One of the most difficult problems in biblical interpretation is the silence of Scripture. We must pay close attention to everything about the Bible---what it says, how it says it, to whom it is said, and what is not said. This does not mean that we should constantly be straining at gnats and swallowing camels, as our Lord said. (Matt. 23:24.) But it does mean that any Bible student would do well to think about the silence of Scripture. There are two basic views concerning silence: 1) Silence allows us to do what is not specifically condemned, or 2) silence means that we cannot act without specific authority from God. In other words, does silence permit or prohibit? Does silence sometimes permit and at other times prohibit?

One of the famous mottoes of the Restoration Movement is "Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." Campbell said that we should be "as silent as the tomb" when the Bible is silent.

This topic is not an easy one. The Bible does not lay out any specific rules for handling silence. There are obviously many things not mentioned in the Bible, things both good and bad. Paul did not claim to name all the items under the works of the flesh. He concluded by saying, "and such like." (Gal. 5:21.) The Bible does not specifically name things like abortion, euthanasia, or suicide. Concerning the fruit of the Spirit, Paul also said, "against such there is not law." (Gal. 5:23.) There are many other such things that could be added to the list. There is no need for a specific law against the works of the flesh not listed, nor a specific law for the fruit of the Spirit not enumerated. The Hebrew writer said that as we grow to maturity we have our senses exercised to discern good and evil. (Heb. 5:14.)

Love, mercy and compassion for one another will also answer many of the legalistic quibbles that some make. Jesus told the Pharisees, "Go and learn what this means. I will have mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt. 9:13, Hosea 6:6.) If someone is hungry on the Sabbath Day, should we condemn the person for plucking some ears of corn to eat? Love and compassion would answer that clearly even without a specific command or example from Scripture. Could we carry someone involved in an accident inside the church building, paid for by money from the treasury, and wash one’s wounds? Could we use the church phone, paid for with money from the church treasury, to call the emergency personnel? Love and compassion are sufficient to answer those questions in the affirmative. A Christian is never free from the law of love. Love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom. 13:10.)

How one regards the silence of the Scriptures will reveal one’s overall approach to the Bible. Or conversely, one’s understanding of the nature of the Bible will directly affect one’s view of silence. Interpreting silence correctly is supremely important to one who sees Scripture as a rigid and complete pattern for everything that we should do. It is less important to one who sees Scripture as dealing with both very specific matters on one hand and principles on the other. To the latter, the spirit of the law is very important. To the former, the letter of the law guides his interpretation. (2 Cor. 3:6, Rom. 2:27-29.)

Some passages on silence. "You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2.) "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12:32.)

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:6.)

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." (1 Pet. 4:11.)

"Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9.)

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19.)

"Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law. To whom we gave no such commandment." (Acts 15:24.) The absence of the commandment to circumcise the Gentiles meant that the Judaizers should not have commanded it. The practice was not authorized. The silence prohibited the practice.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Heb. 1:5.) The point is that God was silent about saying this to any of the angels, but he did say this concerning his Son.

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Heb. 7:14.) "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the Law." (Heb. 8:4.) God did not specifically prohibit priests from Judah to serve. The Scriptures were silent about the priesthood and Judah. The Levites were specifically selected to serve. But the first covenant did not name everyone who could not serve.

How should we apply the passages? The strict constructionists among the Jews did not hesitate to add commands to God’s Word. The existence of the Talmud (with its Mishnah and Gemara), in addition to the Torah, reveals the readiness of some to make laws where God did not. They made so many rules that the law became a grievous burden to bear. (Luke 11:46.) But Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27.)

We should not expect any document to specifically name all things not intended. A marriage document simply names the two parties joined in marriage. We do not expect a list of everyone who is excluded. When you purchase a house, only your property is described in the contract. It does not have to name all the other houses down the street and exclude them one by one. Such would be impossible to do and we do not expect any document to be so written. We should not expect that of the Scriptures.

Silence is obviously important if a family member’s name is not included in a will. If a loved one’s name is not on a survivor’s list, our reaction reveals our understanding about what it means. Our names are not found in Scripture concerning our salvation. Yet, we are included in the "whosoever" and "one another" passages.

Weddings, funerals and baptisms are referred to in Scripture. However, we are not told what to say or who should perform them. What the baptizer said, if anything, is never recorded. Who should baptize others? Can women immerse others into Christ? What does this silence mean? Are we free to write out our own ceremonies? Should preachers of the Gospel participate in weddings and funerals? Should they be conducted in the church building? Silence here is often interpreted as permission to be involved and write your own words. What about divorces? If we participate in weddings, can we participate in divorces? Why can’t the church grant divorces for the cause of fornication? I suspect that the real reason that we do not is because the laws of the land allow us to perform marriages, but they do not allow us to issue divorces. If the laws of the land allowed it, we perhaps would be doing it!

The time for the communion. Some brethren today are observing the communion on other days in addition to the Lord’s Day. We should note that the Scriptures are not silent about when the disciples observed the communion. This was always done on the Lord’s Day. (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 11:20.) This example of the early church is sufficient to exclude any other day.

The early church "continued in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship in breaking of bread and in prayers." (Acts 2:42.) "And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." (verse 46.) Were they observing the Lord’s Supper daily? The KJV says they ate their "meat" with gladness. The NIV says they ate together with glad and sincere hearts. The word, trophas, means food or nourishment. (See Thayer’s Lexicon.) Breaking of bread in verse 42 refers to the communion of the body of Christ, but verse 46 refers to eating a meal for nourishment.

I once asked some brethren, who practiced taking the communion on other days in addition to the Lord’s Day, if they would take the communion on other days, but exclude the Lord’s Day observance. It was significant to me that they did not want to exclude the first day of the week observance. But why not? Was it because of the influence of such a strong tradition? Or was it because they knew the special connection between the first day of the week and the table of the Lord? The special connection between the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper surely excludes taking the communion on any other day. The other days of the week have no connection to the communion. They do not have to be named to be excluded.

The use of instruments of music. This area has usually been the battleground concerning the silence of God’s Word. We need to be clear about what is said in Scripture and what is not said. Singing is clearly included in New Testament worship. (Mark 14:26, 1 Cor. 14:15, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Heb. 2:12.) Instruments are noted in the Old Testament, though there is much disagreement concerning whether instruments were used with the Lord’s approval. David seems to have had a lot to do with their introduction into the worship of Israel. (2 Chron. 29:25-27, 1 Chron. 23:5-6, Amos 6:5, Psalm 150, Psalm 92:1-3.) But it is the absence of those instruments in the worship of the New Testament that arrests our attention. Instruments were certainly available for use.

What we do not have in the New Testament is this---an example of Christians singing praises while accompanied with an instrument of music. Neither do we have any specific discussion about whether instruments should be used. We have many questions posed to Jesus, Paul and others, but none of them relate to the use of instruments in worship. We cannot say that no one ever used instruments in worship in the first century. To say that would be an overstatement. But we can say that the normal practice was to sing without instruments of music. Their use, if they indeed used them, was exceptional and unusual.

There are many records where the non-use of instruments was discussed by the church fathers. They sought to explain the virtues of acappela singing against the use of instruments. Their most common argument was the spiritual nature of New Testament worship in contrast with the Old. Everett Ferguson wrote, "The conclusion that the early church did not employ instrumental music in worship does not rest, however, on inferences from silence. There are explicit statements from early Christian writers to the effect that Christians did not use instrumental music." (A Cappela Music in the Public Worship of the Church, 52.) What the early Christians did in worship is important because it follows that they were taught to worship in this manner. In the absence of explicit statements from the New Testament, we have the practice of the early Christians not using instruments in worship.

Is the question significant? Silence can be interpreted to be permissive, especially if the matter under question is not very significant. This, of course, refers to the difficult issues of what are matters of faith and opinion. One man’s opinion is another’s practice of faith. One man’s practice of faith is another’s opinion. Concerning the eating of meats and special holy days, Paul wrote, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom. 14:5.) As far as the Kingdom is concerned, it does not matter, one way or another, about eating meats. (Rom. 14:17.) It is an insignificant matter. But mind you, it was not an insignificant matter to some in the first century. Some thought that these questions were central to the faith.

Perhaps most of us have concluded that the number of communion cups just does not matter. It is just not an important matter in the scheme of things to debate and divide over. The Bible is silent about having Bible classes before worship (Sunday Schools). But are we violating some important principle in God’s Word if we have them? Surely not. What could possibly be wrong with studying God’s Word on any occasion? Is it wrong to conduct church services without having Sunday School? Of course not. The early church did not seem to have such.

Some conclusions: 1) Silence is important. 2) We must not add to or take away from Scripture. 3) Silence sometimes prohibits one from acting. 4) Silence sometimes allows one to act. 5) The Bible is never absolutely silent. In naming Levites as priests, the Bible spoke about who could serve. There are always biblical principles and discernment that can be brought to bear on the subject. 6) We must discern the importance of any topic and be careful not to divide the church over insignificant matters.