Skip to main content.

The Authority Of Silence

By William J. Stewart

It is essential, if we are to be faithful servants of the Lord, that we understand the nature of authority. That is, we must know how to determine what god would have us do in our service before Him.

When it comes to Bible authority, we tend to focus on three areas:

Indeed, these are all ways in which God reveals His will to us, and we must be alert students of the Word, so that we will know our duty.

Express Command
A command is an authoritative statement, wherein one directly tells another what to do. Religiously, God is the authority. He has the right to rule; He is able to direct us in the way we should go. The Lord has revealed His commandments through the writing of Scripture. As we read in the New Testament, we will become acquainted with what God expects of us, and specifically commands us.

Approved Example
What do we mean by "approved"? Simply this, not everything recorded is to be followed. For instance, the Corinthians had turned the Lord's Supper into a common meal (1 Corinthians 11:20-22; 34). such is not an approved example. In fact, the apostle Paul rebuked them for such. Approved examples are instances where we know from the text that a particular action or teaching is accepted by God. Often, this is seen through the presence and participation of an apostle of Christ.

Necessary Inference
To infer something is to draw a conclusion about whatever topic is under consideration. A "necessary inference" is a case where the conclusion drawn is inescapable.

Consider Acts 20:7 as an example:

Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

One might infer from this text that all sermons should extend till midnight. That is an inference, it is from the text, but is the inference necessary? The indication is that this was something which Paul did this one time, when assembled with these particular saints, and does not serve as a binding example to be repeated at every assembly of God's people.

“Silence is not freedom to act.”

Again, one might infer from this text that Christians should observe the Lord's Supper (break bread) each Sunday. Again, such can be inferred, but is it a necessary inference? The writer identifies the day of the week and explains why the disciples were gathered. Paul's presence and late night sermon were incidental to their primary reason for being together. The logical conclusion is that it was the practice of the disciples to come together each first day (Sunday) to break bread.

Silence
Having reviewed these other methods of determing Bible authority, I want us now to turn our attention to the silence of Scripture. One might question, "How can silence be considered authoritative?" Allow me to demonstrate with a few secular examples:

If it would be inappropriate to act in any of these instances, why then do some deem it OK to do the same religiously? When God has not spoken, that is not licence for us to do as we please. His silence is authoritative.

Consider an example - God has commanded us to worship in song through singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13, etc.). In the New Testament, He has said nothing about the use of instrumental music at all. Some conclude then that we can go ahead and use instrumental music in worship - God didn't say we couldn't. Silence is not freedom to act. To do so is lawlessness (ie. acting without law). We must not go beyond what God has revealed (1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 John 9).

May we understand that God's silence is as authoritative as His commandments. When He has said, "Do," let's do. When He has not, let's not. Know and respect the authority of silence.




Article Navigation:
07.13.2008 | Biblical Fellowship
07.27.2008 | Putting Away Lying

Answering The Atheist

By William J. Stewart

The Atheist's Complaint:
Was Lot righteous? 2 Peter 2:7-8 says that he was, but Genesis 19:8, Genesis 19:30-36 reveal that he offered his daughters to a sex-crazed mob and then got drink and impregnated them. Is there a contradiction?

Response:
As with any man or woman, Lot's life was filled with both good and bad choices. When feuds arose between his herdsmen and his uncle Abram's herdsmen, Lot chose to go to the plain of Jordan. We are told that he "...pitched his tent even as far as Sodom" (Genesis 13:12). This was an unwise decision on his part, as he brought his family close to wickedness.

While dwelling in Sodom, we find that Lot made a stand against the immorality which existed there. When the men of the city came, seeking to know the men (angels) who had come to Lot carnally, he pleaded with them, "...do not do so wickedly!" The people of the city spoke of Lot, saying, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them" (Genesis 19:9). It is this stand against wickedness which the men of Sodom speak of that Peter commends, by saying that Lot "...was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)..." (2 Peter 2:7-8).

What do we make of Lot offering his daughters to the men of Sodom? A righteous act? NO. Unwise and desperate. What about his laying with his two daughters? A righteous act? NO. Incidentally, he was taken advantage of by his daughters, who got him drunk and seduced him. That does not justify it, but explains it.

What can be learned from Lot is that even righteous people can make rash and foolish decisions, and may be tempted to sin. Perhaps the questioner's concept of the righteous is that they never sin. If that were so, we'd not need a Saviour. There is no contradiction.

This article is in response to Skeptic's Annotated Bible.