The Silence Of The Scriptures
If you were to visit a
number of different worship services, you could not avoid noticing the many
different worship styles and activities.
For example, most worship services would involve singing accompanied by mechanical
instruments of music. You would not find
that among faithful churches of Christ.
Some churches involve elaborate pageants and rituals with ornate
costumes and even dancing. Churches of
Christ make a maximum effort to engage only in practices which are specifically
authorized by the scriptures. If the
word of God does not authorize a practice either implicitly or explicitly, we
do not include it in the worship services.
Is that so difficult to understand and follow?
Have you ever wondered why
these enormous differences in worship services among the various churches
exist? Is it because the scriptures are
so imprecise and uncertain? Or could it
be because some preachers and other church leaders are not very much concerned
about the teaching of God’s and design the worship to please themselves and the
congregation? It is not unusual to hear
a preacher or leader say, “But I prefer this or that
in worship.” The vital question is: Who
is the audience for our worship-God or man?
If man is the audience, then we can do whatever we please. But if God is the audience, we must do what
pleases him. And how do we decide what
pleases God? There is one way or one way
only-by following the explicit teaching of scripture.
One of the crucial elements in
the work and worship of the church is the silence of the scriptures. O I am aware that many preachers make fun of
the very concept. “If God does not
forbid it,” they reason, “we are free to practice it.” James S. Woodroof’s Book, The Church in
Transition (Searcy, AR: The Bible House, Inc., 1990), includes a very
illogical and poorly written poem with the title, “A Dream of Judgment.” Two lines from the poem show how unreasonable
the thesis of the poem is. “For silence neither gives consent, nor yet does silence e’er
forbid” (p. 187). I shall spend
the remainder of our time today examining the silence of the scriptures.
Just in case you may be
tempted to think that only churches of Christ are concerned about the silence
of the scriptures, I want to refer briefly to a book published in 1888. Paul Earnhart in Christianity Magazine
(November 1987) wrote an article, which asked the question, “Who Started the
Argument from Silence?” A few brief
excerpts from his article should be enlightening. “The students of John L. Girardeau, professor
at Columbia Seminary,
“Girardeau began his
discussion with a statement of principle which guided his arguments throughout
the book: ‘A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine,
government, and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is
not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by necessary consequence
from their statements is forbidden.’
“It may surprise us that a
19th century Presbyterian seminary professor not only understood the
‘argument from silence,’ but used it and felt confident that others would be
persuaded by it. I suspect that there
has been the feeling on the part of some who labored so earnestly in the last
century to turn back to simple New Testament Christianity, that they were the
originators of the idea that God’s silence on a matter was equal to a divine
prohibition. Clearly, that was not
true.” I plan to refer to the article
again later in the lesson, but let us now examine the scriptures to ascertain
if the silence of the scriptures has any relevance to the New Testament church.
Girardeau appealed to Paul’s
statement about the inspiration of the scriptures. “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect (or
full-grown), completely furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim.
Girardeau also appealed to a
number of Old Testament passages to sustain his argument from silence. Please listen to these verses. “And look that you make them after the
pattern, which was shown you in the mount” (Ex. 25:40). “You shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the
commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Dt. 4:2). “Whatever I command you, you must be careful
to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Dt.
John L. Girardeau, a
Presbyterian professor, extends his argument from silence by examining some
specific examples from the Old Testament.
He mentions Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, the high priest. Moses describes the tragic incident involving
the deaths of two of his nephews. “Nadab
and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire
therein, and incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which
he commanded not. And there went out
fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord” (Lev.
10:1-2). What distinguishes “strange
fire” from any other kind of fire?
The answer to that question
sheds considerable light on the silence of the scriptures. “Strange fire,” according to the King James
Version, is fire which the Lord commanded not.
If the Lord did not command it, then how could their actions be
wrong? Surely, the Lord did not condemn
men who were operating on the principle of silence. Gordon Wenham’s excellent commentary on The
Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1979) explains the significance of this incident. Dr. Wenham says the expression, “fire which
the Lord commanded not,” might be rendered “unauthorized” fire. Dr. Wenham comments: “What really mattered is
stated next: it was fire which he had not commanded them. The whole narrative from (Leviticus) 8:1 has
led us to expect God’s ministers to obey the law promptly and exactly. Suddenly we meet Aaron’s sons doing something
that had not been commanded” (p. 155). Professor Girardeau adds: "Nadab
and Abihu presumed to add to God’s commandments exercising their own will in
regard to his worship. They did that which
he did not command them, and they were instantly killed for their wicked
temerity.”
As every serious student of
the scriptures knows, Moses was one of God’s great servants. God chose him to lead the Israelites out of
Egyptian bondage to the land God had promised to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. The Israelites became angry with Moses
because they had “no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of
pomegranates; neither was there any water to drink" (Num. 20:5). The Lord commanded Moses: "Take the rod,
and gather the assembly together, you, and your brother Aaron, and speak unto
the rock before their eyes, and you shall bring forth to them water out of the
rock: so you shall give the congregation and their beasts drink” (Num.
20:8). Moses disregarded the Lord’s
command and smote the rock and said, “Hear now, you rebels; must we bring forth
water for you out of this rock” (Num. 20:10)?
Do you hear one word in this
recitation about not striking the rock?
The Lord told Moses to speak to the rock, but he did not way one word
about not smiting the rock. Since God
was silent about striking the rock, should not Moses have assumed that he was
free to strike the rock? Surely the man
who wrote the little poem, “A Dream of Judgment," can understand from this
example that silence forbids striking the rock, even though Moses had been
commanded on a previous occasion to strike the rock. The principle illustrated by this story is
very simple. We must do what God says do
in the way he says do it. We are not at
liberty to choose how we shall obey the Lord, unless the Lord grants us that
freedom. If he instructs us to obey a
command, but does not tell us how to do it, we are free to do it as we think
best. For example, the Lord commands his
followers to go into all the world to preach the gospel (Mt. 28:19-20), but he
did not tell us how to travel. So we are
free to walk, to drive, to fly an airplane or to ride in a boat. If the Lord had commanded us to walk, that
would have eliminated all other means of travel. When the Lord told Moses to speak to the
rock, that excluded striking the rock.
God’s law of including and excluding is very simple and very
important.
Uzziah was one of the kings
who reigned during the time when Isaiah was engaging in the work of
prophesying. Uzziah had begun to reign
as a sixteen-year-old and reigned until he was sixty-eight years of age. He certainly was a better than average king,
but he made a grievous mistake. He was
the king--not a priest. He went into the
temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of the Lord. Under the leadership of Azariah, about 80
priests challenged the king for his transgression of God’s law. These are the priests’ words to the king: “It
is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the
sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary;
for you have trespassed; neither shall it be for your honor from the Lord
God” (2 Chron. 26:16-18). Uzziah should have repented and sought the
forgiveness of God. Instead, he became
very angry. For his presumptuous and
rebellious behavior, he was made a leper.
He remained a leper until his death (2 Chron. 26:19-21).
Does it not seem to you that
the punishment was greater than the crime?
Should not a man—whether king or otherwise—who is so committed to the
Lord that he wants to burn incense as an act of worship be rewarded rather than
punished? After all, there is not one
command in the Old Testament, which forbad the king to burn incense in the
temple? Did God punish king Uzziah for
disregarding the principle of silence?
Should he have known that God’s command for the priests to burn incense
excluded the king and everyone else from that act of worship? Can you understand that God's law of
inclusion and exclusion applied even to the king? But does it apply under the new
covenant?
The book of Hebrews has a
lengthy discussion of the relationship of the Law of Moses to the gospel of
Christ. The author of Hebrews offers
argument after argument to sustain that theme.
He tells us that the new covenant does not include the Levitical
priesthood. Instead, we have a new
priest after the order of Melchisedek--and not after Aaron (Heb.
The one who was to come and
be a priest after the order of Melchisedek belonged to another tribe which
meant he could not serve as a priest under the old law. “For he of whom those things are spoken
pertains to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.“ Now please listen carefully. “For it is evident that our
Lord sprang out of
But the Law of Moses did not
say, “No man from
Professor Girardeau’s
arguments can be summarized as follows: “The mighty principle has thus been
established by an appeal to the didactic statements of scripture and to special
instances recorded in scriptural history...that whatsoever is not in the
Scripture, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequences, is
forbidden.” Girardeau says that
instrumental music was never used in the worship of
Professor Girardeau asks,
“Did Jesus teach it or practice it? Did
the apostles teach it or practice it?”
Many leaders in various
denominations continually harp on unity within the religious world. They often refer to Christ’s high priestly
prayer in John 17. Jesus prayed, “That
they may all be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have
given them that they may be one, even as we are one”(John
But can there ever be that
kind of unity when churches introduce into the worship whatever pleases
them? If churches are going to violate
the principles of silence, there is never going to be the kind of unity for
which Christ prayed. Should churches be
willing for the sake of unity to forego every belief and practice, which cannot
be sustained from the word of God?
Churches which honor the silence of the scriptures cannot
conscientiously sacrifice that principle for unity, as valuable and desirable
as unity is. We must have scriptural
authorization for every act performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
If you have not studied the
principle I have discussed with you today, my lesson may seem like a foreign
language. Millions of honest people have
not even thought about the silence of the scriptures. They have accepted whatever their churches do
without any thought of their scripturalness.
I am not for one moment questioning anyone’s honesty. I am asking you to think seriously about the
topic I have discussed with you today.
Compare what your church does with what the scriptures teach. If you find your church to have introduced
into its worship some practice without any scriptural authority, I plead with
you to use your voice in opposing it.
You need to realize that not just church leaders—but all church members
will have to give an account in the day judgment. Will you please study these matters openly
and honestly?
Winford Claiborne
The
International Gospel Hour
Back to Transcripts Titles