing the entire Exodus Sabbath into the NT Lord's Day, just as this does not occur in how baptism is administered in comparison to circumcision, or even how the Lord's Table is administered in comparison to Passover. I don't see the elders and deacons as being a full-and-direct parallel to the OT priests in duty and function either.

So, I find it difficult to think Adam could not have corporate worship and family worship and Private worship before the Fall on 7 days a week. He could have technically gathered at 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. for corporate worship, worked 8 hours, get home at 6 p.m. and slept from 9 pm to 5 a.m. and done this 6 days, and spend the Sabbath as the Puritans would assert. 

Finally, I am not asking anyone to chase the tangent of Lord's Day Observance issues, 

**** I am focusing on: ****

a. Exposition.
b. Imperatives as primary.
c. Inferences as unavoidable.
**** d. which Inferences are Binding, or which inferences are as equal in authority to imperatives
*** i. how do we find them, discern them; how do we know them to be binding and equal as imperatives.* 

This will impact many things: the Regulative Principle; how and when church discipline is administered; Exclusive Psalmody, to name a few.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 15, 2014)

Todd,
This post of your looks interesting to me, so assuming you'd like some feedback...

I'm wondering what you mean by preferring exposition of imperatives rather than indicatives (using your terms). Are you speaking directly to the question of the _practice_ of the listener, what he's told to do as a fruit of exposition?
Indicative (data, history, declarations, etc.) is a major (majority?) aspect of Scripture's content. Surely, some major part of indicative preaching is proclamation of the works of God, direct and indirect, and the principal *duty* of the hearer is to _believe_ the truth of what the Bible witnesses. Central to Reformed soteriology is the gospel. Machen famously wrote, "Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative." Which is to say: we do nothing for our salvation, but simply believe what God has done to save, and said about it.

I suspect you accept all that, but do you agree that such proclamation is "exposition," _the systematic explanation of a subject; a discourse that conveys information about or explains a subject;_ (American Heritage Dictionary)? Furthermore, there are certain implications or inferences drawn from the raw data set of propositions that are just as much facts as the initial propositions; just as in mathematics, deduced facts are as concrete as the starting axioms. Even in math, we often use theorems successfully, the proof of which falls short of perfect rigor.

Even apart from practical matters, we are obliged simply to believe things the Bible appears plainly to imply. The question is: how plainly is that implication made? How do the fixed truths of Scripture relate to one another, such that a specific conclusion is warranted from the data? This is a serious hermeneutical issue, determining how the rest of Scripture forms a massive context in which some particular facts are embedded; and how the many facts bear upon the limited facts that are present in any unique pericope (large or small). What we are told elsewhere in the Bible will certainly affect a thorough explanation of the place of primary focus.​
I agree that it appears simpler to expound imperatives, because they are straightforward commands. Explaining how such directives should be complied with--both in the performance as well as in the spirit--falls easily in line with our penchant for action. And since we expect one command to comport with all the others (assuming they are currently applicable or how applicable, which is a further area of imperative-exposition, along with to whom), again it seems simple enough to set an imperative within the context of love as the fulfillment of all divine law.

But, on the one hand it is not especially hard to explain a narrative passage or a speech, by a detailed treatment of the language and relating all its parts, and going further to setting the passage in a fuller context. More challenging perhaps, but still one of the greatest pastoral responsibilities is to ensure that the hearers of the Word are pushed beyond the bare outline and internal coherence of a passage, to ultimately see how it serves the purpose of pointing to Christ, the object of faith. It is of first importance to _believe,_ followed by a distant second to do, if indeed doing out of some passage goes much further than believing in the knowledge of Christ.

Right now, I'm preaching through a section of Proverbs. On the one hand, many approaches to Proverbs feel like little more than law reconfigured. This, despite the reality that Proverbs contains far less imperative than is assumed. Proverbs is mostly indicative, facts. Truly, one can hardly meditate on a single verse without oscillating from how things are to how I ought to respond and back and forth again many times. But firstly, these Proverbs are the meditations of the mediatorial king of Israel. And he is the principal referent of the entire book.

Ultimately, then, the book of Proverbs is not the wisdom of Solomon or any other king, but of Christ. He is the King, who figures so prominently in chapters 16-22. He is the Head of the body, and those realities (indicatives) of which he approves and exemplifies, and those realities that he deplores and condemns, should be shared by those who approve his rule, and support his throne.

But Proverbs is hard to preach in that way without the following:1. Understanding Israelite history, including whence her earthly king arose.
2. Understanding the Mosaic law, which the mediatorial king was responsible for enforcing.
3. Understanding creation and the fall, foundational for reckoning with human nature and moral law.
4. Understanding grace and covenant, which tempers justice with forgiveness.
5. Understanding the ultimate failure of the earthly monarchy to deliver on its promise.
6. Understanding how Christ Jesus, the Son of David and Son of God, fulfills the promise of the monarchy--by fulfilling the role of the Head in obedience for the church, 
--bringing men made docile by grace back under the rule of God for their good,
--and destroying all his and his servants' enemies.​This is all necessary exposition for a Christian audience studying Proverbs. And the text from which it is drawn is almost all indicative expression.

I realize the above digresses somewhat from the particular subject, but the initial statements of your post raise some questions in me concerning the whole topic of Scripture-interpretation.


I agree with your observation that simply going by the historic description: "c. You all did sit," one is hard-pressed to justify a command to sit. Considerably more data is required before one can even say that one therefore may sit, let alone that one be recommended to sit. Not one of those--permission, preference, or prescription--can be justly inferred from the bare statement of biblical fact. We need more context to tell us anything of the sort.

I'm going to skip your seven propositions (for now, anyway), and proceed to the rationale to which you point. The simple answer to the question of Sabbath is that it is indeed embedded in the Moral Law (Ten Commandments). As far back as Sinai itself, these specific directions were understood as the moral cornerstone for everything else God ordained in Israel. Jesus and the NT writers do not undermine the abiding nature of the moral aspects of that law. That the NT dispenses with Sabbath-aspects solely the concern of OT dispensations is no argument against the moral requirement of Sabbath; any more than that the same may be said concerning the 5th commandment in connection with the Land of Promise.

So, indeed the full-context of Scripture enforces the morality of the Sabbath, affirming that it is an ordinance of creation, and binds the reasonable creature to heed it so far as he can discover its contours and requirements.


What are those contours and requirements? What were the moral--as distinguished from the ceremonial--aspects of the Mosaic Law that continue to bind the God-fearing man to honor the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath? We need to investigate not so much the dos and the dont's of ancient Israel's legislation (or try to read them back into Adam's experience); but askWhy does God summon his people to _remembrance_ of the Sabbath; i.e. what sort of mental engagement is called for here, and of what predilections are men prone?
What are the purposes of the Day?
What activities are conducive to those purposes?
Is it reasonable for man to assume the right to reduce any obligation to the duties of the day, other than in matters of necessity; that is, to not attend a requirement to fulfill it, in order to do something that suits himself?
Is it permissible to assume some part of the LORD'S Day is actually MY Day?​That's just a few considerations, apart from any supposed importation of observances peculiar to ancient Israel.

The NT church does not (e.g. in baptism) simply take-over the activity of the OT priesthood, only with a New Covenant color. This is not a Reformed manner of thinking whatsoever. In fact, such is reminiscent of Roman thinking, and is reflected in their coloring the office of the ministry as a new priesthood. You already recognize this, I think, and so you ought not see NT Sabbatarianism in Puritan expression as grounded in Old Covenant norms. The pattern is deeper than any historic expression, despite the truth that history is the canvas on which the pattern is illustrated.


Finally, it is important to recognize that Genesis is not simply a set of historical vignettes, seriatim, a kind of anthology of Israelite pre-history antedating the days of Moses and the Exodus. It is integral to Moses' message of instruction to the people he led forth out of Egypt. It's possible (even probable) that the family of God always possessed some ancient records of God's grace to them, perhaps to the inclusion of a creation narrative. But we cannot "get behind" the genealogies (toledoth) of Genesis, even to assuming that exactly what is recorded there has a stand-alone existence prior to Moses' appropriation and inclusion of it. What we have is *Moses'* expression of the truth, provenance of the Exodus generation.

Therefore, it is _impossible_ not to understand the Sabbath of Gen.2:1-3 in light of the teaching of Exodus (from ch.16 onward). Wise interpreters do not assume any full-importation of Mosaic legislation back-into Adam's day, either before or after the fall. On the other hand, it is an unambiguous reading-out of Genesis the presence of Sabbatism among men in some form from the beginning of the world, since that is a very natural impression to be taken from the express terminology of Gen.2; and is the more enforced by the language of the 4th Commandment. There's little support for the supposition of a proleptic and passing mention of Sabbath in Genesis (when according to our Lord it was "made for man"), only reintroduced to the reader and given de novo by Moses to Israel at the Exodus (ages after the creation).


I'll stop now, and let you respond.


----------



## 118min (Mar 17, 2014)

*Discerning which inferences are the intent of the author.*

Are you speaking directly to the question of the practice of the listener, what he's told to do as a fruit of exposition?

Yes.

You wrote: Indicative (data, history, declarations, etc.) is a major (majority?) aspect of Scripture's content. Surely, some major part of indicative preaching is proclamation of the works of God, direct and indirect, and the principal duty of the hearer is to believe the truth of what the Bible witnesses. Central to Reformed soteriology is the gospel. Machen famously wrote, "Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative." Which is to say: we do nothing for our salvation, but simply believe what God has done to save, and said about it.

I respond:I agree.

You wrote: I suspect you accept all that, but do you agree that such proclamation is "exposition," the systematic explanation of a subject; a discourse that conveys information about or explains a subject; (American Heritage Dictionary)? Furthermore, there are certain implications or inferences drawn from the raw data set of propositions that are just as much facts as the initial propositions; just as in mathematics, deduced facts are as concrete as the starting axioms. Even in math, we often use theorems successfully, the proof of which falls short of perfect rigor.

I respond:Yes.

What we are told elsewhere in the Bible will certainly affect a thorough explanation of the place of primary focus.

I respond:This was my suggestion in the original post.

You wrote: I agree that it appears simpler to expound imperatives, because they are straightforward commands. Explaining how such directives should be complied with--both in the performance as well as in the spirit--falls easily in line with our penchant for action. And since we expect one command to comport with all the others (assuming they are currently applicable or how applicable, which is a further area of imperative-exposition, along with to whom), again it seems simple enough to set an imperative within the context of love as the fulfillment of all divine law.

I respond:Yes, easier for the most part, if in context.

You wrote: But, on the one hand it is not especially hard to explain a narrative passage or a speech, by a detailed treatment of the language and relating all its parts, and going further to setting the passage in a fuller context. More challenging perhaps, but still one of the greatest pastoral responsibilities is to ensure that the hearers of the Word are pushed beyond the bare outline and internal coherence of a passage, to ultimately see how it serves the purpose of pointing to Christ, the object of faith. It is of first importance to believe, followed by a distant second to do, if indeed doing out of some passage goes much further than believing in the knowledge of Christ.

I respond: I agree. 

I respond: In response to your approach to the Proverbs, I agree. We learn about the grace of God and the faithfulness of God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, despite Genesis being Narratives, not having direct imperatives. They still provide valid inferences, valid beliefs, and a basis for valid application; we know the indicatives of trusting God versus the damages of lying, unbelief, or decisions made in self-reliance; i.e the errors of Saul or the errors of the other kings and generations. Certain parts of the gospels and parables do not have direct imperatives but the indicatives are clear enough about what is to be emulated or abandoned in practice.

You wrote: I'm going to skip your seven propositions (for now, anyway), and proceed to the rationale to which you point. 

I respond: Yes, skip them, I should have made more serious minded suggestions; for example here are two:
1. Can one infer from Acts 2:44-46, that these indicatives are imperatives for the church today. Most pastors say, "this is a good example for us to aim for in general, but we do not need to literally do it in full." I agree, but at least entertain the case for a more literal application in cases of a persecuted missionary.
2. Can one infer from Psalms, that individual Christians, or local congregations, or denominational events such employ all the instruments in their worship. I never have heard or stated myself that these are binding imperatives for the individual, a local congregation, or a denomination; So it seems disingenuous to me to assume a piano alone, or a organ alone obeys the call of the Psalmist to use trumpets and all the other instruments listed. 
3. Can one infer that since Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers, that we are to be like Christ and do the same thing? (I say "not literally, just figuratively")
4. Can one infer if Paul went into Synagogues on the Sabbath to evangelize that we can walk into Mormon Temples to evangelize. (I say "no, maybe if someone came out of a 10 year Mormon heritage of leadership, then possibly.)
5. Here is a good one. People have made inferences about the 10 commandments written in stone, and the ceremonial laws written on parchment. Yet the Bible does not tell us if there is significance to this, or what it would be, so I find this argumentation to be too speculative, than conclusive. 
-- I am leary of taking such inferences to a binding application, and prefer to leave the inferences as more of a "good general example and direction and aim of our life" to draw upon. 


You wrote: "The NT church does not (e.g. in baptism) simply take-over the activity of the OT priesthood, only with a New Covenant color. This is not a Reformed manner of thinking whatsoever. In fact, such is reminiscent of Roman thinking, and is reflected in their coloring the office of the ministry as a new priesthood. You already recognize this, I think, and so you ought not see NT Sabbatarianism in Puritan expression as grounded in Old Covenant norms." 

I respond:  Yes! I agree! Phew, that is big relief. But I wonder and suspect that I am taking too much unstated liberty in how I make application of the point: that the Lord's Day expression is not grounded in Old Covenant Norms. 


You wrote:Therefore, it is impossible not to understand the Sabbath of Gen.2:1-3 in light of the teaching of Exodus (from ch.16 onward). 

 I respond:  Our understanding the Sabbath, does not entail that Abel understood Exodus 19; which I think you indicate in your subsequent paragraphs. For example the sermon on the Mount and many texts in Romans and Galatians increase our understanding of OT texts, but that does not lead me to believe that Abraham really knew all that Paul unfolds. And this is they way I treat Genesis 2: that Noah did not know Exodus 19, even if he had the oral tradition of Genesis 2 . 

You wrote this, which I think is very helpful and central to my inquiry, but I am would like clarification: Wise interpreters do not assume any full-importation of Mosaic legislation back-into Adam's day, either before or after the fall. On the other hand, it is an unambiguous reading-out of Genesis the presence of Sabbatism among men in some form from the beginning of the world, since that is a very natural impression to be taken from the express terminology of Gen.2; and is the more enforced by the language of the 4th Commandment. 

 I need clarification of this:  >>>There's little support for the supposition of a proleptic and passing mention of Sabbath in Genesis (when according to our Lord it was "made for man"), only reintroduced to the reader and given de novo by Moses to Israel at the Exodus (ages after the creation).

 I respond: . My view of (rightly or wrongly): Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. <is this>:
Verse 11 makes little sense to me if the people present in Exodus 20 already had a firm grasp of Genesis 2 as a binding observance. No other command of the 10 has such amplification. For example the law does not say, "Do not murder, in case you don't know what murder is, it is when a heart stops beating." This amplification/explanation is not needed. Nor does it say, "Do not murder, you know Adam was not allowed to murder Eve before the Fall; or that God never murders, or God never steals, or God never profanes His name." But precisely on the Sabbath that is an inclusion of explanation, implying to me, that this explanation was needed, that it was not self-evident; If verse 11 was not in the text, then I would assume, "oh, yes, the people knew why already, they already knew Genesis 2, so why insert a redundant blurb, and that is why verse 11 would not be found."

 I conclude: . I deleted a lot my response to my tangent of Lord's Day Observance, and think maybe I should aim to provide "Inferences from a passage used for practical sermon application which seem very close to being valid, but in reality not as binding as one is making them out to be." 

Seeing how easy it is to make BAD inferences and BAD binding applications from those inferences. I am just find myself being very gun-shy and I prefer the verses that say: "Pray without ceasing." Phew, no indicatives here; and of course the imperative needs a proper exegesis and application without legalism and knowing the "spirit" of the verse; but nonetheless verses of this nature give me more peace than wondering if Abraham's polygamy is a an inference for me to emulate, or Abraham's military rescue is an inference for me to emulate; 

I cite those as two OBVIOUS bad inferences, but my point of this hold thread and original thread, is that I get nervous to imagine which inferences are very subtle, and seem very reasonable, but at the end of the day are not the intention of the author, nor of God. I think this topic was a major turning point in why I accepted covenant baptism, but this does not mean I find it easy to hastily accept all inferences for practical application to be in fact valid ones. 

I think the best answer to my original post is: "Go buy 5 good books on hermeneutics and investigate how to treat various genres, narratives, poetry, prophetic, parable, versus didactic texts; I took such a class in 1999; however I think 15 years later I can ask better questions and aim for more specific details in my inquiry of the topic. We talk about the historical-grammatical-syntax-cultural-contextual components of exposition, and I find myself wanting to step-back and be more scrupulous of my analysis and re-exam hasty inferences that on the surface seem within reason and seem to fit, but yet still not the intent of the author. "


----------



## 118min (Mar 17, 2014)

Funny. This link came up on my Facebook today, very relevant. 

Literary Forms part 1

The Bible is a divinely inspired work of literature and includes many different literary forms, such as poetry, letters, narrative, and wisdom sayings. In order to take the Bible literally, we have to ask how these genres should affect our interpretation. In this lesson, Dr. Sproul equips us to properly understand literary forms.

Literary Forms part 1 from Renewing Your Mind Radio with R.C. Sproul


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2014)

Todd,
My point about the necessity of understanding Gen.2 in light of Ex.16 (and after) is not that _Abel_ had a full Mosaic-law apprehension of Sabbath-keeping, but that _Israel_ (the receiver of the contemporary revelation that is the Pentateuch) is obliged to recognize that _the Sabbath_ is from the beginning of the world. That it is instituted then and there, according to Moses' doctrine; he is not introducing it to Israel de novo. I'm confident that the well-catechized Israelite of average intelligence would not assume that Abel followed an Old-Covenant pattern.

One thing I believe shows the declension in general quality of biblical instruction among the Jews unto Jesus' and Paul's day (1st Cent., A.D.) is that the Pharisees tended to superimpose their beliefs and traditions on the past. Therefore, they taught that Moses received not only the written Torah, but also the oral-tradition of equivalent authority (which latter ends up being a superior authority, as Jesus said). In like manner, they taught that Abraham was a *Torah* _law-keeper._ In other words, he somehow kept all the 613 mitzvoh even before there was a Torah; and this obedience is what drew God's favor to him. Their error was reading Genesis material _through the lens of Sinai,_ that is, through the Old Covenant. Paul's argument against the Judaizers in Galatians aims to correct this thinking, by observing that the standard Jewish exegesis of the day did not start far enough back in the story, and so missed the fact that Sinai's law-covenant is inferior to Abraham's gracious-covenant, and cannot supercede it but only supplement it (for a time).

What I'm saying about someone like Abel is not that his activity must be read through the lens of Sinai. I'm saying that as Israel receives the story of Adam/Abel/Abraham/etc. at Sinai, then if God says the antediluvians and the patriarchs sacrificed for example, the Israelites then should connect those primitive, pristine expressions of faith with their elaborate sacrificial system. The latter was accidental to the specific redemptive era; the former demonstrated the core reality, which the latter elaborated on like a detailed sermonic exposition. Likewise, since God introduces the Sabbath at Creation, then Israel should recognize that God is telling this to the later generation for their benefit, that they should understand that the roots of the law-expression given them go back to the beginning of the world. Israelites don't need to interpret the antediluvians as if they possessed the Mosaic liturgical calendar; but they should appreciate the fact that those ancients belonged to the same Faith as themselves, and were given a Sabbath for their blessing.

I'll respond more in additional posts.


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2014)

Does it help to note the fact that our Lord referred to creation ordinances as normative? He has referred us to the original institution of both Sabbath and marriage as the necessary starting-point for understanding their nature and function.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2014)

118min said:


> I need clarification of this: >>>There's little support for the supposition of a proleptic and passing mention of Sabbath in Genesis (when according to our Lord it was "made for man"), only reintroduced to the reader and given de novo by Moses to Israel at the Exodus (ages after the creation).


Some folks teach that there's no Sabbath in Genesis, Gen.2:1-3 notwithstanding. Their rationale is that nothing is said there about Adam and Eve keeping Sabbath (in so many words); or of anyone else having a day-of-rest recorded. Therefore, they allege Sabbath is just _mentioned_ in Gen.2 and left there as a placeholder; and doesn't really get elaborated on for another 68 chapters, until Ex.20. And they appeal to a text like Ex.31:16, and interpret it as proof Israel received the Sabbath as a unique (to them) covenant-sign.

I'm saying that the decision to in effect ignore Gen.2, as if the Sabbath there had no bearing on Adam and Eve and their offspring, is an apriori dismissal of an original data point. So what if the Sabbath per se isn't mentioned in the lives of those come afterward? The absence of mention is no argument that it wasn't part of their lives. But suppose (for a moment) that Sabbath had been _forgotten_ by them and the rest of mankind; only then the command to "Remember" takes on one more layer of meaning.

But then consider the fact that four chapters before the giving of the law at Sinai, Ex.16, on the way there and with the giving of the manna, Moses explains the rules for gathering the stuff, and forbids gathering on the Sabbath. Whatever else may be understood, it is plain that the Sabbath was in use by Israel prior to the giving of the Law. Again, interpreters who think the Sabbath was given exclusively to Israel dismiss this detail as simply a forward-looking (proleptic) data point, still tied only to the Israelites, and hope to render it meaningless for the argument of a moral and perpetual command (having positive directions attached). I think it's another apriori reading-away of an obvious text that otherwise directly undermines the key premise.

I don't think these two texts are simply proleptic to the covenanting. In the first case, God explicitly enters into his rest _and man is given opportunity to join him in that enjoyment_. I think it's perfectly reasonable to interpret Jesus' statement, "The Sabbath was made for man," in specific terms as well as general, that it was made for Adam and for all mankind. I also don't think we need to wait until Mk.2:27 in the NT to access this insight. I think it was perfectly obvious to Moses and the Israelites that the Sabbath was given at the beginning of the world. In the second case, here those arguing against the prior presence/possession of the Sabbath speak exactly _opposite_ their argument in Genesis, viz. that Sabbath _isn't_ mentioned. When it _is_ mentioned, that isn't evidence that it has been with man all along. Special pleading, if you ask me.

Finally, one word about the lengthy elaboration of the Commandment in Ex.20. To begin, I'd say that the 2C has a "lengthy" elaboration, which makes the 4C look a bit less unusual. Next, the matter of pointing Israel to Creation for a rationale is fitting, because it removes any hint of "arbitrariness" from the commandment. Last, the first rationale (Ex.20) finds a complement in the second rationale (Dt.5); Israel (and we also) should keep the Sabbath not only because of Creation, but also because of Redemption.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2014)

You wonder whether we should emulate Abraham's polygamy, or his military adventure.

But when we truly reckon with the biblical teaching on polygamy, only a perverse mind can ignore the overall negative treatment of the practice. We might as well teach that divorce is just fine, or that slavery is a biblical "norm." Our Lord himself offers divine commentary on divorce; others like Paul give guidance to both slaves and masters that points toward a church-order that promotes individual human freedom and flourishing, where men live in harmony with one another "not lording it" over others. And perhaps we might hope for and expect a society strongly and positively influenced by a holy church to reflect the church's sort of awareness of human dignity.

I propose that Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce introduces nothing really new into the equation. Jesus' teaching affirms Gen.2 on marriage, and the actual intent of the regulations found in the law, and shuts the mouths of those who come to challenge him. His exposition of their own Scriptures shows him a master of its content. In other words, Jesus' teaching doesn't have to be without precedent in Israelite society. And this means that for centuries the correct teaching and inferences existed side-by-side with false interpretations. Jesus puts his stamp of approval on the proper interpretation; and at the same time sets an example for us concerning how to do exegesis that imitates his own.

Looking at Abraham's life, I wouldn't suggest any kind of imitation of his behavior _on account of who he was,_ other than that I am to live a life of faith in God, thus finding him for my father. I have to _judge_ his various acts that Scripture records for us, according as the rest of Scripture can supply me with tools by which to evaluate them. Abraham--like everyone in the Bible except for Jesus--comes across as a man who both sinned and did well. This is what we do with everyone we meet in those pages. We follow the good we find in them *as they follow Christ*. And we don't assume that their 2nd millennium B.C. (or 1st B.C., or A.D. 1st century) lives can be mapped to ours in anything but a general, principial fashion. The Bible Story is hardly written for us as a series of moral lessons: Dare to Be a Daniel, Slay the Giants in Your Life, Claim This Land for Jesus, and all that claptrap.

Abraham's hope in the Promise motivated him to go and rescue Lot, living as he did in an ancient Near-East context, and possessed of some of the means necessary and a sense of duty laid on him. Abraham took his (relatively small) band and at great hazard rescued his nephew and many others who were of the city of Sodom. By this action he showed himself a typological Deliverer and a Benefactor; and he not only provided temporal salvation for his own kin (who had been less than gracious to him), but also provided the same to a host of the ungodly city dwellers. And besides these observations on really only 3vv out of the whole ch. (Gen.14:13-15), the latter portion dealing with the kings of Sodom and Salem are the most serious parts of that pericope, demanding the greatest consideration--not whether I should enlist down at the local Recruiter.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2014)

Let me try my hand with these...


118min said:


> 1. Can one infer from Acts 2:44-46, that these indicatives are imperatives for the church today. Most pastors say, "this is a good example for us to aim for in general, but we do not need to literally do it in full." I agree, but at least entertain the case for a more literal application in cases of a persecuted missionary.


I think a more important first question is asking whether all the _initial conditions_ for the creation of the NT church are _normative_ for the church in all subsequent ages? Since the epistles contain the great bulk of the didactic material in the NT (besides Jesus' own discourses), we should look there for discovering how the Christian church is to support one another. If our _conditions_ as a church ever seem to mirror the _conditions_ of the church in Jerusalem in A.D.35, perhaps we should consider following that model. The general condition of the church reflected in Act.2 is different from the general condition reflected in Act.20 and 28. We should take these variations under consideration, along with all the teaching and exhortation for the church in the epistles (like taking up offerings from the Gentiles for the destitute Jerusalem church 20yrs later).



118min said:


> 2. Can one infer from Psalms, that individual Christians, or local congregations, or denominational events such employ all the instruments in their worship. I never have heard or stated myself that these are binding imperatives for the individual, a local congregation, or a denomination; So it seems disingenuous to me to assume a piano alone, or a organ alone obeys the call of the Psalmist to use trumpets and all the other instruments listed.


Is it OK to wrestle with some of these questions? Perhaps come up with differing interpretations, still able to treat one another like brothers with a common goal to know and to please God through the use of the Word? What about allowing wisdom from past and present exegetes to assist us? Perhaps we need to ask what the purposes of the instruments were, and whether those purposes have been fulfilled in part or in whole? Getting to that point would clear up a good bit of the issue at the level of the individual conscience, I think; and might moot certain other questions entirely. The question of what church-leaders should implement is yet another matter. Their consciences must guide them not only for their own sake, but also for those they lead and teach. Other than singing, I can't think of any specific NT directions for church-music. We know the early church sang with the Psalter, but instruments were not widely available in those days. Your particular concern (above) doesn't seem to have worried Paul or the other church-planters.



118min said:


> 3. Can one infer that since Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers, that we are to be like Christ and do the same thing? (I say "not literally, just figuratively")


There have been "iconoclastic" moments in church history... We need to accept the reality that Jesus did some things that we can and should copy. And he did other things that we could never do and should never attempt. Certain things he did for us in his office as Mediator cannot be duplicated. Other things he did (and does) may be imitated, according to our stations in life. Our individual spans of authority don't typically extend to "clearing out Temples," since that building was designed to replicate his heavenly dwellingplace and workingplace. "My house," he called it. Unless we recall that our bodies are "temples of the Holy Spirit;" in which case we should be tossing out as much of the sinful trash in it that we can.



118min said:


> 4. Can one infer if Paul went into Synagogues on the Sabbath to evangelize that we can walk into Mormon Temples to evangelize. (I say "no, maybe if someone came out of a 10 year Mormon heritage of leadership, then possibly.)


Again, we are talking about 1st century conditions. These synagogues were where pious Jews were awaiting news that their Messiah had come. So where else *first* ought Paul to have gone, in that historic context? There were elect of God waiting there for Paul (or somebody) to arrive, actual believers in the Promise who only lacked being told that what was Promised had come and delivered. Moreover, these were the people who would naturally provide the infant church with (nearly) ready-made elders: men who were upright and knew the Scriptures. I think almost anyone, even a former Mormon (?) cannot find in Paul's activity a clean parallel to his own situation.



118min said:


> 5. Here is a good one. People have made inferences about the 10 commandments written in stone, and the ceremonial laws written on parchment. Yet the Bible does not tell us if there is significance to this, or what it would be, so I find this argumentation to be too speculative, than conclusive.


I agree that such a "typology" is rank speculation; I think it is pure allegory. First of all, the Bible doesn't go out of its way to highlight the _difference_ in what substance contained the Word of God. In fact, even the Word spoken into the air was considered to be as FIRM as Word written in stone. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken," and he was quoting from the parchment-writ Psalm 82. So, this is NOT a "good one," if you ask me.


----------



## 118min (Mar 17, 2014)

Brother Buchanan, I've read all of your replies, and find them helpful overall. You do a good job explaining why a particular inference is not one which is sound for producing application; despite the fact that I already agree with your conclusion, my explanation would have provided less evidence/rationale than you applied; so I benefit from the insight you give. Paul does not mention church instrumentation from the Psalmist, but is this to imply that he would just accept a cappella singing; or is this the normative principle that we are free to use instruments since the Bible does not forbid them, but at least general give a basis for using all of them. Overall, I am not stressed out about the specific TOPIC of instrumentation, I am just learning how to "reject inferences" in contrast to know "which inferences to embrace." 

My reason for not finding the sharing of Acts 2 binding for church property is that the text did not provide imperatives; which I realize is not the only manner to arrive a sermon application, but again Acts 2 does not have an analogous verse like "Pray without ceasing.", as Luke is just recording events.

Your reminder that Jesus was cleansing out "my house" is a good contextual point. I just fear that in countless other chapters there are still sermons where the pastor is not considering the entire context before jumping to an inference, hence why I gravitate (though not exclusively) to begin with imperatives as getting our first priority; 

btw, I heard a sermon recently that said, "Just as Jesus reached out a touched the leper, we need to reach out and touch those who are unclean, not literally, but as a call for mercy and evangelism." I must admit I have made such similar metaphors, but I think we must be very careful. How many times have I heard a pastor say, "Just as Peter stepped out of the boat to walk on water, there are times when we need to "step out in faith" in face the troubled waters of our life; I have also heard sermons say this, "Jesus calmed the storm as the disciples were all afraid of the boat being flooded, so we can rest that Jesus can calm all the storms of our life." Uh, technically yes, but that was a literal storm, and how often are we in a real boat facing a real cataclysmic weather event; suddenly we are using it to refer to the storms of "unemployment, bereavement, cancer, trouble marriages." etc. So I guess the issue of improper metaphors and improper inferences is a matter that takes a lot of patient evaluation. 

My example of an ex-Mormon, may be like Luther, he did not want to leave the Catholic church (I don't think), so when he was being rejected I would not fault him for "going back into Catholic services" if he was trying to make his case before the laity or leadership, just as Paul was trying to proclaim to the Jews in the synagogues. If Tom Cruise left Scientology and genuinely embraced biblical Christianity (a redundancy, I know), I would not be upset if he visited various Scientology services if the thought his former position and new repentance could be beneficial as a bridge to witness to those remaining enslaved; granted his rejection would be very fierce, but so was Paul's. So, the bottom-line, Paul never made an imperative for Christians to do such a thing, so for this reason alone I am hesitant to rely on "inferences" to find sermon application for us to emulate; though generally speaking we are to witness. 

For me, the reason I know not to imitate Abraham's military rescue or polygamy is because they are not imperatives, and we do not find imperatives for them elsewhere; Obviously it is out of context to read the commands directed to Joshua alone;

On a similar topic is that of "naming/identifying types" that Scripture does not explicitly confirm. I remember a friend telling me of a professor of his who said, "Samson's hair, being Samson's strength, was a type: pointing to Christ"; I am sure it sounds nice, but since nothing in Scripture proves or confirms this, then I see this as "another bad inference", because we do not have a text like Galatians 3-4-5 which tells us how to understand Hagar and Sarah, etc. Yes, I think there are many types in the OT, that we can make a strong case for, but again many Christians and pastors like wise AT TIMES lean on "dubious inferences in order to arrive at their suggested types." so this brings me back to my cautions and hesitations knowing that we can also have "dubious inferences in order to make sermon application."

Your replies have provided a good case for the contextual considerations in exposing bad inferences, but there are thousands of pastors, thousands of sermons who yet take too many liberties with a text, that the text does not allow.

Somewhere above you mentioned the need to consult commentaries; I agree; Good Systematic Theologies also help filter out and prevent one from making bad inferences from a passage of Scripture; however, church History has supralapsarians and infralapsarians; I am not versed enough in Church History to know every difference between every puritan or reformer; or how Augustine differed from Calvin; I think Calvin (maybe I am wrong) was against singing hymns in 4 part harmony; maybe there isn't a historical consensus on many topics from: if there is such a thing as a "evangelist" or if that just means a stationed missionary, etc. Point being, that even going to commentaries, while helpful, can leave doors open to two conclusions. I cannot Remember A.W. Pink's view on "the tithe" (literal) but my general impression is that I differ from him on the matter, though I really need to back and know his position more clearly; For 8 years I accepted John Gill's view of Baptism, and though he would be in the minority position, this did not bother me, because even for a season Luther was in a minority position, and I could and did just assume that this is the nature of the church maturing. 

I don't think these are "pressing" topics, but congregations have different understandings on how frequently communion should be observed: annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly. etc. So commentaries can leave multiple options open, and everyone is appealing to inferences, because I am not sure (or aware of) there are imperatives on frequency and communion. Others have disagreed if there is a 3rd office like a "woman's auxiliary ministry" and feel fine calling them "women deacons" etc. It is not my goal to gain your apologetic on any of these topics, you have already invested labor in concepts above, the root of the issue is being "self-aware and critical (in the good sense of the word)" of what inferences are being made, and discerning if they can warrant "sermon application", as I find too many sermons and Christians are "making conclusions and deductions" that the author never intended.


----------



## 118min (Mar 17, 2014)

typo: Samson's Hair, not Solomon's Hair.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 18, 2014)

Todd,
I applaud your caution. I hope you always take special care in coming to definite conclusions, and tentative conclusions, about what the text is calling us to believe and to do. You should preach a text with confidence, trying to convey pure truth to the listeners, and giving them things to think about. I do my best to persuade my hearers that I've given them a faithful exposition. I appreciate it when one of them comes to me, not quite persuaded, thinking I may have gotten some detail off. I might have to think about it some more.

I think, generally, that moving from facts to practices should be done with greatest caution. I would not usually try to do so without appealing to wider biblical support. You mentioned moving yourself to a covenant-baptism view. Regardless of what process moved you to that view, I hope that when you are well-settled, it will be upon the _doctrine_ of baptism, proved from the NT and OT didactic material woven snugly together, and supported then by finding in the historic narratives of Gospel and Acts just the kind of practical expressions of the doctrine you should have expected to find. Essential to a Reformed understanding of the doctrine is our hermeneutic for the whole Bible, governed by the Covenant of Grace, permanently focused on Christ--the Coming One and the One Who Came and Who Is to Come.

Glad some of my thoughts were helpful.


----------

