For years disagreement has existed within certain minds as to whether or not the so-called “silence” of the Scriptures permits or prohibits. In this brief piece, I want to point out that the disagreement is based on a misconception, and that misconception is that there is a “silence” of the Scriptures.
If the Scriptures are, as they claim, all-sufficient informationally to equip the man of God unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 6:11), then regarding that informational equipment, there is no silence. How could there be? The Bible says what it says, it says all that it says, and it does not say less than it says. And what it says is all-sufficient in addressing every topic that is addressed and identifying every topic that needed to be addressed in order to provide complete information regulating the Christian’s life, including his worship.
If today under the law of Christ, mechanical instrumental music in worship is sinful, how is it that we can conclusively decide that it is? Some say that the Scriptures are “silent,” so it is up to us to make the decision. Is this true? It is certainly true that the disagreement continues as to whether the so-called “silence” of Scripture permits or prohibits. But wouldn’t the Scriptures somehow settle this if they are all-sufficient?
In Hebrews 7 the writer proves that the priesthood of Christ required a change in law because the Lord was from the tribe of Judah. Notice: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:12-14).
Note that the writer said that the law of Moses (the Old Testament Scriptures) said “nothing” as to a priest coming from some tribe other than that of Levi. There was no explicit remark in the Old Testament that authorized a non-Levite priest. There was no example (“no man hath given attendance at the altar”) of a non-Levite priest serving God. Thus, the writer is saying, in effect, that the issue as to whether or not a non-Levite priest could serve God under the law of Moses is not “up for grabs.” It has been settled! The law of Moses had to be done away (Col. 2:14; Rom. 7:1-6) in order to make the priesthood of Christ possible.
According to the Hebrews writer, even though Scripture did not say “Thou shalt not take a priest from some tribe other than Levi,” it didn’t have to say it explicitly (that is, in so many words) because it had implied the prohibition!
But, how could a Jew in the first century have reached this conclusion that the law of Moses did not (while it was still in effect) permit a non-Levite priest? Was the Old Testament “silent” with regard to the authorization of a non-Levite priest?
A first century Jew could have reached this correct conclusion by:
(1) Consulting the explicit truth in the Old Testament regarding who could be a priest under the law (This would entail looking at the direct statements involved in the authorization of the Jewish priesthood).
(2) Reading all other relevant passages dealing with the priesthood to see if any additional direct statements were made regarding the authorization.
(3) Surveying all relevant passages to see if God allowed priests other than Levites at any time (looking for an approved example).
(4) Determining if any two or more direct statements implied that a non-Levite could serve as a priest.
The Hebrews writer—by a direct statement—referred to three means of authorization. He said that the law had said “nothing” regarding a non-Levite priest. But, how did the law say “nothing”? Please consider the following very carefully:
(1) It said “nothing” by not mentioning a direct statement that authorized a non-Levite priest.
(2) It said “nothing” by not providing two direct statements that would (when taken together) imply a non-Levite priest.
(3) It gave no approved example of a non-Levite priest.
This is how the law of Moses said “nothing.” But in saying “nothing” by way of authorization, it said something: It said that what had not been authorized was prohibited! Under the law of Moses it would have been sinful for the Jews to allow a non-Levite to serve in the priesthood.
In this sense the law of Moses was not “silent.” And it is in this sense that the New Testament is not “silent” either. So when considering whether or not mechanical instrumental music is allowed by God in Christian worship, our procedure should be to look for a direct statement, an approved example, or implication to find possible authorization. And if we cannot by this procedure find authorization, the thing in question is prohibited! Readers may already be aware that no such authorization can be found.
If someone suggests that direct statements and examples are legitimate in determination of authorization, but implication is not, he should remember that the Lord said it was (Matt. 22:29-33). Jesus said the Old Testament taught the doctrine of resurrection by implication!
So, under the law of Moses, regarding authorization for something (whether a doctrinal truth such as the resurrection, or an obligation such as the employment of priests), the Jews had a way of reaching the conclusive truth about it. And today under the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17), for any doctrine or practice, if we cannot find (1) a direct statement of authorization, or (2) an approved example of authorization, or (3) an implication of authorization, then the all-sufficiency of Scripture prohibits that doctrine or practice. A new system of Bible interpretation has not been given in the New Testament. We know correct doctrine and practice by the same hermeneutical route to be taken by the Jews under the law of Moses. Hebrews 7:12-14 teaches us this. So, the New Testament does not have to explicitly say, “Thou shalt not use mechanical instruments of music in worship.” Why not? Because it has prohibited them via the lack of authorization for them!
By saying nothing—either explicitly or implicitly—within the complete context of Scriptural authorization, the Bible is not silent, but is saying something. It is saying that whatever is in question is disallowed.
Biblical Notes 