The Apostle Paul spoke to the young evangelist Timothy about studying and rightly dividing the word of truth ( 2 Tim 2:15 KJV). If the book must be "rightly divided" then , it would stand to reason that it could also be "wrongly divided". How can we really determine what the Bible says (authorizes or prohibits) on a given subject? There are three basic ways in which we determine what the Bible says: (1) direct statements, (2) approved examples, and (3) necessary conclusions.

      (1) The Direct Statement - The Bible instructs by direct statements. For instance, in Acts 2:38, the Bible teaches by means of a direct statement that repentance and baptism are both necessary in order for one to obtain the remission of sins. In Hebrews 10:25, we are taught, by a direct statement, that we ought not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. These are all examples of the Bible teaching by direct statements. In each case the Bible has given a specific command to be followed.

      (2) An Approved Example - In addition to teaching by direct statements, the Bible also teaches
through approved examples. For instance, in instructing His disciples about partaking of the Lord's Supper, the Lord said about the bread, "And when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (I Corinthians 11:24). He gave a command regarding the fruit of the vine, in the scripture, in the same manner. The apostle Paul used the direct statements of Jesus to instruct the church at Corinth that they should partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him; but, He did not tell them when they should do so. Even so, when is determined by an approved example found in Acts 20:7. In this passage, we learn that the early church in Troas partook of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, I.e. Sunday. It is referred to as being "approved" in that an apostle was there when it was done and did not speak against it being done on the first day of the week, nor was there any biblical teaching/example that contradicted this understanding. The freewill collection is so placed on Sundays because of the same type of thinking ( I Co 16:1-2). So, here we have approved example(s) of when the early church did what the Lord told it to do. In addition to teaching by direct statements and approved examples, there is yet a third method.

      (3) A Necessary (reasonably unavoidable) Conclusion - That Christians are to partake of the Lord's Supper is taught by direct statement (I Corinthians 11:24, 25; Matthew 26:26-27). That we are to do so, on the first day of the week, is taught by an approved example (Acts 20:7). That it is to be taken every first day of the week is taught by a necessary conclusion (Acts 20:7). A conclusion in this usage is a determination reached by inference. For example, a teacher, upon being told that many of his students are sick, might conclude that one particular student, who is absent, is absent because he is sick. This, of course, may or may not be true. In other words, the teacher has come to a conclusion, but that conclusion is not a necessary one because that particular student might be absent or any number of reasons. The difference between a conclusion and a necessary conclusion is that a necessary conclusion is the only likely conclusion one can come to based on the information pro-vided. For example, the same teacher, as mentioned above, is informed that all his students are sick. He knows that a particular individual is his student; therefore, he necessarily concludes, based upon what he has been told, that this particular individual is sick. Think of this biblical example. In Matthew 3:16, the Bible says, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." Now consider the text "out of the water". If words mean anything, then the only conclusion one can come to -thus, a necessary conclusion-is this: If Jesus came up out of the water He must have first been in the water! One simply cannot come up out of something he was never in. Consequently, although the Bible does not say by direct statement that Jesus was in the water, it does teach by a necessary conclusion that Jesus was in the water. This principle is also called the Necessary Inference.

     Next week, we will discuss what meanings can be inferred or derived from what the Bible does not ay on a given subject. Selected and edited.

 Bro Eli