BIBLICAL AUTHORITY (13)
The Silence of the Scriptures
Mike Johnson
What should be our attitude regarding the silence of the Scriptures? What should we do regarding situations in which the Lord says nothing? These questions are critical. Disagreement on how to regard the silence of the Scriptures has caused much division over the years. If we could agree on how to view the silence of God’s Word, we could do much to achieve unity among religious people.
There are two approaches often taken regarding the silence of the Scriptures. One view is that when the New Testament is silent, we are at liberty to act as we please and can do whatever we want in the service of God.” This viewpoint is the “permissive” approach. According to this view, we can do anything not expressly forbidden, and everything is acceptable unless God has said, “Thou shall not.” The other approach might be called the prohibitive view. Those who take this view say we must only do what the New Testament authorizes. The law of exclusion prevails with this view, as the unmentioned is not permitted.
Where do we find the answer to how we should view the silence of the Scriptures? Determining our approach from the Scriptures—the Word of God is essential. We cannot answer this question based on our own opinions nor learn the position to take from the writings and views of others. God has given us the Scriptures, which show us what our method of interpretation should be.
To begin with, consider how Noah had to regard the silence of the Scriptures. In Genesis 6:14-15, God told Noah to build an ark out of gopher wood. Further, the ark was to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. Could Noah have used oak to build the ark? God did not say he could not, but obviously, this would have been wrong. Gopher wood was what God specified for the ark, which eliminated all other types of wood. God did not have to say not to use oak, pine, or maple. When God specified what he wanted, this ruled out every other kind of wood. Could Noah have changed the dimensions of the ark? After all, God did not say not to make the ark three hundred and fifty cubits long. God did not have to say this. When He said to make the ark three hundred cubits long, this eliminated every other possible length. Noah had to respect the silence of God.
Another Old Testament example is the case of Nadab and Abihu. We learn from Leviticus 10 that these two priests offered “profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them.” As a result of their sin, verse 2 says, “So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” It appears they got the fire, which they offered, from the wrong source rather than the altar of burnt offering (16:12). Because God had not commanded the fire they used, it was sinful for them to use it. Nadab and Abihu would have been wrong to argue that their sacrifice was acceptable because God had not prohibited them from using this other source. When God specified the fire He wanted, this eliminated all other sources. These priests should have respected the silence of God.
Consider also the case of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. Naaman was a “commander of the army” of the king of Syria and was an honorable man. His king highly regarded him, but he had leprosy. He received information about a prophet in Samaria who could heal him, so he went and found this prophet—a man named Elisha. Elisha told him to dip seven times in the Jordan River to cure his leprosy. At first, he refused to do what the prophet said, reasoning that the rivers of Damascus were better than all the waters of Israel. Finally, his servants persuaded him to do what Elisha said.
It is clear that Naaman had to dip seven times in the Jordan if he wanted the cure —no other rivers were suitable. God, through Elisha, specified the river to wash in, so because of God’s silence, all other rivers were unacceptable. God did not have to say, “Wash in the Jordan River,” and then, to eliminate other rivers say, “You can’t wash in this river or that river to receive the healing.” Further, Naaman had to dip seven times in the Jordan River for the cure. Could Naaman have dipped five times and still received the remedy? God did not say, “Don’t dip five times.” There was no need to say this; other amounts were eliminated when God specified that Naaman had to dip seven times.
In the New Testament, consider Hebrews 7. Here we find a discussion of the priesthood of Christ. Under the old law, a person had to be of the tribe of Levi to be a priest. Christ, who was of the tribe of Judah, was not a priest under the Levitical system. Although of the tribe of Judah, Christ is our priest today. The writer uses this change in the priesthood to show that the old law was no longer in effect. To illustrate the point of our discussion, consider verse 14, which says, “For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” Why was Christ unable to be a priest under the Levitical system? A person had to be of the tribe of Levi; Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and concerning the tribe of Judah, Moses had said “nothing.” God’s silence eliminated Judah as an acceptable tribe for a priest to be from under the Levitical system. God did not have to say that Levi was the tribe one had to be a member of and then name all the other tribes saying they were unacceptable. When he specified Levi, this eliminated all other tribes. Many people today, if they had been there, would probably have erroneously said that if one was of the tribe of Judah, he could be a priest because, after all, Moses did not say you could not. This approach involves the type of reasoning often used today to justify certain religious practices.
Consider Acts 15, where there is a discussion of the question of circumcision. There was a controversy in the early church because some had gone out from Jerusalem, teaching that the Gentile converts had to be circumcised. After a discussion in Jerusalem, they sent a letter to the churches stating, “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘you must be circumcised and keep the law’—to whom we gave no such commandment” (v. 24). These false teachers were wrong because of the silence of the inspired teaching. God gave “No such commandment,” so it was wrong to require circumcision. The false teachers would have been wrong if they had tried to justify their teaching by saying that God did not say it was not required. These people had added to God’s Word (Rev. 22:18-19).
In Hebrews 1, there is a discussion of the superiority of Christ over angels. Verse 5 says, “For to which of the angels did He ever say: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?’ And again: ‘I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?’” No angel had the right to claim to be the Son of God. This fact indicates the superiority of Christ as the statement of verse five was directed to Him, not an angel. God’s silence (in not making this statement to angels) meant they did not have this honor.
Consider a few examples from everyday life to illustrate this point further. In cooking, if a recipe calls for four eggs, it does not need to state, “Don’t use five eggs.” The fact that it says four eliminates all other numbers. When we give our phone number to people, we do not have to say all the numbers that it is not. We do not have to say, “Don’t invert the order.” When we name a child, we do not have to say what the child’s name is not— only what it is. Zechariah, in naming his son, only had to write that his name is John. (Lk. 1:13, 60, 63) He did not have to say his name was not George. After announcing the hymn number to the congregation in worship services, the song leader does not have to say what the number is not. If he says we will sing hymn number 33, this eliminates all other hymn numbers. All of the above examples are obvious.
We can make a spiritual application to the Lord’s Supper, instituted by Jesus (Mt. 26:26-28). We learn that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are to be unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. Jesus did not say not to use ham and eggs as the elements for the Lord’s Supper. Would it be wrong to substitute ham and eggs as elements? It would be wrong because Jesus specified what he wanted, thus ruling out all else.
Since the Bible also teaches that baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:1-4, Col. 2:12, Acts 8:36), it does not need to specifically say, “Don’t use sprinkling for baptism.” Therefore, any other form that people might come up with when the Bible specifies a burial is wrong. Therefore, using sprinkling for baptism instead of a burial in water (as the Bible specifies) is incorrect because of the silence of the Scriptures.
Many religious groups use instrumental music in their worship. The Bible, however, specifies we are to sing (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, 1 Cor. 14:15). When God specified singing, this rules out all other forms of music. Sometimes people will say, trying to defend the addition of instrumental music to their worship, that God did not say, “Don’t use it.” He did not have to; God said what He wanted. Remember, Christ did not say, “Don’t use ham and eggs for the elements of the Lord’s Supper.” Yet, most understand that He did not need to, having already specified the elements. In the same way, the specification of “sing” as the type of music to use today in worshiping God eliminates “playing.”
We can apply this same principle to many other Bible subjects. For example, God has specified the work of the church (teach the lost, teach Christians, help needy saints); the way the church takes in money (Christians giving on the first day of the week); the organization of the church (local autonomous congregations overseen by elders). Further, God has specified the subjects for baptism (penitent believers) and the day to partake of the Lord’s Supper (the first day of the week).
The Bible does not have to say that the church is not to provide recreation and entertainment. It does not have to say the church cannot function as a business to make money. The Scriptures do not need to specify that having someone called a bishop overseeing several congregations is wrong. It does not have to point out specifically that baptizing infants is contrary to God’s will or it is wrong to partake of the Lord’s Supper on Saturday. In all these areas, God has specified what He wants; He rules out all else.
Consider a final illustration. Let us say you send your son to the store, give him twenty dollars, and tell him to buy milk and eggs. The son returns, having spent the change on candy, ice cream, and soft drinks. Would the son be wrong? Yes, especially if you had told him, “When I send you to the store, you are allowed only to buy what I tell you.” The son could not successfully defend himself by saying, “You did not say not to buy soft drinks, candy, and ice cream” (or everything else the store has). No, when people specify what they want, this rules out all else. We do not have to say, do not buy this or do not buy that. If we understand this principle, we can understand the importance of God’s silence regarding the subject of authority (Rev. 22:18-19). We must respect the silence of the Scriptures.