Many are those who have never heard of this law as it relates to the understanding of Scripture and respecting its authority. For instance, a fundamental difference between the church of Christ and the Associated Christian Church is as a result of this area of hermeneutics (Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation). One thing various attempts at unity over the past century have highlighted is that a major impasse is as a result of this law. For example, it is this law that lies at the base of the disagreement over the use of instrumental music in worship. Many of the Associated preachers claim to have never heard of such a law, and thus no wonder there is disagreement. Many insist we can learn nothing from silence: that silence is just that – silence. What is it all about? It simply deals with the question “What shall we do when the scriptures are silent on a topic or activity that intrudes into human thought, behaviour and worship?”
The silence of the scriptures has three aspects of operation. 1. God is silent about things man doesn’t need to know (Deut. 29:29). 2. God is silent about incidentals: ie. He commands something but the ways and means are not specified. Silence becomes permissive and we are at liberty to use any method to carry out the command provided it doesn’t violate any other principle of divine law. (eg. could Noah have used hired help to build the ark?) 3. Silence is sometimes exclusive: ie. it would forbid anything beyond that which is revealed. (eg. God was silent about any other type of timber other than Gopher so could Noah have used another timber which was perhaps more abundant and closer at hand?) (Lev. 10:1,2 reveals that God’s silence did not sanction the type of incense they burned). This is not some abstract principle we are discussing here. It comes into all areas of life. Do you remember your mother giving you money and sending you to the shop to get some groceries and with the change you took it upon yourself to buy some lollies? You probably found out that her silence on that didn’t authorize you to buy yourself those sweets! Suppose a child is told to paint the fence white. Without further instruction the child is at liberty to use a brush, a roller, or a spray outfit (depending upon availability). Suppose the father comes home and finds the fence painted black? The child could seek to justify himself by saying: (a) it is painted. (b) I worked hard. (c) It is a good job. (d) You didn’t say not to paint it black. None of this would stand up for the father told him a specific colour and the son was disobedient. The father’s silence about black paint did not mean it could be an option.
Whether we are prepared to say the law of silence exists or not, we have to deal with the silence of God. When God says something He necessarily leaves other things unsaid. Now, what shall we do with what is unsaid?- that is the question and the crux of the matter. Does God’s silence authorize us to act on our own cognition, or does it not? This question has been a major cause of disunity and has to be acknowledged by everyone. If we go back to the time of the attempted reformation of the Catholic church we see two approaches at work and the resultant disharmony amongst champions of the movement. As in engineering, there is nothing like a practical demonstration to test the validity and workability of a theory. Luther believed that anything that was not expressly condemned in scripture was ‘fair game’ – that is, such should be retained and be practiced. Zwingle believed only those things expressly authorized by God’s word could be practiced by followers of Christ. What was the result?
Whilst Luther objected to those who broke down the images in the churches of Wittenberg, Zwingle presided over the removal of images from the church buildings in Zurich. The two approaches certainly did not forge the unity that Jesus desired in His prayer in John 17, and to this day confusion reigns because of a failure to respect the law of silence. As Shakespeare said consistency, thou art a gem and Zwingle was hoisted on his own petard, so to speak, for he admitted there was no example or warrant for infant baptism but was unwilling to drop the practice. By way of contrast, when Thomas Campbell used the slogan in 1809, Where the scriptures speak we speak; where the scriptures are silent we are silent, Andrew Monroe responded and said Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end to infant baptism.
How shall we begin? First, the scriptures teach that we are not to add or take away from them (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18,19). To take away is to not say or do all that God said (eg. Saul’s disobedience with respect to the Amelekites), but to add, what is that? Is it not to say things God hasn’t said – to presume upon His silence?
Note some scriptural usage of this principle. The writer of the book of Hebrews, in his quest to show the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old, begins by showing the superiority of Jesus over the angels. As Acts 7:38, 53; Heb.2:2 point out, Moses got the law via angels, but Jesus did not (Heb. 1:1) and thus his argument is that Jesus is superior to Moses. Now notice Heb. 1:5 which he applies to Jesus and says is silent as far as any application to angels is concerned. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? Can we presume that just because the prophecy was silent as far as angels are concerned we can go ahead on the basis that it doesn’t specifically exclude angels and so it might apply to them? No, we can’t, for that would destroy his argument, which rests upon the premise that silence excludes angels. Notice he does the same in 1:13. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Again in 7:14 he makes the same kind of argument. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. In proving the need for a new covenant, he speaks of the change in the priesthood – or a change in the priesthood necessitates a change in covenants. Under the old covenant the priesthood came from the tribe of Levi. He says Moses spoke nothing about the tribe of Judah in reference to the O.T. priesthood. This is the law of silence in operation. Because he spoke nothing about Judah and the priesthood can we therefore go ahead and presume upon that silence by saying people from Judah could be priests because he didn’t say they couldn’t. No, that would destroy his argument. His argument rests upon the fact that Jesus could not be a priest under the Old Covenant system because He was from Judah.
There never will be unity unless this law is respected for men will feel free to teach anything and everything that is not expressly sanctioned or condemned. We need to speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where it is silent.