Silence in the Scriptures

Recently, I heard a joke that asked, “How many members of the church of Christ does it take to change a light bulb?” The answer was, “None. The Bible doesn’t say anything about lightbulbs.” This joke is making light of (if you’ll excuse the pun) the principle of silence, a principle that members of the churches of Christ typically hold dear. One of the more obvious applications of respecting the principle of silence is the typical decision that churches of Christ make to worship without instruments. Applying the principle to this topic, the idea is that God’s clear instructions to sing vocally and specification of an instrument, i.e., the heart (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16) excludes any alternate forms of music or other instruments even though these are not explicitly forbidden. Though acapella singing (literally, singing in the style of the chapel/church) was how early Christians worshipped and a practice many reformation leaders embraced, members of the church get a lot of flak for their commitment to what is often seen as an unnecessary practice.

Two things ought to be noted though. First, the principle of silence is something that many professed believers embrace to some degree. I remember sitting around a table in high school with friends from a variety of denominational faiths who were attacking my conviction about acapella singing. I asked them if they thought it would be appropriate to add to or substitute the elements of the Lord’s Supper. All but one of them said it would not be, yet the Bible does not explicitly forbid us from doing so, which means this is yet another example of the principle of silence at play. Many other practices and doctrines professed believers embrace likewise involve the principle of silence.

Second, the principle of silence is actually something that can be seen at work in the Bible itself. The book of Hebrews contains a couple of clear and powerful examples of the principle at work.

The first of these examples can be seen in the first chapter of Hebrews. After briefly describing Jesus as the final and fullest revelation of God to man (Hebrews 1:1-3), the author begins to establish why this is the case. When it comes to divine communication, there really is only one thing that could hope to be compared to Jesus and His New Testament. It was the very thing that first century Hebrew Christians felt tempted to leave Christianity and return to following: the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was handed down to man by two intermediaries: angels and (surprise, surprise) Moses (Galatians 3:19). So, the author begins his comparison of the New Testament with the Old by comparing Jesus and the angels.

The Hebrews author argues in no uncertain terms that Jesus is “so much better than the angels” (Hebrews 1:4). However, some of the reasoning that brings him to that conclusion is based upon the principle of silence.  In the very next verse, he says, “For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are my Son, Today I have begotten you’?” (Hebrews 1:5). While it is certainly true that God never said this to any angels in the Bible, it is also true that He never said that angels weren’t His begotten sons. This is where the principle of silence comes in; when God specified that Jesus was His begotten Son and specified no one else, He excluded everyone else from this kind of Sonship. Likewise, when the Hebrews author later asks, “But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool,” (Hebrews 1:13), he’s once again arguing from the principle of silence. God said this exclusively to Jesus and in so doing excluded the angels and everyone else.

Another clear and powerful example of the principle of silence comes as the Hebrews author is trying to establish that Jesus serves as a better High Priest than any High Priest that served under the Law of Moses. To do so, he must first establish how it is even possible that Jesus is a High Priest. The reason this poses any difficulty at all is because of the principle of silence; if Jesus did not establish a new Law, then silence would demand that He really should not be a priest at all. He writes:  


Moses did speak about priesthood; the Law he mediated specified that people from the tribe of Levi would serve as priests. However, the Hebrews author is correct; you will not find anywhere in the Law of Moses where the tribe of Judah is mentioned in connection with priesthood. However, that’s the point; Moses’ silence regarding Judah excluded them from serving as priests under his Law. Jesus’ priesthood demanded a change in Law.

So, while the world may joke about the principle of silence, it clearly was something that the Hebrews author took very seriously. In fact, this is only the hem of the proverbial garment; the book of Hebrews demonstrates incredibly careful reasoning from the Old Testament, with the author hanging on each detail that is and, importantly, is not there. If we’re going to use the Scriptures the way the Hebrews author did, we’re going to have to develop a profound respect for both what “God… has… spoken” (Hebrews 1:1-2) and what He hasn’t.

-Patrick Swayne  
patrick@tftw.org