Of Necessary Inferences Again

by Terry Wane Benton

All my detractors say they believe in necessary inferences, but then they act like I made some point that was counter to their understanding of necessary inference. So, I will define my terms and show that all I have said is beyond dispute on any legitimate level of common sense reason.

The Bible uses the phrase “of necessity” (Hebrews 7:11f). That means the writer thought the logic of Psalms 110 and of Jesus not being a Levite made it an inescapable conclusion (a necessary inference) that the Law had to change for Jesus to be a legitimate priest. The word here used has this meaning:

anagke (an-ang-kay'); from NT:303 and the base of NT:43; constraint (literally or figuratively); by implication, distress:
KJV - distress, must needs, (of) necessity (-sary), needeth, needful.
[Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary]

I do not care how these words are used in some technical formula of propositions. I use the words “necessary” and “inference” in the way the Holy Spirit used them in a common sense logical way. The Holy Spirit did not line up a technical logic formula, but He very definitely said that there “must needs” be a change of the Law when you look at the evidence of Psalms 110. It is an inescapable conclusion that the law had to change for Jesus (from the tribe of Judah) to be a lawful priest. If you want a technical formula:

1. No one can lawfully be a priest from the tribe of Judah without first changing the law.
2. Jesus was a priest who came from Judah
3. Therefore, there was a change in the Law.

The argument is the same, and the evidence is the same, except that the Holy Spirit put more detail of evidence into play. Therefore, He drew the necessary inference (the inescapable conclusion) that Jesus is a priest and the law has changed to allow His priesthood to come into lawful reality.

There is no need to argue with the Holy Spirit. Necessary inference is part of logic, and logic is part of common sense reasoning. I use the words the same way the Holy Spirit used them in Hebrews 7.

The word is used again here:

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these" (Hebrews 9:23 KJV).

It was “necessary,” and it is therefore implied that if the earthly things were purified, and the earthly things fore-patterned heavenly things (both points being indisputable), then the heavenly things, by necessary inference, had also to have better sacrifices than the earthly for purification. There is no logical escape. It is not a mere “possible” inference among other possible inferences. It was a necessary inference. I use the same logic that the Holy Spirit showed we must use. Any effort to say the words can only be used according to some strict formal logic rules should take that issue up with the Holy Spirit. I am using the terms according to the pattern of logic (whether formal logic or not), and I mean precisely the same thing the Holy Spirit meant when He displayed the logic of truth over and over in the New Testament.

You can claim that sometimes people do not reason very well and that sometimes they deduct things from a flawed use of the evidence, and therefore, their conclusion does not truly line up with the facts, but you cannot be credible and deny that necessary inferences are always forced by the total evidence properly handled.