By Angus Harley

Recently, I argued that the first level of comprehending the biblical text is to use the tool of literal comprehension (LC). This is when we read a text and accept its on-the-surface-meaning. We leave its wording alone and we allow that text to speak to us. The reader might be surprised by just how often that simple step in reading the bible is violated.

Basic features of inferential comprehension

There is another form of comprehension that is intertwined with LC, working alongside it. It, too, refers to understanding the text ‘as is’. It is the concept called ‘inferential comprehension’ (IC). We use it all the time for every text we read and perhaps don’t even know we are doing so.

Definition

When reading any text, we infer a number of things about its content that are not always directly and specifically written on the page; nonetheless, the content of the page, its wording, implies these things, it infers them, things to do with the purpose, setting, and overall structure of the written text itself.

The dynamic duo: LC and IC

It is not possible to separate LC and IC; they both go together and must never be separated: the straightforward, on-the-surface, meaning of a text (LC) provides words and content that we then infer from (IC).

An example of IC: ‘Little Red Riding Hood’

The tale

We know the children’s fairytale, ‘Little Red Riding Hood’. There are different versions of it throughout the world. Here’s the one I grew up with. There are three main characters: Little Red Riding Hood (LRRH), Grandma, and the big, bad wolf. There are two lesser characters: Little Red Riding Hood’s mother and the woodsman. The tale is of LRRH being sent on an errand, by her mother, from their village, to take some food to her grandmother, who lived in a different village. On her way there, a wolf greets her and asks her what she’s doing. She naively answers the wolf, telling the wolf her purpose. The wolf is thinking to himself how he’s going to devour LRRH. The wolf challenges her to a race to grandma’s home. Unfortunately, in the race, LRRH wanders off to collect flowers. Meanwhile, the wolf runs to grandma’s house, pretends to be LRRH, and when grandma comes to the door, the wolf swallows the grandma whole. Then the wolf proceeds to dress like grandma and gets into her bed. LRRH turns up at grandma’s house, in a different village, and goes in to see her grandma in her bed. However, grandma looks kind of strange to LRRH, so that she asks why it is that her ‘grandma’ has such a big nose, big ears, big eyes, big hands, and, of course, a big mouth. The wolf explains the purpose of his big mouth: ‘The better to eat you with!’ The wolf flings off grandma’s clothing and the bedsheet, leaps out of bed, and is about to eat LRRH, when suddenly a woodsman, who was watching the wolf as it ran to grandma’s house, busts through the door and chops the wolf to pieces.

IC and the tale

There are many things that this story implies or infers. It takes place in villages and in a forest, so we can infer it is not taking place in a city or castle; it’s more like the countryside. The story is a simple one of childhood naivety vs the evil of the big bad wolf; alongside innocence is evil, and it must be chopped down. One doesn’t need to imply teenage angst, or the foolishness of adults. The wolf is not a dragon, and there are no magic spells. So, it’s not sci-fi, or intense fantasy, either. The story as a whole conveys that LRRH is very innocent and naïve. She doesn’t have a bad bone in her body, and as such she is the ‘absolute’ opposite of the big, bad wolf. The general sweep or structure of the story is as obvious as day. We don’t need to inject ideas and opinions. We do not need to speculate if there were other wolves who were evil, or even good. We don’t need to ask if perhaps the woodsman was a later form of a hunter-gatherer that would have hunted down wolves. Nor do we need to speculate why wolves in general are in tales considered evil. We don’t need his origin and background. The tale itself just presents the wolf so, as it does all the characters. No need to add or take away from them, nor from the tale’s details. The entire ambience, movement, and structure of the story is one that will not permit over-complicated motives and plots. To add stuff just destroys the plain content and purpose of the tale itself.

Once again, genre doesn’t matter

Yes, ‘LRRH’ is a folktale. That is its genre. Yet, we have been speaking about its content, not its genre, its wording and implications, not any textual critical sources and ancient backgrounds to the text. Please bear in mind, IC, along with LC, exist for any written text, regardless of genre (see ahead).

Let us now look at IC in action in the bible.

Biblical example #1: Genesis 1-3

The opinion is gaining traction that Genesis 1-3, taken as a literary unit, teaches that there was death before the Fall.

Really?

On the level of just LC, this view does not stand for one moment. Although Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 4 refer to the possibility of man dying if he disobeys God’s rule, there is no other verse or word in Genesis 1-3 as a whole that conveys that death was somehow present in the world before man sinned, never mind in the Garden. Put another way, any child with comprehension skills can read Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 4, and the entire passage of Genesis 1-3, and naturally conclude there was no death of any kind in the world or Garden before man’s fall. Part of this conclusion is due to wording, as we saw and will see, and the other part is natural inference, as we will now trace out.

Gen.1:1-2:3

Genesis 1 and its days of creation, its creation account, is about all things created by God, and he considered them good at every stage of creation (1:3, 9, 12, 18, 21, 24). Indeed, God’s attitude caps it all by concluding that everything that was made was “very good” (1:31). Let that sink in: all that God made- the heavens and the earth- was “very good”. Period, full stop!

So now we ask a question of Genesis 1: was death “good”? The answer is, obviously not! Was it, perhaps, “very good”? Heck, no! So, by inference, death has no part in the original creation. Nada, zippo! Again, we are following the text ‘as is’ and inferring as we are doing so.

In fact, everything that was created was so divinely structured (six days to create all things) and divinely perfect that God himself ‘caps the cap’, for after declaring that all that he made was “very good”, God proceeds to consider the final day of that ‘first week’ as his own holy day, for it was his day that he personally rested from creating all things.[1] Does holiness include death as a component in which God might rest? If you think it does, you’ve lost your mind!

Gen.2:4-25

In Genesis 2, there is no mention of death’s actual existence or presence, and the entire focus is on the giving of life. Yes, man knows that death is a punishment for disobedience to God’s command; but death itself does not as yet participate in the world. The entire world is abuzz with movement and life. God waters the earth, gives life to man, the rivers are running, there is even gold in ‘thar hills’ (it’s in Havilah). There are various trees with fruit. Livestock roams. Adam is eventually given a partner to ‘run the ranch’- woman!

Does any of this bubbling life and fertility allow for a spec of death? No, quite the opposite! We are given the distinct impression by the text itself that there was nothing but life and goodness and fertility in God’s “very good” creation. That’s the inference that we draw from Genesis 1-2. I say without a word of sarcasm: an 8yr old will naturally infer such things.

So, there is an implied/inferred structure laid down in Genesis 1-2: a world that is perfect in terms of its divine order, so much so it is pronounced “very good” by its own Creator, and is capped off by the same Creator resting in his own work, even blessing that very day itself. Man himself is part of that beautiful life in God’s divinely permeated world. In fact, man is described as in union with God, talking to him, obedient, and cooperative. Man does not know any other way! There is no innate knowledge of evil vs good in man, for he is spiritually the equivalent of a child. Man ‘knows about’ evil and sin and death, for God has mentioned these things, but it is mere knowledge, not that type of understanding the comes from having experienced them.

One has to severely violate the flow, structure, and wording of Genesis 1-2 to say that it conveys the presence of death in some manner. The ‘framing’ of Genesis 1-2, its parameters, and ambience- all of which are inferred– will not allow death to be present. Man is innocent, childlike, physically naked, ‘open’ and carefree. Simply put, ‘this is how Genesis 1-2 wants to be read’- even a child can see this (and, no, I’m not being sarcastic!).

Genesis 3

Enter the serpent! Evil comes to ground. Some have suggested that because the serpent is evil that sin was already in the world, and death with it.

This is, in itself, an ‘interesting’ observation, for it implies sin and death go together. But how then does that fit an evolutionary timescale in which death comes millions of years before man transmutes into a moral and spiritual being who can sin?

The plain implication, or inference, to be made, given the previous two chapters, is that the serpent was not part of God’s very good creation. It was an ‘illegal alien’. A few things give this away: it comes to violate God’s perfect creational order that has man at the top, yet under God’s authority; the serpent, an animal, speaks to man, yet Genesis 1-2 gives the distinct impression that the animals were not able to talk to man; and the serpent attacks God himself. We can add that, the animals of Genesis 1-2 were under man’s lordship, for he names them. God himself does not have to warn man about an evil animal (see Gen.2). It’s as if there is an ‘impostor on board’, an outsider, a faker, an agent provocateur!

Genesis 1-3 does not need to state the origins and background of the serpent, simply because it is naturally inferred by the context that the serpent does not belong to God’s beautiful creational order. The serpent is not from God, but it plainly is out to destroy God’s order and have a swing at God whilst doing so. The evil serpent might have a created form outwardly speaking (as a serpent), but THIS serpent does not belong to the range of created beings that God made. For, God did not make anything evil, anything that would violate his holy day of rest or pronouncement of “very good”.

It is only when man gets duped by the serpent’s temptation that mankind falls into sin, and death appears. An animal has to die for man to be covered in his nakedness. Man’s innocence goes flying out the window. Man blames woman, woman blames man. Man blames God. Man now knows the difference between good and evil and runs away from God to hide from his holy presence.

Man’s ‘death’ is plainly not, in Genesis 1-3, expressed specifically in his body’s immediate demise. Yet, it was implied in Genesis 2, and God himself says in Genesis 3 that Adam will return to the dust. The immediate appearance of death in man was the destruction of his soul, the demonization of it. Spiritual death! Genesis 4-5 then comments upon physical death, for man is, after all, both body and spirit.

Destroying the structure

Those theologians injecting death into the world before man’s fall are grasping at straws in regard to ambience and structure of Genesis 1-3. Quite frankly, I can hardly imagine a clearer division and contrast, a more pronounced ‘before and after’ sequence, in Scripture than that found in Genesis 1-3.  Genesis 1-2 is creation as very good, and man at its heart as innocent. Genesis 3 does a 180, evil enters, satan enters, sin enters, death enters, man falls. That simple, really! Those theologians looking for death before man’s fall destroy Genesis 1-3’s structure, ambience, and plot.

Remember

Remember, at this juncture, we are talking exclusively about the text as it stands. We are not getting into genre, or science, or an ANE background. Genesis 1-3 taken ‘as is’ implies and infers the utter impossibility of death being active in this world before man’s fall. That’s ‘how the text wants to be read’.

Shocking!

It is shocking the number of Evangelical scholars who are oblivious to the natural flow and ambience of Genesis 1-3, and who choose to ignore both its wording and inferences.

Biblical Example #2: 1 Corinthians 15

Genesis 1-3 is the most abused text of Scripture, in my opinion, but another text that is poorly exegeted is 1 Corinthians 15. I have spoken to this in the past in regard to two themes: by rejecting any notion in context of the doctrine of the eternal subordination of Jesus Christ; and, by upholding the physical resurrection of the bodies of God’s people, over against the view that considers this resurrection to be merely spiritual. There is another profound misreading of 1 Corinthians 15: the attempt to put on it a postmillennial structure. I remind the reader that we will go over this text using the tool of IC, with some LC flung in for good measure. We are not looking at genre of any kind.

Following the flow

1 Corinthians 15 is a large chapter, yet Genesis 1-3 is even larger. We have to, in both cases, let the passages ‘flow’ and speak to us to get the overall picture of any passage. Here in 1 Corinthians 15, we can see without too much effort that two worlds are being contrasted. For the sake of underscoring this point, we’ll do quite a bit of quoting.

“…19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied….24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power….32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,

for tomorrow we die.”….

35 With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies….42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable….54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

55 “Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Paul preached the Gospel to the end of men being saved by the grace of Jesus Christ from sin, death, and the law in this world. The Gospel hope is one of a new life, a resurrection life of the body, from heaven itself; it is not an extension of life on earth, its renewal There is no redux. When Jesus in his resurrected-body state is spoken of, he is called “the heavenly man”. He sits in direct contrast to Adam, “the earthly man” and to “those who are of the earth”. In Adam all die; in Christ, the resurrected One, all live. The victory of Christ at the end is therefore of the heavenly man over the earth and its many forms of death and sin, including Adam and all in him.

By contrast, this world and its life offers, gives up, nothing more than death, and this will remain so to the end of this planet. Paul says that if all we have is life in this world, then we merely have self-absorption in eating, drinking, and the like, then we die. That’s all that there is in this world. For sin and death consume all life of this world- ALL!

Put another way, there is no indication in context that death in itself allows for life. The imagery of sowing seed and the seed dying is in the context of the contrast between two lives, two worlds. This world brings death, but the next world brings forth resurrection life. Paul’s conclusion is that, as to the Gospel, death is necessary for physical resurrection and to receive an immortal body from heaven. He nowhere asserts that death and this world somehow magically conjure up immortal life. In the magnificent wisdom of God, he used the very powerhouse of evil in this world- Adam and his sin, death, and the Law- to allow a death blow to Christ and all in him, so that he then could raise them into newness of heavenly life in an immortal body. By this, believers will bear Christ’s image, which is heavenly, and of heaven, and not Adam’s, which is earthly, and of the earth.

‘What about the growth of the seed?!!?’

An objection might be that the seed analogy requires the aspect of growth from one kind to another.

Let’s, again, remind ourselves of what the text states:

“35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

Is the idea here one of growth as such? No. It is about types or kinds of bodies. The body is sown as one type; it is raised as another. The idea of the growth of the same seed would destroy the movement from one type to the other, from mortality to immortality.

Nothing is inferred or implied in 1 Corinthians 15 about the gradual growth of the kingdom of God until this world in itself is somehow transformed into an immortal world. There is no kingdom-continuum in the life of this world. The entire framing and the force of the passage is to demonstrate that this world has one pathway and ‘life’- death! To Paul, the only remedy to this is another world or ‘life’- heaven, Christ, God, and the resurrection from the dead unto heavenly life.

Postmillennialism and Premillennialism are both earthly models of God’s kingdom. Both come to 1 Corinthians 15 for approval. Both leave without it. This is so on the level of both LC and IC. We have not even, in the above, stepped foot into genre as such.

Biblical example #3: John 10:34

Not a few OT scholars, seeking to establish that various OT texts refer to angels, are keen to read particular NT verses as putting forth a doctrine of angels. It is said that Jesus alludes to angels in John 10:34, for it cites Psalm 82:6 that is about angels, it is argued.

We will see that this reading does not suit the overall flow of John 10 itself, and injects into it an inference that is not warranted.

Jesus is asserting that he is the Good Shepherd, who by his power and authority protects his sheep from false shepherds and wolves. They are his sheep because they hear his voice, recognize it, and follow him.  Jesus works in unison with the Father, for the Father gave him authority and a commandment to lay down his life for his sheep, and then to take up his life again, resurrect it (vv1-18).

This declaration by Jesus split the Jews, “20 Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?” 21 Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” “

One view says Jesus is demon-possessed. It does not state that he is a fallen angel; yet, by implication, they claim he is possessed by one. Nor is there anything suggesting that they thought Jesus was an angel, since he is before them as a man referring to himself as the Good Shepherd, who has authority from his Father to give and lift up his own life.

“22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Time goes by and Jesus is in the temple. He is walking around as a man, it is implied, not as an angel. Moreover, the Jews were not questioning him as to an angelic identity, but to a Messianic one. In fact, Jews assumed that the Messiah was from the line of David- i.e., he was human.

“25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” ”

In this section, Jesus repeats some of what he previously said. He is the Good Shepherd, and his sheep hear his voice and follow him. The implication is that his sheep accept his works, for these works testify of Jesus as the Good Shepherd. By contrast, the Jews were not of Jesus’ sheep, for they did not hear his voice, nor, by implication, accept his works. Jesus adds that his sheep follow him unto eternal life and will never perish. In fact, no one can snatch them out of his hand. Jesus then recalls his union with the Father in this work, stating that the sheep themselves were given to Jesus by his Father, and that no one is able to snatch them out of God’s hand. The implication of this union is made explicit by Jesus himself, “I and the Father are one.” This is, contextually, referring to their union in regard to the sheep and everlasting life.

At this stage, we are seeing Jesus in intimate union with God the Father, to the point that both in unison ensure eternal life for sheep that the Father gave to Jesus. Although Jesus is subordinate (he received a command), he is co-partner in issuing and preserving eternal life.

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

The Jews pick up on what Jesus is laying down: he is no mere man, for he operates exactly as only God can: to give and preserve eternal life. By this point, the Jews are not even complaining about ‘Jesus the Messiah’…no sir! We are way, way beyond this concept. They have in mind one thing: God vs man. To them, Jesus is blasphemously, as a man, calling himself God.

34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Jesus replies with citing Psalm 82:6 that refers to certain individuals as “gods”. To these “gods” the word of God came. By this, Jesus possibly means that the gods were named by God as such in Psalm 82:6:

“I said, “You are gods,

And all of you are sons of the Most High.”

There are now two witnesses (see John 8:17; 14:1; Matt.18:16; Deut.19:15; 2 Cor.13:1; Heb.10:28) to Jesus’ right to be called “Son of God”: God in his declaration about “gods”, and the Law (Psalms). To this, Jesus adds he was sent by the Father, implying that he was sent with a commandment and authority as the Son to fulfill the Father’s will.

Another feature is the identity of these “gods” in context. Up unto this point, the entire sweep of the context is one in which Jesus is laying down his unity of person and work with the Father. Whereas, the Jews see only a man standing before them. Not an angel. Not a demon as such. Only a man- yet a demon possessed man. The citation of Psalm 82:6 is firmly lodged in that context of a division of perception as to Jesus and his person and work. It violates that division to introduce a third potential reading: Jesus was an angel, and that he cited Psalm 82:6 to show how angels were called “gods”. Similarly, the view that has Jesus believing the “gods” were angels does not fit the context. I repeat: the issue the Jews had with Jesus was with him as a man claiming to be divine. That’s why two witnesses were required: God’s spoken word declaring that men can be called “gods”; 2. the Law states this very thing.[1]  It is precisely the jump from the perception of a man before the Jews to that man being God that is being debated and fought over.

The Jews are theologically correct in their conclusion that Jesus was making himself out to be God. Yet, technically, this was not nuanced enough. Yes, Jesus was God, but he was the “Son of God” who was sent as the Christ into the world. If mere men were called “gods”, how much more did Jesus, who performed the works that the Father gave to him, deserve to be called the “Son of God”?

“37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp. 40 And He went away again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was first baptizing, and He was staying there. 41 Many came to Him and were saying, “While John performed no sign, yet everything John said about this man was true.” 42 Many believed in Him there.”

In this section, we are seeing the same division over who Jesus was. Jesus reinforces, and elaborates upon, his union with the Father: the Father was in the Son; and the Son in the Father. Once again, we are way beyond a human Messiah, or angels, and are focusing upon Jesus’ Sonship as reflecting divine oneness with his Father. After that particular clash with the Jews, he leaves Jerusalem for Perea. The Jews there had a different perception, “41 …“While John performed no sign, yet everything John said about this man was true.” 42 Many believed in Him there.” So, yes, Jesus is before them as a man, but he is no mere man, he is God’s Son.

[1] I firmly believe that it was magistrates who were called “gods” in Psalm 82:6.