Think on These Things
December 1999
1. God's Authority-Necessary Inference
3. Acts 15: A Case Study in Authority
God's Authority - Necessary Inference
There are three ways that we obtain
authority and direction from the bible: Command, Example and Necessary
Inference. Last month 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 issue we will show, by example, that both Jesus and the apostles
used necessary inference (NI) to resolve key issues of biblical interpretation.
But first, what is it? 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 and says: “Please go down to the store and get us some milk,” there are a large number of NIs involved: (1) that Jr. will choose some expedient means 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., etc. Now Dad could have specified much more (like whether to take the family car or Junior’s bicycle), and if he did then these things would no longer be within Junior’s realm of judgment. However, no matter how much Dad does specify, Junior will always have to make some judgments on his own. When Dad does not 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 scripture.
Back to the Contents
The goal of this page is to promote morality and justice in our society (Prov. 14:23).
Y2K.
In this last issue before Y2K, it seems only reasonable that we should
bring some closure to the warnings and predictions made in previous issues.
No one can predict the future with a high degree of certainty, and while
many predictions are self-fulfilling, others have just the opposite effect.
The many warnings about the consequences of not getting computers Y2K
compliant have been taken quite seriously by most organizations whose
profitability depends on their continued operations.
We can be thankful that we live in a capitalistic society where this
problem has largely taken care of itself. Since
most goods and services are obtained through private industry, Y2K will be a
non-event for many. It is a
different story for many dependent on government, since many government agencies
have not been nearly as motivated, and many have had recent turnovers,
especially at the state and local levels. Also,
those in other countries are not as prepared, but neither are they as dependent
on computers as we are.
The biggest problem that will follow a
Y2K non-event is the increased pride and resultant sense of invulnerability.
If we can survive and thrive through this, what can’t we do?
Pride was the major motivation at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9), and
Paul urged even the strongest of Christians (1 Cor 10:12): “... let him that
thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
See also 2 Pet. 3:3f. We
live in an euphoric age where many have never experienced the effects of a
severe economic downturn. The
belief that we are now invulnerable to recession, coupled with greed, will lead
to continued speculation and over-valuation in the stock market.
But, our world is fragile, and there is tremendous unrest all around us.
The triggering of several major international incidents simultaneously
could make our current military dominance irrelevant.
It is important that we do not get caught up in pride, but recognize that
Jesus Christ made and sustains all things (Heb. 1:3; Col.1:16f; Jn. 1:1f). Faith drives out pride.
Back to the Contents
Acts 15: A Case Study in Authority
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 (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” (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
completed revelation today in scripture (2 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 22:18f, Jude 3; 2
Pet. 1:3).
Acts 15 gives and approved apostolic
example of the use of direct command (15:7), approved apostolic example (15:8-9,
12), and necessary inference (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 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.”
(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 the
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.
Back to the Contents
“Jesus
never used necessary inference.”
but Jesus answered and said unto them
(Mt. 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 (Mt. 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 conclusion, 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 (1 Pet. 2:21).
If Jesus used this method, can it be wrong?
In Mt. 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 inference.
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).
Back to the Contents