When an Inference Passes as a Fact

I like—no, I love—figuring things out. Unless it’s a puzzle inside an RPG (Role-Playing Game). I don’t love those because sometimes they are so abstract that I have no idea where to begin. Also, if I wanted to play a puzzle game, I’d play one instead of a game where I build a character from nothing and turn them into a hero. Still, for the most part, I enjoy deduction and coming up with solutions.

I’ve noticed that my tendency to “solve” things has contributed—usually—to a greater understanding of Scripture. For the most part, I think Scripture is straightforward, but as I’ve said before, there are “silences” in the text—places where it doesn’t tell us exactly what happened or didn’t happen. Often, we can infer meaning from the context, but not always.

In the legal system, there are two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence might come from a witness who testifies, “It’s raining outside.” Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires us to draw an inference: Bill enters the office soaking wet with an umbrella. It must be raining, right? Maybe not.

In Scripture, we frequently encounter “circumstantial” evidence that we treat as direct evidence. Consider this incident from Acts.

Are We Partners With God?

A concept I’ve heard tossed around over the years—one that appears to be gaining ground—is the idea of “partnering” with God. This concept likely comes from verses like this one:

For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

1 Corinthians 3:9 (NIV)

Of course, we can’t ignore what Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians:

As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain.

2 Corinthians 6:1 (NIV)

I don’t know about you, but this concept sounds amazing. Imagine working right alongside Jesus as we “go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything” Christ has “commanded” us (Matthew 28:19-20, NIV). That’s really cool. I’d say, “Where do I sign up?” if it weren’t so blasphemous and Scripturally inaccurate.

Is Scripture Trying to Absolve Pilate?

If you’ve read the Gospels, you might have noticed a sharp contrast between the Jews and Pilate. In Luke and John, Pilate doesn’t want to crucify Jesus (Luke 23:4, John 19:4). In Matthew, Pilate questions Jesus’ innocence (Matthew 27:23), and in Mark he recognizes that “it was out of self-interest” that Jesus had been handed over to him (Mark 15:10). Even in Acts, Peter differentiates between Pilate and those Jews who wanted Jesus dead:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

Acts 3:13 (NIV)

Why does Scripture emphasize this difference? Surely it can’t be an effort to somehow “absolve” Pilate while condemning the Jews, can it?

Ledges

To have
and
to hold,
bitter
memories
neatly
shelved
with
grief
loss
the horror—
of
that
day…