Handout - Western Christadelphian Bible School

2 Inference
Moses did not teach resurrection by direct statement. But his record implies it:
“Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the
Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a
God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him” (Luke 20:37, 38).
In this wonderful deduction, based on Sadducee premises, Jesus confuted their stilted views
about the power of God.
There are many inferences within the scripture record. The writer to the Hebrews inferred
Abraham’s belief in Isaac’s resurrection (Heb. 11:19 - probably from Gen. 22:5). Eli never
literally kicked at God’s sacrifices, although his actions implied as much (1 Sam. 2:29).
Aaron’s subservience to Melchisedec is inferred from Abraham’s paying tithes to
Melchisedec (Heb. 7:1-10). Most of the spiritual teaching behind the Law of Moses is
implied; as, for example, Paul’s inference that God will reward our efforts and sacrifices -
from the law about muzzling oxen (1 Cor. 9:9). The list is very long. Inspiration has
elevated such inferences to the level of reliability of direct statements.
We may use the same process, but our conclusions will be more cautious. A deduction may
never be more reliable than its premises, nor more sound than the logic by which it is formed.
We are at risk, sometimes, of overlooking shaky premises because of the elegance of the
logic. Although correct logic is true whether or not it is perceived in the human mind, the
mind must enter the process whenever logic is used. To that extent, then, the logic is
questionable - inconsistencies may go undetected.
So, although we may infer what scripture implies, we must look behind the deduction -
testing the soundness of the premises and of the logic that links them to the conclusion.
3 Parallel Passages
This is a peculiarly scriptural method, and we use it automatically. When faced with a
passage the meaning of which is unclear, we identify some characteristic subject matter,
language or figure, and use it to align the passage with another showing the same peculiarity,
but whose meaning is less obscure. The second passage is then used to explain the first on
the assumption that both are saying the same thing.
Evidently we are intended to do this. None would attempt a study of the life of the Lord
from, say, Matthew, without also referring to Mark, Luke, John and comments elsewhere.
And who would study the kings of Judah without reference to Samuel, Kings, Chronicles,
Isaiah, Jeremiah and many others of the prophets?
Even when confronted with a direct statement, we “instinctively” (actually, we’ve learned to
do this) turn to parallel passages to throw more light on the subject, if possible. And - with
good reason - few of us are truly comfortable with an idea that is supported by only one or
two contexts. Fundamental teachings are frequent themes in scripture - they rarely rely on
isolated texts.
Some Bible themes are of enormous breadth and complexity. For example, Latter Day
Prophecy. Yet even here - indeed, especially here - a systematic approach, assessing the
reliability of each step, can pay handsomely. We may decide, say, that Ezekiel 38 is a direct
statement about Russia’s invasion of the land, and use that as a reference against which to
explore other similar passages such as Joel’s prophecy, Zechariah 14, Daniel 11 and 12, 2
Thessalonians 2, the Olivet prophecy and so forth - by identifying parallel events and figures
of speech. Arranging parallel passages “alongside” each other, “vertically”, so to speak, and
then drawing “horizontal” links through their similarities or identities enables a more
complete view to be gained without recourse to guesswork.
Page 9