The King's Authority: Necessary Inference

Jesus is our King and as such, He has all authority in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18). His authority (in the form of divine law) has been expressed to us in the New Testament as was proven in a previous article. And yet we understand that we are not obligated to obey every detail of the New Testament. There are, in other words, personal remarks, incidental details and even certain commands which cannot logistically or reasonably be obeyed. So the question is: how do we know which details to obey? 

So far, I've shown that both direct commands and approved examples may carry authoritative weight. We can know this because even Jesus, while He was alive on this earth and subject to the Law of Moses, used both the commands and the examples of the Old Testament to validate or invalidate His own actions (or the actions of others). At the same time, Jesus understood that commands and examples can both be misunderstood and/or abused, and therefore we have to show the same caution that He did in our approach to biblical commands and examples. Which are binding, and which are not? We've considered many principles that will aid us in making these distinctions.

In this article, let's focus on a third means of establishing biblical authority: necessary inference.

First of all, what is necessary inference? There are commands and examples throughout the Scriptures where, although a specific detail is not specified, it is necessarily inferred, or implied. Keep in mind that there is a difference between inferences and necessary inferences. If you walk into my house and see my family eating fried chicken and fixin's at the dining room table, you might infer that I picked up KFC on my way home from work. But is that a necessary inference? Is that conclusion inescapeable? No. Maybe my wife fried the chicken herself (which she is prone to do). However, it is necessarily inferred that someone prepared that chicken, set it out on the table, distributed it to the children, etc.

Some argue that there is "human judgment" involved here. Yes, that's true. But (1) human judgment is employed whenever we read and interpret Scripture, and (2) even though many do not like the phrase, and even though the phrase is not used in the Bible, necessary inference is an unavoidable and common tool of communication, both biblically and conversationally.

Having explained the meaning of necessary inference, let's now see whether or not Jesus used it in His approach to the Law of Moses. I would contend that if Jesus used necessary inference in His interpretation and application of the Old Testament, so also may we use it today.

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus responded to the Pharisees' questions about divorce by citing God's original design for marriage as recorded in Genesis 2. Notice Jesus' conclusion in verses 5-6. Because, in a marriage, two have become one flesh, Jesus concluded, "Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate." Please notice that God never explicitely stated in Genesis 2 that divorce was wrong, or that a married couple cannot be separated. And so Jesus reached His conclusion, not by appealing to a direct command or approved example, but by necessary inference. He necessarily inferred that when a man and woman are joined in marriage (by God), that we're not to disjoin or break that bond.

At a later date, the Sadducees came to Jesus with a question of their own. Their question pertained to the resurrection of the dead. In Matthew 22:31-32, Jesus said, "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, 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 but technically, this statement says nothing (explicitely) about the resurrection. Jesus necessarily inferred that because God said, "I am the God of Abraham..." after Abraham was already dead, that therefore Abraham was still alive in some sense. Using necessary inference, Jesus proved that there is indeed an ongoing spiritual existence after physical death.

A point I made in the previous article on approved examples applies here: no necessary inference stands alone. This should be obvious to us. Any use of necessary inference is rooted in a direct command or approved example of Scripture. To better understand this point and to make this article relevent for us today, consider with me a few examples from the New Testament.

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Notice the command to "Go therefore..." Here's the question: how should we go? The method of travel here isn't specified, is it? Are we therefore paralyzed and incapable of obeying the command to go? Of course not. This is where necessary inference comes in handy. It is necessarily implied - it is inherent within the command - that to "go" we must choose a method of travel. 

Another word that often comes up in discussions like this is expediency. An expedient is something that is "suitable for acheiving a particular end in a given circumstance." Again, with the command in Matthew 28:19 in mind, it is necessarily inferred that to "go" we must choose a method of travel. Expedients would include: walk, jog, run, ride a bike, drive a car, fly a plane, etc. Please note that while we can and must BIND that which is necessarily inferred, we cannot bind a particular expedient. We cannot say, for example, that all Christians MUST ride bicycles as they "go" to spread the gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Paul commanded the Corinthian church to observe the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper, the fruit of the vine (i.e. the "cup") represents the blood of Christ and the bread represents the body of Christ. It is necessarily inferred in this command that the church must somehow secure these two emblems. That would be an inescapable conclusion. We can't observe the Lord's Supper unless we first secure the grape juice and bread. Expedients would include: buying the emblems, growing/making them ourselves, trading/bartering for them, etc. Are we ever explicitly commanded to secure the emblems? Are we ever plainly told how to do so? No. But without necessary inference - or "common sense" as some say - this command (and so many others) would be rendered null and void.

In Hebrews 10:25, we're told to not forsake "the assembling of ourselves together." In other words, the church assembles regularly and it is our obligation to be there. Of course, we see similar command and examples throughout the New Testament. Clearly, churches are to assemble. It is necessary to infer that we must have a place to assemble. We learn in the book of Acts especially that churches met in a number of places; they met anywhere that they could (e.g. Solomon's porch at the Temple, in homes, upper rooms of homes, schools, etc.). Modern-day expedients would include rented halls, libraries, church-owned buildings, etc. These are all authorized by means of necessary inference.

There are a number of other ways to illustrate this point, but these few examples should suffice. 

Jesus employed necessary inference in His interpretation and application of the Old Testament. The apostles did as well (i.e. Acts 10:34; 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 4:8-10). With these examples in mind, and knowing that without necessary inference, we could not obey any of the Scripture's commands, it is clear that this is an appropriate means of establishing biblical authority.

Click here to access the final article in this series.