GOD’S AUTHORITY - NECESSARY INFERENCE

 

There are three ways that we obtain authority and direction from the Bible: Command, Example, And Necessary Inference.  In our last article we saw that approved apostolic examples are binding because God commanded us to follow them.  This applies to both the examples of Christ (1 Pet. 2:21) and the approved examples of the apostles (1 Cor.11:1, Phil. 3:17; 4:9).  In this article we will show, by example, that both Jesus and the apostles used necessary inference (NI) to resolve key issues of Biblical interpretation.

 

What is a necessary inference? Some call it necessary implication, some obvious conclusions, and still others just “plain old common sense.”  We use it every day in communication.  When Dad tosses a $5 bill at Junior and says; “Please go down to the store and get some us milk,” there are a large number of necessary inferences involved 1) that Jr. will choose some expedient way of getting to the store, 2) That he will purchase just what Dad told him to, at least with Dad’s money, 3) that he will choose the quantity/type of milk that is appropriate, etc.  Now Dad could have specified much more (take car or Juniors bicycle), and if he did then these things would no longer be in the realm of judgment.  However, no matter how much Dad does specify a detail, junior is still authorized (by the inference of the command) to do his best in making these decisions.  However, to be a necessary inference the conclusion must be inescapable.  It is not enough for it to be a possibility, or even a likely possibility.  It must be the definitive result of the commands and examples given by the scripture.

 

Acts 15 is an excellent case study in methods of resolving issues.  The early church was plagued with false teachers affirming that circumcision was necessary to salvation (Acts 15:1)  This would have been a severe obligation to the Gentiles, requiring them to break with their nationality and culture.  To resolve this, the Antioch church sent men to Jerusalem “concerning this issue” (Acts 15:2).

 

We might ask why did the apostles not just appeal to their inspiration in the Holy Spirit and give a pronouncement?  The answer is clear : the Holy Spirit had already spoken loud and clear on this subject (Acts 10, 11, 13, 14), and no further new revelation was needed.  What was needed was for Christians to study together and resolve what the truth of this revelation was.  Notice that this is exactly what is needed to resolve issues today, since we have the complete revelation today in scripture (2 Tim. 3:16, Rev. 22:18f, Jude 3, 2 Pet.1:3).

Acts 15 gives an approved apostolic example of the use of a direct command (15:7), Approved apostolic example (!5:8-9,12), and a necessary inference in (15:15-16).  It is this last method that we want to consider.  Acts 15:16-17 states: “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, 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.” ( From Amos 9:11-12)

Some today would complain to James for using this passage to prove that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be saved. After all, the passage does not even mention the word circumcision.  Circumcision was a command to the Jews in the Old Testament    (Gen. 17:11f, Lev. 12:3, Jn. 7:22). However, at this point in time it had become the distinguishing mark between the Jew and Gentile.  Gentiles who underwent circumcision were separating themselves from their nations and their cultures.

 

If Gentiles were going to be directly acceptable to God as Amos stated, it was an inescapable conclusion that they would not have to be inducted into the Jewish nation first.  This example demonstrates that God expects us to use necessary inference in resolving doctrinal issues today.

Ye might hear it said…..

“ Jesus never used necessary inferences.”

But “Jesus answered and said unto them (Matt. 22:29)…..

“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”

 

He went on to illustrate a Biblical interpretation method by which they should have been able to understand the reality of the resurrection (Matt. 22:31-32).  “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham , and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?  God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”  Jesus was quoting from Exodus 3:6, which says nothing specifically about the resurrection from the dead.  However, Jesus chastises them for not drawing the obvious conclusions, one that is necessarily inferred from the tense of a verb (I am , not I was).

 

Our focus here is not as much with the resurrection as it is with following the example of Jesus (1Pet. 2:21).  If Jesus used this method , can it be wrong?  In Matthew 22 (and many other places), Jesus draws conclusions that must follow from the scriptures even though they are not explicitly stated.  This is exactly what we mean when we talk about necessary inferences.  To draw such conclusions, however, one must know the premises.  Knowing only what other people state about the Bible is not sufficient.  Thus, the necessity to study (2 Tim. 2:15) and to become as those “who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Heb. 5:14)