The following quotation demonstrates the importance of this topic: 'Simply put, most religious divisions arise, not from what the Bible does say, but out of what the Bible does not say. This is the result of two radically different attitudes toward the area of God's silence. One position is that silence is permissive and that we are free to do whatever we desire in silent teaching or activity. The second position is that silence is prohibitive and that we are to do what God did say. From these two hermeneutical perspectives arise two different worlds in religion.' (Gospel Anchor. May 1991 p. 12)
We should realize that this isn't a new topic. The same division existed during the Reformation Movement. 'Luther desired to maintain in the Church all that was not expressly contrary to the Scriptures, and Zwingle (a Swiss reformer) to abolish all that could not be proved by them. The German reformer wished to remain united to the Church of the preceding ages, and was content to purify it of all that was opposed to the Word of God. The Zurich reformer passed over these ages, returned to the apostolic times, and, carrying out an entire transformation of the Church, endeavored to restore it to its primitive condition. Zwingle's reformation was therefore the more complete.' (History Of The Reformation Of The Sixteenth Century. d'Aubigne, J.H.M. pp. 401-402)
Thus, when Thomas Campbell on September 7, 1809 in his opening
remarks used the expression "We speak where the Bible speaks,
and are silent when the Bible is silent", he wasn't expressing
a new idea or an idea that he had invented. The above expression
has been traced back as far as the 1500's.
F. LaGard Smith gives an illustration that most unbelievers would
understand: 'now supposed..that the statute..said specifically,
"The following persons are exempt from paying property tax:
widows and widowers, the handicapped, veterans, and city employees"...If
the farmer were to say, "But the statute nowhere specifically
says that farmers are not exempt", ...the farmer wouldn't
even get the slightest hearing. What the statute DID say was meant
to exclude anything that it didn't say. Any other result would
create a GREATER RESPECT for what the law OMITTED than for what
it stated.' (The Cultural Church p. 196) The point is that even
secular society can grasp the truth that silence does not necessarily
give consent, In fact people live, think, act and reason by the
principle that silence doesn't establish permission on a daily
basis. When something is specified, the birth date on your driver's
license, expiration dates, ingredients listed on a product, instructions
for a recipe, posted store hours, the language of a contract or
warranty, etc..People all around us have accepted the concept
that when you specify something, you don't have to ramble on concerning
all the things your specific instruction excludes. In one way
or another almost every denomination practices this principle
to a point. If they practice baptism, most still baptize in water
because that is the element specified (Acts 10:47; 8:36), even
though there is no scripture which says, 'Thou shalt not be baptized
in rose petals'. Those which do serve communion, apparently are
trying to have elements that they think match those mentioned
in the Scriptures (Matthew 26:26-29). Most still teach that Jesus
died on a cross, even though you can't find a verse which says,
'Jesus didn't die in a chariot accident'. For years we have been
trying to persuade people to apply this accepted principle to
all that we teach or practice, i.e. let's simply be consistent.
'Whenever any document is held to be authoritative, respect for
its silence MUST EXIST, otherwise why consider the text authoritative?'
(Smith p. 193)
Repeatedly Jesus and the apostles argued that the New Testament
would be a complete and final revelation, one that contained "all
truth" (John 16:13); "everything pertaining to life
and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); "the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3); and "All
Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the
man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work"
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).
God has made it clear that we can't read His mind or intuitively know what is right (Proverbs 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:11; Isaiah 55:8-9). The Word of God bridges the gap between limited- fallible human understanding, and Divine wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:9). In view of the above facts (the bible is complete, man is limited in his understanding), how could 'what God hasn't said' authorize anything? To argue otherwise is to contend that silence equals inspiration.
Here is how another writer put it, 'The very fact of a totally
complete revelation..to produce a totally sufficient unit of guidance
for all time..demands the conclusion that God's silence is not
permission or authority for anything.' (Gospel Anchor p. 13)
III. Case Studies: Romans 15:4
Not only does the bible warn against 'adding to or diminishing' from the text (Deut. 4:2 'You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you..'; 29:29; Proverbs 30:6 'Do not add to His words'.) It also provides examples so we can learn what God defines as 'adding to or taking away'. Smith noted, 'If we think that the restoration movement invented the authority of silence, we're wrong. In fact, the authority of silence (i.e. silence needs to be respected) couldn't be more biblical.' (p. 193)
(1) CAIN'S REJECTED OFFERING: GENESIS 4:1-7
What lesson is to be learned? The N.T. feels that it is a valuable lesson (Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12 'because his deeds were evil'). Offering a sacrifice that God hadn't commanded (Hebrews 11:4; Romans 10:17) substituting his choice of sacrifice for the offering God commanded is defined as sin.
(2) NADAB AND ABIHU: LEVITICUS 10:1-3
Two men (priests) struck dead by God for offering something He hadn't commanded (Lev. 10:1). Note: The text doesn't say that they were punished for offering something that God has specifically condemned. One writer noted, 'Whatever reasoning they used for obtaining fire from another source is not given. They might have reasoned, "Fire is fire, and one burns as well as another", or, "Well, after all, God didn't say not to use this other fire.." Whatever their reasoning was, it was not acceptable to God.' (Jefferson David Tant) Maurice Barnett notes, 'It was not that God had specifically forbidden the fire they used, but rather he had specified what fire they must use.. (Lev. 16:12; Numbers 16:46). God didn't have to go down a list of other sources of fire, specifically forbidding each source..Just tell them what fire to use was enough..' (Understanding Bible Authority p. 16) POINTS TO NOTE: (a) Whatever is unauthorized (NIV), 'not commanded', i.e. lacks biblical approval is wrong. (b) Carefully note 10:3. God isn't honored or praised when we substitute or add our own humanly invented worship forms. Failing to adhere to what God has said, failure to respect His silence, is to manifest disrespect for God. God is "treated as holy" when we have enough respect and awe for our God that we simply are happy to do what He has said, no more and no less. (c) These priests were innovators and progressive. They were on the cutting edge of expanding the worship. They were trying something different and experimenting. And God wasn't impressed.
(3) NUMBERS 20:1-12:
God had commanded Moses to speak to the rock (20:8), Moses struck the rock instead (20:11). And God called this an example of unbelief and disrespect (20:12). Maurice notes, 'Some people insist, very strongly, that specific statements do not exclude anything, they only include.' (p. 15) But that theory doesn't hold up in this verse. According to such people, Moses was in the right, for when God said 'speak to the rock', that didn't exclude hitting the rock, it just included speaking to it. Such a theory would reduce the bible to a book of suggestions, do this, or you can do something else instead.
(4) 1 SAMUEL 15:1-35/2 SAMUEL 6:1-7=1 CHRON. 15:2,12-13
POINTS TO NOTE: (a) Slightly altering a command of God is equivalent with complete disobedience to that command. (b) Good intentions fail to make disobedience any less sinful. (c) God didn't say not to offer the animals in sacrifice. But what He did say ruled out that option and made that option a sin. (d) Time and culture do not change the DETAILS of a command. (e) One cannot keep the "spirit" or "intent" of a command and ignore the details originally given with that command. See also 2 Chronicles 26:16-23
(5) JESUS AND SILENCE: MATTHEW 15:1-9
The Bible never said, 'Thou shalt not wash hands as an act of worship'. Yet Jesus condemned the introduction of such a practice. Why?
(6) HEBREWS 7:11-14:
Do you see the line of reasoning in the above scriptures? Since Moses spoke NOTHING about priests coming from Judah, therefore under the Law, no one had the right to be a priest from that tribe. The bible itself argues AGAINST practices from what wasn't said by God. But according to the reasoning of some, the fact that God specified Levi as the priestly tribe, only included the Levites, but didn't exclude those from other tribes.
(7) ACTS 15:22-24:
'TO WHOM WE GAVE NO INSTRUCTION'. Silence did not give consent.
Please note and remember all of the above examples define and explain what God means when He clearly forbids us to add or subtract from His message (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9; Revelation 22:18-19).
Mark Dunagan/ Beaverton Church of Christ/ 644-9017