HOW IMPLICATION BINDS & SILENCE FORBIDS

Alan Bonifay
Christian’s Expositor Journal Spring 2007

The Bible Teaches by Implication: Defining the Terms It is popular in some circles to deny that the Bible teaches by implication. This view suggests that implications are the product of human reasoning, and therefore cannot be considered as equivalent to, or part of God’s Word. In other words, this view says that only those things which the Bible explicitly teaches can be rightly bound on people. Technically speaking, we may call this doctrine the “explicit-only” doctrine or the “bind-no-implication” doctrine.

Even though the “explicit only” doctrine is wrong, it is surprising how deep its inroads have become --- especially when it comes to the prohibitive nature of Bible silence. Before we look at this idea in depth, however, let us define some terms by using an outline format. We encourage the reader to follow this outline and look up the various Scriptures cited.

EXPLICIT: This is a statement or teaching of the Bible in which the very words of the Bible are used. The dictionary defines the term as something which is clearly stated: nothing is implied. In other words, it is something that is distinctly expressed and is definite. Example: 1 Timothy 2:3-4 explicitly (clearly) teaches that “God ... desires all men to be saved.”

IMPLICIT: This is a truth or teaching of the Bible that is not directly stated, but which is implied. It is a truth that the reader can correctly deduce from the words that are in the Bible. Another way of putting it is that the Bible’s implicit teachings are those statements that must also be true due to the truth of the Bible’s explicit teachings. The dictionary defines the term as something that is suggested or understood though not plainly expressed. It is something that is necessarily or naturally involved though not plainly apparent. A more technical definition is statement A implies statement B when it is impossible for statement A to be true and for statement B to be false. In other words, one statement (or a combination of statements) implies a second statement when the truthfulness of the first guarantees the truthfulness of the second. Note the following example:

Statement #1: John 3:16 reads, in part: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ...”
Statement #2: “God so loved you that He gave His only begotten Son.”

It is impossible for the first statement to be true and the second statement to be false. If God loved the world then God also loved you because you are a part of the “world.” Statement #1 guarantees statement #2. The explicit statement of John 3:16 implies God gave His only begotten Son for you. Because #1 is true, we can know absolutely that both statements are true.

Concerning these ideas, however, there are certain sounds being voiced (and maybe even among us). In the Firm Foundation as long ago as July 22, 1975, F. L Lemley wrote, “Since all inferences are of human origin, unless we want to hold on to human patterns we should discard necessary inference as poor pattern material.” In the same paper nearly a year earlier (Sept. 17, 1974) he said, “Any time a process of human reasoning has to intervene between the word and a conclusion, the conclusion is human and not divine, and therefore cannot be (even when true) a part of the New Testament pattern.” Furthermore, in his 1975 article F. L Lemley wrote, “Only those examples that are the objects of direct command are binding on us.”

Similar quotations can be read from many writers in the church of Christ --- all of whom teach the false “explicit-only” doctrine. The Bible teachings us both explicitly and implicitly, and both forms of the Bible’s teachings are equally authoritative and binding. To the end, let us now note the binding nature of implicit teaching.

Implicit Teaching is Binding Because of its Authority.
God has given to Christ absolute authority in heaven and earth. “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’" (Matthew 28:18; see also Hebrews 1:1-2, Acts 3:22, & Ephesians 1:22-23).

Jesus delegated binding and loosing authority only to His apostles. “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to whatever you bind on earth will be bound [literally “will be bound” = shall occur having already been bound] in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed [literally “will be loosed” = shall occur having already been bound] in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19; see also Matthew 18:18; John 13:20; 20:22-23; 1 John 4:6).

The authority of Christ is exercised by the apostles and other inspired men completely in the New Testament Scriptures. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17; see also 2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 John 9-11; 1 Corinthians 14:37).

Because of the authority of Christ and the apostles, if we can prove that they taught by implication in the New Testament Scriptures, then we will have proven the binding character of implicit teaching fairly offer proof from the explicit words of Scripture.

Examples of Implicit TeachingsJesus Taught Implicitly. In Matthew 22:23-32 Jesus taught by implication all of the following: the resurrection from the dead; that there is a life beyond this world; that the spirits of men survive their spiritual death. Jesus taught by implication that the Messiah was to be both and equally human and divine in Matthew 22:41-45. In Luke 7:19-23, Jesus taught John and his two disciples that He (Jesus) was, in fact, the coming One and that they did not need to look for another; He taught it implicitly (Matthew 11:2-6). Jesus also implicitly taught that men should render themselves unto God because they belonged to God (Matthew 22:15-22). Finally, Jesus implied that all laws from God hang upon two principles --- love God and love your fellow man (Matthew 22:34-40).

The Apostles And Other Inspired Men Taught Implicitly. Luke records that Phillip began at the same Scripture (Isaiah 53) and preached Jesus unto the Ethiopian nobleman. This preaching of Jesus included the necessity of baptism in order to be saved because it occasioned the eunuch’s question. “See here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:35-38). In 1 Corinthians 2:2 Paul declared that he determined to know nothing among the Corinthians but Christ and him crucified. Implicitly this means that, at a minimum, all that Paul writes to the Corinthians in both of his letters to them is covered in his determination to preach nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Hebrews 1:1-2, in combination with John 14:26 and 16:7-15, implies that everything the apostles and other inspired men taught is the teaching of Jesus.

The Scriptures Teach Implicitly. 1 Corinthians 11:26, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:2 teach that the Lord’s Supper must be observed weekly. Matthew 26:17, 26 teaches implicitly that the Lord’s Supper must be observed with unleavened bread. Matthew 26:17, 27-29 teaches that the Lord’s Supper must be observed with grape juice and not with fermented wine. First Corinthians 11:27 teaches the Lord’s Supper must be observed with one cup, for it is implicit in the statement, “Drink this cup,” since the word “cup” is used metonymically. 1 Corinthians 14:23, 26, 31, 34-37, & 40 --- these passages teach the class system of teaching is sinful. Galatians 5:19-21 implicitly teaches child pornography is wrong and sinful (including “such like”). Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Timothy 6:9-11, Matthew 7:12 --- these verses implicitly condemn gambling in all forms.

How can the reader of God’s Word correctly determine legitimate implicit teachings of Scripture?For Scripture to teach something implicitly, it must meet the following seven conditions:

1. Have a background passage or combination of passages which require(s) the reader to make a necessary inference because of the implicit teaching of God’s Word. For example, “Drink the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:27) requires the reader to understand that the word “cup,” the container, is being named to suggest its contents, and that only as many containers are involved as are named --- one. This is the figure of speech called “metonymy of the subject.” Another example: The reader is required to understand that the preaching of Jesus includes the necessity of baptism for salvation because of the eunuch’s question in Acts 8:36: “What hinders me from being baptized?” There is no other way to account for such a question in the in the context.

2. Test of Apostolic Approval--- it cannot be an action or a teaching that is disapproved of elsewhere in God’s Word.

3. Test of Unity --- it must harmonize with all other Bible passages. Note: In the previous requirement there must be apostolic approval without any rebuke. Here the point is that there must be no contradiction of any other Scripture.

4. Law of Universal Application --- it must be within the realm of possibility for all people in all parts of the world and for all time to practice.

5. Law of Essentiality --- it must be essential in performing the command that is in the background. Example: The statement in 1 Corinthians 11:26 “Drink this cup” is a metonymical reference to the fruit of the vine which is in the cup and is to be consumed, but the figure itself requires the presence of a cup and only one. However the size and shape of the container are not essential parts of the statement.

6. Test of Competence --- it must be competent to support the conclusion drawn. “ ... he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:33). It is often alleged that the passage implicitly teaches infant baptism. However, that is not true because the passage is not competent to support such an idea. Many families do not include infants.

7. Law of Limited Application --- it can be applied only to the circumstances to which the Holy Spirit applied it originally. Example: A Scripture which mentions Jesus and/or His apostles or members of the church meeting in a synagogue cannot be used to implicitly teach that Christians should “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy” because the requirement observe the Sabbath was given only to the Israelites (Exodus 31:16-17).

The Silence of God’s WordIt is clear from the preceding outline that the bible not only teaches by implication, but also that application was an inspired method that Jesus and His Apostles used in teaching. However, as the title of this article suggest, we also must determine the role of silence in interpreting the Word of God. But how should we think about the silence of God’s Word? Does silence forbid? Does it permit? Does it sometimes forbid and sometimes permit? If the latter is true, how do we determine how to understand it in any given instance of silence? The second half of this article will address theses issues.

How Silence Differs From ImplicationIn any body of legislation such as the Bible, there is silence about an action where there is nothing whatsoever in that legislation about that action. However, if one or more statements in the legislation address the action in question, either explicitly or implicitly, positively or negatively, then that legislation is not silent about the action in question. In other words “silence” is the absolute absence of anything which addresses the issue. If, for example, a reader can point to even one passage in the Bible that addresses an action either directly or indirectly, then the Bible is not silent on that particular issue.

How Silence ForbidsAs will be noted below, Biblical silence is always prohibitive. To illustrate this principle, consider three grocery lists that three mothers give to their sons, along with the money they will need to purchase the items on their prospective lists:

1. Grocery List #1
Buy fruit
Buy meat
Buy 1 white potato
Buy 1 box of cereal

These words authorize the son to buy apples and/or oranges and/or any of a whole array of fruits. By implication, the statement authorizes the purchase of apples and/or oranges, even though neither apples nor oranges are named on the list. This order says nothing about buying a loaf of white bread. It is possible that white bread will appear later on the list, and if it should, it would not contradict the command to buy fruit. It would simply add to what has already been ordered. It is also possible that there is nothing on the list about buying white bread. That is okay, too, as it does not contradict the order to buy fruit.

Analysis: The order to “buy fruit” allows the mother to add or not add an order to “buy white bread” without being in logical conflict with herself. Furthermore, we cannot tell from this order whether or not the mother did authorize the purchase of white bread. The statement has nothing to say explicitly or implicitly, positively or negatively, about the purchase of white bread. We cannot say this about the whole list, but so far, we can say that the list is silent about purchasing white bread and does not authorize such a purchase.

Notice in List #1 nothing is said about buying white bread. The mother is silent about it. Therefore, the purchase of white bread is not authorized.

2. Grocery List #2
Buy 12 ears of corn
12 tomatoes
1 loaf of bread
3 T-bone steaks

Analysis: This list does have something about buying white bread. It does not specify or name white bread, but the phrase “Buy 1 loaf of bread” implicitly permits the purchase of a loaf of white bread. It would also allow the purchase a loaf of some other kind of bread, so long as only one loaf of bread is purchased. Notice that in the List #2 something is stated about buying white bread. Therefore the list is not silent concerning white bread.

3. Grocery List #3
Buy 1 loaf of white bread
1 pound of cheese
12 eggs
1 package of hamburger

Analysis: This list also has something on it about buying white bread. It actually specifies it and thus it not only requires white bread, but also excludes pumpernickel and any other kind of bread.

What do we learn from the three lists?· List #2 and List #3 differ from List #1 in that they are not silent about buying white bread, whereas List #1 is silent about it.
· List #2 and List #3 differ from each other in that List #2 implicitly authorizes the purchase of white bread, while List #3 explicitly authorizes it.
· List #2 implicitly authorizes the purchase of a loaf of white bread, whereas List #1 does not authorize such a purchase. Because by its silence List #1 prohibits white bread, and because by its implication, list #2 allows white bread, and it is clear that silence and implication are two separate things. So implication is not an instance of silence.

A Precise Definition of SilenceAs previously stated, an explicit statement or teaching of the Bible is found in the very words used in the Bible. An implicit statement or teaching of the Bible is a teaching that the reader can correctly deduce from the very words used in the Bible. Every “lawful action” (i.e., acceptable action) a Christian may take is authorized in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly (2 Peter 1:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). “Unlawful actions,” however, are forbidden in one of three ways: they are explicitly forbidden; they are implicitly forbidden; or Scripture is silent about the action (i.e.: says absolutely nothing either explicitly or implicitly).

Since God must authorize all that we do, when God does not authorize an action either explicitly, implicitly, or by His silence God addresses every human action in one of three ways:

1) Forbids the action.
2) Requires the action.
3) Permits the action.

When taken together there are six possible kinds of legislation that spring from these principles. The Bible may forbid either explicitly or implicitly; the Bible may require either explicitly or implicitly; or the Bible may permit an action either explicitly or implicitly. While an action might fall into two categories (i.e., something might be authorized or forbidden both explicitly and explicitly), these are all the possibilities that can exist for any given action. Furthermore, all legislation of human action falls into at least one of these categories.

An action is authorized by the Bible if, and only if, a Bible passage or combination of passages either explicitly or implicitly requires or permits the action.

So what is silence? Precisely put, the Bible silence on an action when there is no Bible passage or combination of Bible passages that explicitly or implicitly teaches that the action is forbidden, required, or permitted.

Notice the difference between saying, “The Bible does not authorize this action,” verses saying, “The Bible is silent on this action.” If the Bible forbids an action, then the action is unauthorized because it is a Bible-addressed forbiddance. Example: “Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25). The Bible is not silent about this action. If you can point to a passage or combination of passages that forbids action, then you have shown that the Bible is not silent about this action. If the Bible is silent about an action, it is also true that the Bible does not authorize that action. No passage or passages will be found about such an action --- neither forbidding it, requiring it, nor permitting it.

· Therefore, “Bible-unauthorized actions” is a larger category than “Bible-addressed forbiddances” or “Bible-silent actions that are also unauthorized.”
· “Bible-unauthorized actions” includes all those actions which the Bible explicitly or implicitly forbids as well as those about which the Bible is silent.
· “Bible-silent actions” are a subset of “Bible-unauthorized actions."

This means that if you can find a Bible passage or combination of passages that teaches that actions not authorized by God are forbidden, then you will have shown that “Bible-silent actions” are forbidden.

The question remain: In addition to the logical fact that silence cannot authorize and that consequently, Bible -unauthorized actions consist of all Bible-addressed forbiddances plus all Bible-silent actions, does the Bible itself explicitly teach us how we are to regard this silence? Yes!

2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 combine to teach us that Bible silence forbids. The first passage teaches, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Note these words:
· “Complete”
· “Thoroughly equipped”
· “Every good work”

This passage, in light of the noted words above, teaches that if Scriptures are silent about an action, if there is nothing in the Bible which teaches explicitly or implicitly that the action under consideration is good, the action cannot be good. This is so because the passage states that the Scriptures:
· Thoroughly equips us for every good work.
· Not every work, but every good work (includes both every and good, but not every alone)

In other words, the Scripture speak of themselves as being all-inclusive of all good works. So, if there is nothing in the Bible (neither implicit nor explicit) regarding a particular work --- that is, the Bible is silent about it --- then that work cannot be good.

Now, notice 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ---- “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” The word “test” is defined: “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing be genuine or not), as metals.” According to this passage we are to determine (“prove”) what is good, and do only that. When we put both passages together, we see:
· All good works are in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
· If Scripture does not address a particular work (i.e., is silent about it), then the work cannot be good.
· We must do only what we have proved to be good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
· If we do that which is not authorized by Scripture (where ALL good works are found), we violate 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and thus, we sin.

In other words, Bible silence forbids. Clearly silence is an intended means by which God conveys His will to mankind. This obviously indicates the necessity for careful and thorough studying of God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15).

Now notice Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” This passage refers to everything we do. This is revealed three times:
1) “Whatever you do,”
2) “In word or deed,” and
3) “Do all.”

Everything we do is to be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In other words, all that we do is to be done by the authority of Jesus.

Where do we find Christ’s authority expressed? In the New Testament Scriptures (John 14:26; 16:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3). Since everything we do must be authorized by the New Testament, Colossians 3:17 refutes the “Bible silence permits” doctrine.

A couple of passages in Hebrews throw more light on the role of silence in establishing Biblical authority.

“For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood” (Hebrews 7:13-14)

“For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain’ ” (Hebrews 8:4-5).

Note the words, “our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” Since Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses said nothing about priests coming from this tribe, does this silence forbid? Was this adequate for concluding that according to the law, Christ would not be a priest? Notice how Hebrews 8:4-5 answers these questions. Obviously even in Old Testament times, silence forbade.

However, in spite of these evident facts, some have raised objections. Numerous passages have been suggested which supposedly teach that Bible silence permits or that sometimes permits. Let us consider a couple of these arguments. After presenting the argument, the explanation why the argument is invalid follows in the response.

Argument 1The Old Testament is silent about synagogues. Yet passages like Matthew 4:23 show that Jesus approved of and worshipped in synagogues: “And Jesus went about Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.” Therefore, silence obviously permits at least sometimes, because Jesus did not sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Response: The word “synagogue” literally means “to go with” and refers to a gathering of people, an assembly, and then the place where the assembly occurred --- the building. Did the Old Testament authorize assembling in a building for the activities in which Jesus and others engaged? In fact, the Old Testament implicitly authorizes exactly that. All we need to do is to find an Old Testament passage or combination of passages which requires the kinds of actions that were performed in a synagogue.

“Gather My saints together to Me, those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5).
“Give ear, O My people, to My law; Incline your ears to the words of My mouth” (Psalms 78:1)
These passages give explicit authority for assembling and implicit authority for a building. As we have learned, implication is not silence.

Argument 2In 1988, in the Blakely-Highers debate over the use of instrumental music in worship, Givens Blakely took a new approach. Instead of arguing that the Word of God authorizes the use of instrumental music in worship, as Christian church preachers had done for 130 years, Blakely argued that there is no pattern at all for worship in the New Testament. So whatever a congregation wants to do is all right as long as they are sincere in their worship.

To that effect, he advanced this argument: There are a number of incidents in the Scripture where people are said to have worshipped our Lord Jesus Christ ... On one occasion a woman came in to out Lord, and without any authority whatsoever, without any Scriptural precedent, broke an alabaster box of ointment and poured it upon out Lord in honor and devotion to Him. While the disciples raised their ire because of this, He said “Let her alone, she has done a good deed Wherever the gospel is preached this shall be made mention of her.” All this occurs with no authorization whatsoever, no precedent whatsoever (p. 39).

Response: The passage in question reads, “And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, ‘Why was this fragrant oil wasted? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.’ And they criticized her sharply. But Jesus said, ‘Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial.’ ” (Mark 14:3-8).

To begin with, where is “worship” in this passage? In verse 6, Jesus calls her action a “good work.” In verse 7, Jesus explains why He called her action a good work. Helping the poor is a good work, but ministering to Jesus is a good work also. Thus Jesus characterizes her behavior as beneficence. In verse 9, He identifies the purpose of her actions: to anoint His body for burial. Jesus was a worthy recipient of her generosity (Isaiah 53:7-9; Matthew 8:20). Is there no Scriptural precedence in the Old Testament Scripture for her behavior, as Blakely asserts? Do we have Old Testament Scripture which explicitly or implicitly covers what she did? YES!

“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
When it is in the power of your hand to do so.” (Proverbs 3:27)

“but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly
lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.”
(Dueteronomy 15:8 --- concerning the poor)

“Everyone helped his neighbor, And said to his brother,
‘Be of good courage!’ ” (Isaiah 41:6)
[This is an approved example that God obviously wanted His people to emulate --- awb.]

These passages implicitly authorize what the woman did. She was not acting “without any authority whatsoever, without any Scriptural precedent” as Givens Blakely suggested.

There is a pattern for worship.We must have explicit or implicit authority for all that we do in worship and for all we do anywhere. Bible silence does not and cannot give authority for anything. Therefore, Bible silence does not ever permit. Bible silence always forbids.
1718 Sylvan Way #802, Lodi, CA 95242, alanbonifay@comcast.net