Introduction. We have all left written instructions for our family and expected them to be done when we return. We try to be as clear as possible, and also expect our spouse or children to do their best to understand what we want them to accomplish.
We use direct statements to make what we expect clear. We refer back to examples of how we have shown them how to do it in the past, and we use inferences so we don’t have to repeat things they already know what and how to do. Consider a note any of us might have received from our mother.
Jesus and the Inspired Apostles have also left us written instructions. They too contain direct statements, examples of how things should be done, and inferences of things already understood.
We use direct statements to make what we expect clear. We refer back to examples of how we have shown them how to do it in the past, and we use inferences so we don’t have to repeat things they already know what and how to do. Consider a note any of us might have received from our mother.
- I will be home in three hours. I want you to clean your room, do the bathroom as I showed you yesterday, and by the way, the grass is getting too high.
Jesus and the Inspired Apostles have also left us written instructions. They too contain direct statements, examples of how things should be done, and inferences of things already understood.
Direct statements like “repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38) or “sing and make melody in your heart.” (Eph. 5:19) are simple, easy to understand instructions. Examples abound in the Scriptures. “For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you” (Jn. 13:15). “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:17-18). These are clearly expected to be seen with the same authority as a direct command. They help disciples see exactly what God expects of them by watching another do it right. Paul made this universal for himself when he said, “The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:9). “Learned and received” would refer to the direct statements he had preached to them and written in his letters. “Heard and saw” revealed Paul’s expectation that they would follow the examples they had personally seen or read about in Acts or his other letters.
Jesus proved the power of inferences when “the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him” to prove that doctrine. He told them “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:23-33). He then took them to Moses and the burning bush to make an inference from a statement that had nothing directly to do with the resurrection. “But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” (Lk. 20:37-38). Jesus inferred that there is a resurrection from the statement, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Even though God was only making a statement to identify Himself, Jesus could still use it to prove there is a resurrection. This is the importance of inferences.
Peter made a similar inference in his first sermon when he quoted David about not seeing corruption to prove he was speaking not of himself, but of the Christ. “let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.” (Acts 2:29-31). Since it could not be David because he had died, it had to be the Christ. This is the heart of how inferences work.
Examples, Inferences and Direct Statements Used in the First Debate. When the apostles and elders came together to discuss the controversial issues surrounding Gentile conversion, they used all three of these methods. Peter used his example, “God made choice that by my mouth Gentiles should hear the gospel and believe.” Peter had been forced by circumstances to bring the Gentiles into the church through baptism and not circumcision. Since God had used him in this way, his example became the standard for all future conversions.
Barnabas and Paul built upon his words using an obvious inference. They began “rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” What did signs and wonders have to do with Gentiles being circumcised or keeping the Law of Moses? It was a simple deduction for the disciples to make both then and today. The reason they were having the meeting was because when Paul and Barnabas ”reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
In defense of their own conduct and what they had been preaching, they were “rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Luke had already revealed the basis for this inference. “The Lord, bore witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (Acts 14:3). Everyone knew this. It had been used since the first gospel sermon as proof of the truth. “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.” (Acts 2:33). When God sent forth “signs and wonders” it validated the preaching. “God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders.” (Heb. 2:4)
This is a simply syllogistic inference. While Barnabas and Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles without circumcision or the Law of Moses, they were performing miracles, for “the Lord bore witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” Therefore what Paul and Barnabas had been preaching was confirmed by God as truth by these “signs and wonders”. Though the reasoning was flawless and unassailable, it had to be “inferred.”
Finally James explained the Law clearly instructed that the Gentiles as Gentiles would praise God and did not need to become Jews. He showed through clear direct prophecy that this is what God expected. “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:14-15).
After these three methods (Peter’s example of Gentile conversion, Paul and Barnabas use of inference describing their miracles, and James use of direct statements from the Law), the discussion ended and everyone was convinced. No one argued that Peter’s example, Barnabas and Saul’s inference, or James direct statements were not binding.
Instead of any argument, “it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men” with “this letter.” In that letter they plainly stated that these three methods “seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord.” There was no argument then with these three methods and thus there should be none today. Finally, they stamped Peter’s example, the inferences of Barnabas and Paul and James’ use of direct statements with divine authority: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us...” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).
Conclusion. Thus in the written instructions Jesus left for us until He returns, we learn from the example of inspired apostles and prophets. This is how the Holy Spirit quickly revealed complicated doctrines. We also learn from the direct instructions and commands He has given to us. Finally, we must learn by the inferences, as Jesus did for the Sadducees. If we reject these methods of instruction we will receive the same rebuke from Jesus as we would from our mother if we rejected her's.
Jesus proved the power of inferences when “the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him” to prove that doctrine. He told them “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:23-33). He then took them to Moses and the burning bush to make an inference from a statement that had nothing directly to do with the resurrection. “But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.” (Lk. 20:37-38). Jesus inferred that there is a resurrection from the statement, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Even though God was only making a statement to identify Himself, Jesus could still use it to prove there is a resurrection. This is the importance of inferences.
Peter made a similar inference in his first sermon when he quoted David about not seeing corruption to prove he was speaking not of himself, but of the Christ. “let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.” (Acts 2:29-31). Since it could not be David because he had died, it had to be the Christ. This is the heart of how inferences work.
Examples, Inferences and Direct Statements Used in the First Debate. When the apostles and elders came together to discuss the controversial issues surrounding Gentile conversion, they used all three of these methods. Peter used his example, “God made choice that by my mouth Gentiles should hear the gospel and believe.” Peter had been forced by circumstances to bring the Gentiles into the church through baptism and not circumcision. Since God had used him in this way, his example became the standard for all future conversions.
Barnabas and Paul built upon his words using an obvious inference. They began “rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” What did signs and wonders have to do with Gentiles being circumcised or keeping the Law of Moses? It was a simple deduction for the disciples to make both then and today. The reason they were having the meeting was because when Paul and Barnabas ”reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
In defense of their own conduct and what they had been preaching, they were “rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Luke had already revealed the basis for this inference. “The Lord, bore witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (Acts 14:3). Everyone knew this. It had been used since the first gospel sermon as proof of the truth. “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.” (Acts 2:33). When God sent forth “signs and wonders” it validated the preaching. “God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders.” (Heb. 2:4)
This is a simply syllogistic inference. While Barnabas and Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles without circumcision or the Law of Moses, they were performing miracles, for “the Lord bore witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” Therefore what Paul and Barnabas had been preaching was confirmed by God as truth by these “signs and wonders”. Though the reasoning was flawless and unassailable, it had to be “inferred.”
Finally James explained the Law clearly instructed that the Gentiles as Gentiles would praise God and did not need to become Jews. He showed through clear direct prophecy that this is what God expected. “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:14-15).
After these three methods (Peter’s example of Gentile conversion, Paul and Barnabas use of inference describing their miracles, and James use of direct statements from the Law), the discussion ended and everyone was convinced. No one argued that Peter’s example, Barnabas and Saul’s inference, or James direct statements were not binding.
Instead of any argument, “it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men” with “this letter.” In that letter they plainly stated that these three methods “seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord.” There was no argument then with these three methods and thus there should be none today. Finally, they stamped Peter’s example, the inferences of Barnabas and Paul and James’ use of direct statements with divine authority: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us...” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).
Conclusion. Thus in the written instructions Jesus left for us until He returns, we learn from the example of inspired apostles and prophets. This is how the Holy Spirit quickly revealed complicated doctrines. We also learn from the direct instructions and commands He has given to us. Finally, we must learn by the inferences, as Jesus did for the Sadducees. If we reject these methods of instruction we will receive the same rebuke from Jesus as we would from our mother if we rejected her's.