Sunday Sermons
Silence of the Scriptures
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, if God has not specifically condemned something. 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).
This is not a new topic for during the Reformation Movement, “Luther desired to maintain in the Church all that was not expressly contrary to the Scriptures, and Zwingli (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. Zwingli'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. Andrew Munro, a Scottish bookseller, was the first to break the silence at the above meeting when he said, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism”. Campbell replied: “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in the Scriptures, we can have nothing to do with it”. Speaking where the Bible speaks is nothing more than “speaking as it were the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).
Even The World Concedes This Concept
F. LaGard Smith gives an illustration that most unbelievers would understand: “Now suppose 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 would not 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 on a daily basis people live, think, act, and reason by this principle that silence does not establish permission. When something is specified, the birth date on your driver's license, expiration dates, and ingredients listed on a product, instructions for a recipe, posted store hours, or the language of a contract or warranty, people all around us have accepted the concept that when you specifies something, one does not have to ramble on concerning all the things one’s 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 that says, “Thou shalt not be baptized in rose petals”. Groups that serve communion apparently are trying to have elements that they think match those mentioned in the Scriptures (Matthew 26:26-29). For years we have been trying to persuade people to apply this accepted principle to all that we teach or practice, in order to simply be consistent.
Respect For Silence Demanded
An authoritative document demands respect for its silence: “Whenever any document is held to be authoritative, respect for its silence must exist, otherwise why consider the text authoritative?” (Smith p. 193).
The Bible is a complete and final revelation: 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). If the Bible is complete and we are forbidden to add to or take away from it (Revelation 22:18-19), then we cannot reason that we have permission to do something that the Bible does not authorize.
We cannot read God’s mind: God has made it clear that we cannot 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, and man is limited in his understanding), how could “what God has not 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).
We are warned against adding anything to the Bible: (Proverbs 30:5-6; 2 John 9; Revelation 22:18-19).
Cain’s Rejected Offering: Genesis 4:1-7
What lesson is to be learned from this example? The N.T. feels that it is a valuable lesson, for this historical event is mentioned twice (Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12 “because his deeds were evil”). Offering a sacrifice that God had not commanded (Hebrews 11:4; Romans 10:17) and substituting his choice of sacrifice for the offering God commanded is defined as sin.
Nadab and Abihu: Leviticus 10:1-3
Two men (priests) were struck dead by God for offering something He had not commanded (Lev. 10:1). Note: The text does not say that they were punished for offering something that God had 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 did not 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 did not have to go down a list of other sources of fire, specifically forbidding each source, just to tell them what fire to use was enough” (Understanding Bible Authority p. 16). It is not only what is specifically condemned that is sinful, but what is sinful can also be something “not commanded”. God is not 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 Him (Leviticus 10:3). . 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.
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). That theory does not harmonize with this verse. According to such people, Moses was in the right, for when God said “Speak to the rock”, that did not 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.
1 Samuel 15:1-35
Slightly altering a command of God is equivalent with complete disobedience to that command. Good intentions fail to make disobedience any less sinful. God did not say to not offer the animals in sacrifice, and Saul could have reasoned that there wasn’t any difference between killing the animals in battle verses killing them in a sacrifice, for the end result was the same, yet what God did command ruled out all other options and thus made those options a violation of His will. One cannot keep the "spirit" or "intent" of a command and ignore the details originally given with that command.
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?
Hebrews 7:11-14
Do we 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. But according to the reasoning of some, the fact that God specified Levi as the priestly tribe, only included the Levites, but did not exclude those from other tribes. The same point could be made in Hebrews 1:5. When God has been silent on a practice we have no right to engage in it. No angel had a right to claim to be the Son of God simply because God had not given that honor to an angel.
Acts 15:22-24
Notice the phrase “to whom we gave no instruction”. The word “instruction” is translated “commandment” in the KJV and NKJV. The NIV says, “We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization”. Since no instruction had been given, the teachers had no right to speak. Silence does not authorize.
