Unfortunately the approach to the Scriptures which looks for commands,
examples and the necessary conclusions from such, has been much
maligned in recent years, even by professed Christians. One writer
said, 'Some people think that necessary conclusions are nothing
but human reasoning, and we cannot rely on the results.' (Understanding
Bible Authority. Maurice Barnett p. 33) If I had the space I would
have entitled this lesson "Thank God For Necessary Inference".
Listen to the following, 'Have your ever wondered, for instance,
what the shape of our shared faith would be like if we did not
have a hermeneutic such as "command, example, and necessary
inference"? Is it just a coincidence, for example, that virtually
all fellowships without our hermeneutic have their notions of
baptism so clearly out of sync with our own understanding of biblical
teaching on this central feature of Christian doctrine? Would
you ever have guessed that a person would need a hermeneutic of
any kind in order to appreciate the importance of what we take
for granted to be the scriptural teaching on this act...? Is it
just possible that well-intentioned believers miss the significance
of baptism because their eyes have not been trained to look for
what comes so naturally to us..? When we read about Jesus directing
the apostles to teach and baptize the nations (Matthew 28:19),
our minds automatically think in terms of a biblical imperative
or "command". When we see instance after instance in
the book of Acts where the apostles baptized believers upon their
confession of faith, we naturally formulate a pattern of practice
based on apostolic "example". And when we read in Paul's
letter to the Galatians that we are all "sons" of God
by faith, having clothed ourselves with Christ through baptism
(Galatians 3:26-27), we hardly hesitate to make the "necessary
inference" that baptism is therefore crucial to our relationship
with God. It all seems so natural to us that we are left to wonder
about everyone else: "How could they possibly miss it?"
Perhaps we have simply given too little credit to the hermeneutic
that we either take for granted or are all too eager to trash.'
(The Cultural Church. F. LaGard Smith pp. 40-41)
'As a matter of fact, without inferences, the Bible itself has
no meaning to us at all. Consider for a moment that not one command
in the Bible is aimed directly at any of us. No command or example
has our name specifically written on it.' (Smith p. 169) But by
using necessary inference we have rightly concluded that the New
Testament applies to us as well, even though we were not the original
recipients of the various letters or books which compose it. We
necessarily infer: A. Since the Apostles were commanded to preach
to all nations (Matthew 28:19), we are obligated to obey the gospel
message also. B. Since the moral standards of the Bible will still
be intact at the Judgment Day (Revelation 21:8; Galatians 5:21;
1 Cor. 6:9), such standards aren't limited by culture or time
and therefore equally apply to our generation. C.
We are obligated to obey the writings of the Apostles for: (1)
Their own writings infer that they were writing truth not only
for their own generation, but for future generations, for people
who would not have seen Jesus or been eyewitnesses to these events
(John 20:30-31; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:3-5; 5:2). (2) Their own writings
infer that the doctrines and commands which were binding upon
one congregation were equally binding upon all (1 Corinthians
4:17; 7:17; Colossians 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). In fact, necessary
inference is needed to answer such basic questions as: Do I have
a Soul? (James 2:26; 3:9; Mark 16:16) And does God still exist?
(Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:25)
Smith correctly pointed out, 'if we must have a hermeneutic, then we should strive to make it the best that it can possibly be. It should be as close as possible to the hermeneutics used by prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself.' (p. 150) Jesus and His apostles often used necessary inference or necessary conclusions drawn from the Scriptures to establish an important truth, to refute an argument, or to solve a thorny issue.
Matthew 22:23-33: Consider very carefully how Jesus argues in this section of Scripture. The Sadducees had denied the future resurrection of the physical body, because they assumed that man didn't have a soul, hence nothing exists to be reunited with the body (Acts 23:8). Josephus said concerning the Sadducees that they 'take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul..that the souls die with the bodies.' (Wars, II. 8.14.; Antiquities, XVIII, 1.4.) Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter, with one Scripture He proves that man does exist apart from the body. He quotes from Exodus 3:6 (Matthew 22:32), 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'. When God said this, all three men were long dead. And yet the necessary inference or logical conclusion from the use of the phrase 'I am', demands that all three men are still alive, though not physically. For God doesn't maintain relationships with non-existence persons. Jesus states the necessary inference He drew from that Scripture, 'He is not the God of the dead but of the living'. Points to seriously note: A. Jesus was comfortable in using necessary inference to establish essential biblical doctrines. B. Jesus had rebuked the Sadducees for 'not understanding the Scriptures' (22:29). Therefore, God expects us to draw these necessary inferences from His word. And if we don't, then we will fail to properly understand His revelation (Ephesians 5:17).
Matthew 22:41-45: In this instance Jesus turned the tables and asked them a bible question. In a Scripture that was written by David, in which David was clearly talking about the Messiah (Psalm 110:1). David referred to this "son" of his as his "Lord", i.e. 'The Lord (God) said to my (David's) Lord (The Messiah-the son of David). Please note that Jesus expected them to draw a necessary inference. The reason that Jesus posed the question, is that is was designed to lead them down the right path. The honest student would conclude: 'Well, since David calls the Messiah (his son) "My Lord", then obviously this "son of David" is superior to David. In fact, this "son of David", would have to be pre-existent to David. But if that is the case, then this "son of David", that even David humbly acknowledged as his Lord (Master), this son must be Divine, i.e. God. This son of David must also be the Son of God'.
Matthew 16:5-12: I like what Maurice Barnett said concerning the
previous section of Scripture, 'Though the disciples reasoned
among themselves, it was faulty reasoning, because they left out
important elements. The rebuke of Jesus shows that he expected
them to have figured it out properly by themselves.' (Understanding
Bible Authority. p. 34)
Acts 2:25-31: In Peter's first sermon, a very essential point in his argumentation was established by necessary inference. In Psalm 16:8-11, David had spoken of one whose flesh did not undergo decay and neither was his soul left in Hades. Now obviously (here is the necessary inference), David was speaking of someone other than himself, for his tomb wasn't empty (Acts 2:29). Carefully consider that the necessary inferences in this sermon didn't stop at this point: A. He must have been speaking of the resurrection of the Messiah (2:31), for who else could it be? B. But this resurrection also included an ascension to David's (God's) throne (2:30). For after all, the logical consequence of a raised and victorious Messiah, is a ruling Messiah (2:34).
Acts 10:28 'God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean': How had God "shown" Peter this truth? Carefully read the previous context and you won't find God specifically telling Peter the above words. Acts 10:28 is a necessary inference that Peter has made from the previous events. But carefully note that the vision Peter had (10:10-16), didn't specifically address "men". Even after the vision, Peter was still perplexed as to it's meaning (10:17). Immediately the messengers from Cornelius arrive (10:17), then we find God telling Peter to go, without any misgivings (10:20), for God has sent them. Be impressed, that God expects Peter to put it altogether, i.e. to draw the right conclusions. Nowhere, does God specifically tell Peter, 'I have accepted the Gentiles'. Again, the necessary inferences don't stop at 10:28. See 10:34-35, 47; 11:17.
Galatians 3:16: Paul argues that the singular use of the word "seed", which was connected to the promises given to Abraham, necessarily infers that the promises would only be available through "one" descendant, i.e. Jesus Christ. Which argues that even the O.T. taught by inference that the promised blessing wasn't unconditional to all Jews, but only those who would come to Jesus (Galatians 3:26-29).
The Book of Hebrews: Is filled with necessary conclusions: A. Jesus is Superior to the Angels (1:4-14). B. How much more do we need to heed the message given through Jesus (2:1-3). C. A rest remains for the people of God (4:1-11). D. The priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than that of Levi (7:1-10). E. The priesthood of Christ demands a change of Law (7:11-14).
IV. Applications:
I really feel sorry for the person who fails to appreciate necessary inference. For virtually every command of God has certain logical conclusions or applications. Necessary inference solves so many "thorny questions" and fills in so many blanks when it comes to understanding what pleases God.
A. The Lord's Supper: Necessary inference resolves the issue of "how often" are we to partake of communion? Christians were commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25), we know they assembled every Sunday (1 Cor. 16:1-2), we also know that they offered the Lord's Supper when they assembled (11:20,33). Thus they partook every Sunday.
B. Church Buildings: Some have tried to argue that since we don't have a bible verse authorizing a 'church building', we don't really need to follow the bible with any kind of precision. This is the same type of argument which says, 'We do many things that we don't have bible authority for'. The logic of how supposed disobedience in one area, justifies further disobedience to God, somehow doesn't impress me. Of course the whole premise is wrong. We do have bible authority for a building to meet in. God commands us to assemble (Heb. 10:25). The necessary inference is that we need a "place" to assemble.
C. Moral Issues: The following moral issues are not specifically addressed in the New Testament: Abortion, Pornography, Gambling, and Drugs. And yet the necessary inference from Galatians 5:21 'and things like these', is that God is condemning certain categories of sin. And that God doesn't have to call it by it's modern name, for it to be wrong. Drug abuse is a sin, because it "fits" into the category of drunkenness (5:21). Pornography fits into the category of "impurity" (5:19). Gambling is nothing more than a form of coveteousness (Eph. 5:5). And abortion is an obvious lack of natural affection (Romans 1:31 'unloving').
D. The Duration for Miraculous Gifts: From Acts 8:5-19 we infer that the ability to impart the spiritual gifts was only given to the apostles, i.e the only channel was through the laying on of the apostles hands. For Philip the evangelist could perform miracles (8:5-6,1). And yet Peter and John (apostles) had to come down to Samaria for these new Christians to receive spiritual gifts (8:14-18). The necessary inference is that Philip couldn't impart such gifts. Therefore, the source for such gifts dried up when the last apostle died.
E. Baptism: Besides an abundance of direct commands concerning the necessity of being baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). We also have a host of necessary inferences concerning this subject: (1) Rejecting baptism is rejecting the gospel (Acts 2:41). (2) One still has their sins despite prayer, repentance, and seeing Jesus (Acts 9:1-11; 22:16). (3) Water baptism is more essential than Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 10:44-48). (4) Baptism stands between you and: (a) Newness of life (Romans 6:4). (b) Being a child of God (Gal. 3:26-27). (c) Being "in Christ" and having all spiritual blessings (Gal. 3:27; Eph. 1:3). (d) Being in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). (e) Being in the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23). (f) Coming into contact with the blood of Christ (Acts 2:38; Matthew 26:28). (g) Coming into contact with God's saving grace (Eph. 2:5,8).
Mark Dunagan/ 5-7-95/ Beaverton Church of Christ/ 644-9017